bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:41 pm
Consider a change in an object, X to Y. This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y. There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:41 pm
Consider a change in an object, X to Y. This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y. There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:41 pm
Consider a change in an object, X to Y. This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y. There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
What are you talking about?
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.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:41 pm
Consider a change in an object, X to Y. This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y. There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
What are you talking about?
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.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
What are you talking about?
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.
I suspect, and that is all we can do not being able to understand the totality of existence is this. Contingency depends on at what
point you are understanding the process. I personally do not believe anything occurs or decays but thorough process, contingency
is the unperceived reaction in the on going process. As in the process of evolution C becomes Y in degrees of adaptation and if we
are speaking of the changes of life forms there is no absolute other, one system invariably containing elements of the systems out
of which it developed.
What are you talking about?
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.
[quote=bahman
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.
[/quote]
Bahman,
So the subject/object already has the properties of X and Y and is subject to change through a change of position, it sounds like your saying that X already has the potential to be Y innately and position is the active variable---- no?
bahman wrote:
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.
Bahman,
So the subject/object already has the properties of X and Y and is subject to change through a change of position, it sounds like your saying that X already has the potential to be Y innately and position is the active variable---- no?
No, that is the object that has properties that are subject to change. And Yes, the object which is in X has the potential to be at Y. X or Y is the property of the object at two different states of affairs.
[/quote]So the subject/object already has the properties of X and Y and is subject to change through a change of position, it sounds like your saying that X already has the potential to be Y innately and position is the active variable---- no?
[/quote]
No, that is the object that has properties that are subject to change. And Yes, the object which is in X has the potential to be at Y. X or Y is the property of the object at two different states of affairs.
[/quote]
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?
So the subject/object already has the properties of X and Y and is subject to change through a change of position, it sounds like your saying that X already has the potential to be Y innately and position is the active variable---- no?
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:29 am
No, that is the object that has properties that are subject to change. And Yes, the object which is in X has the potential to be at Y. X or Y is the property of the object at two different states of affairs.
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.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y.
This is TOTALLY False AND Wrong.
1. If there is 'the object' like you SAY and CLAIM there IS, then there is AN object, and therefore there IS SOME 'thing'. So, there is NOT 'nothing'.
2. OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY EVERY 'thing' is caused by something else.
What is that thing that exists when the object is not X?
Something that is partially X and partially Y. Of course we are at such an abstract level, it can be hard to get more specific. If you are actually replacing parts in X, then you could end up with something that has some X parts and some Y parts. Or if it is a shape change, the matter might even be the same, but the shape might have characteristic of both, or perhaps you first smushed shape X into a ball, which would be a third shape and then starting shaping it towards Y.
bahman wrote:
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.
Bahman,
So the subject/object already has the properties of X and Y and is subject to change through a change of position, it sounds like your saying that X already has the potential to be Y innately and position is the active variable---- no?
No, that is the object that has properties that are subject to change. And Yes, the object which is in X has the potential to be at Y. X or Y is the property of the object at two different states of affairs.
There is NO 'object' IN X. X is just the symbol being used in this discussion to define AN 'object'.
X is emerging, or evolving, into Y, ALWAYS. (And, it could be argued in ALL WAYS, ALSO).
bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:04 pm
What are you talking about?
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?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:04 pm
What are you talking about?
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.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
There is however nothing when the object is not X and nothing cannot cause Y.
This is TOTALLY False AND Wrong.
1. If there is 'the object' like you SAY and CLAIM there IS, then there is AN object, and therefore there IS SOME 'thing'. So, there is NOT 'nothing'.
2. OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY EVERY 'thing' is caused by something else.
What is that thing that exists when the object is not X?
Something that is partially X and partially Y. Of course we are at such an abstract level, it can be hard to get more specific. If you are actually replacing parts in X, then you could end up with something that has some X parts and some Y parts. Or if it is a shape change, the matter might even be the same, but the shape might have characteristic of both, or perhaps you first smushed shape X into a ball, which would be a third shape and then starting shaping it towards Y.
Let's call the intermediate state between X and Y as Z. The same argument can be made for X to Z and Z to Y.
