Change and contingency

[bahman]

This mysterious variable that is contingent to the existence of Y, are you inferring that there is no process involved or that that too is just mysterious.

The subject of study is an object whose properties, X and Y, are subject to change. Think of a falling apple, the apple is at X initially then fall and changes its position to Y.

So, in what 'point' in a falling apple would you like to PROPOSE there is NOTHING?

Between two point in which it exists.

[bahman]

I don't know if it is me or you, but, we certainly are not connecting. Define contingent for me that might help. In this case is Y dependent upon an unknown variable that proves to be contingent? Sorry, it really is not clicking for me.

By contingent, I mean that the existence of something depends on something else. Yes, you need something to cause Y.

You NEED at least TWO things to cause, or create, ANY thing.

ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL.

What are these two?

[Age]

The subject of study is an object whose properties, X and Y, are subject to change. Think of a falling apple, the apple is at X initially then fall and changes its position to Y.

So, in what 'point' in a falling apple would you like to PROPOSE there is NOTHING?

Between two point in which it exists.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the INCONSISTENCY and CONTRADICTION here?

[popeye1945]

Bahman,
So, it is as I said earlier, a matter of the where in the process one is focused upon, perhaps at the beginning it is neither X or Y in its entirety but a little of both. Your premise however is that it is not emergence -right? Why would that be? If the collective nature of the parts is what gives rise to a transformation then why would that not be emergence?
[/quote]
X for example is intial state and Y is imidiate after X. I am not talking emergence in here.
[/quote]

Bahman,
Ok, I am still misunderstanding then. What affects the change in X, a hidden variable/s.

[bahman]

So, in what 'point' in a falling apple would you like to PROPOSE there is NOTHING?

Between two point in which it exists.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the INCONSISTENCY and CONTRADICTION here?

Where is the contradiction? The particle exists at two points and not between.

[bahman]

Bahman,
So, it is as I said earlier, a matter of the where in the process one is focused upon, perhaps at the beginning it is neither X or Y in its entirety but a little of both. Your premise however is that it is not emergence -right? Why would that be? If the collective nature of the parts is what gives rise to a transformation then why would that not be emergence?

X for example is intial state and Y is imidiate after X. I am not talking emergence in here.
[/quote]

Bahman,
Ok, I am still misunderstanding then. What affects the change in X, a hidden variable/s.
[/quote]
It can be shown that the thing that causes a change in X is either another contingent thing or a non-contingent thing. It can be shown that the source of all change is non-contingent things since otherwise, we are dealing with regress.

[Age]

Between two point in which it exists.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the INCONSISTENCY and CONTRADICTION here?

Where is the contradiction?

IN YOUR WORDS, "a falling apple".

AN apple is EITHER, falling continually, OR, it appears AND disappears as it falls.

If it is the former, then there is NO inconsistency NOR contradiction. BUT, IF, as you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IS TRUE, it is the latter, then THERE is WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

The particle exists at two points and not between.

WHAT 'particle'?

We WERE talking about AN APPLE, PREVIOUSLY.

[bahman]

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the INCONSISTENCY and CONTRADICTION here?

Where is the contradiction?

IN YOUR WORDS, "a falling apple".

AN apple is EITHER, falling continually, OR, it appears AND disappears as it falls.

If it is the former, then there is NO inconsistency NOR contradiction.

Continuum leads to a regress.

BUT, IF, as you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IS TRUE, it is the latter, then THERE is WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

What is the contradiction?

The particle exists at two points and not between.

WHAT 'particle'?

We WERE talking about AN APPLE, PREVIOUSLY.

I mean the apple.

[Age]

Where is the contradiction?

IN YOUR WORDS, "a falling apple".

AN apple is EITHER, falling continually, OR, it appears AND disappears as it falls.

If it is the former, then there is NO inconsistency NOR contradiction.

Continuum leads to a regress.

OF WHICH there is ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE, NOR, literally, NO 'problem' AT ALL WITH.

BUT, IF, as you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IS TRUE, it is the latter, then THERE is WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

What is the contradiction?

WHAT I JUST POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

THAT WAS; YOUR CLAIM that 'a falling apple' DISAPPEARS and REAPPEARS.

HOW MANY TIMES this, supposedly and allegedly, OCCURS during a certain length you WANT TO PROPOSE, we do NOT YET KNOW.

But this is WHAT YOUR CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

'It' IS A CONTRADICTION BECAUSE 'falling apples' do NOT DISAPPEAR, and then REAPPEAR.

The particle exists at two points and not between.

WHAT 'particle'?

We WERE talking about AN APPLE, PREVIOUSLY.

I mean the apple.

SO,

WHERE, EXACTLY, does 'this apple', SUPPOSEDLY, "go to" AFTER it leaves the tree and BEFORE it lands on the ground?

HOW MANY TIMES does it DISAPPEAR, and REAPPEAR?

HOW FAR AWAY is "this place" WHERE 'the apple' "goes to"? And,

FOR HOW LONG does it DISAPPEAR FOR BEFORE it REAPPEARS?