Between two point in which it exists.Age wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:12 pmSo, in what 'point' in a falling apple would you like to PROPOSE there is NOTHING?bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:37 pmThe 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.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:23 pm
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.
Change and contingency
Re: Change and contingency
Re: Change and contingency
What are these two?Age wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:14 pmYou NEED at least TWO things to cause, or create, ANY thing.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:34 pmBy contingent, I mean that the existence of something depends on something else. Yes, you need something to cause Y.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:17 pm
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.
ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL.
Re: Change and contingency
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Change and contingency
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.
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.
Re: Change and contingency
Where is the contradiction? The particle exists at two points and not between.
Re: Change and contingency
X for example is intial state and Y is imidiate after X. I am not talking emergence in here.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 4:42 pm 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]
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.
Re: Change and contingency
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.
WHAT 'particle'?
We WERE talking about AN APPLE, PREVIOUSLY.
Re: Change and contingency
Continuum leads to a regress.
What is the contradiction?
I mean the apple.
Re: Change and contingency
OF WHICH there is ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE, NOR, literally, NO 'problem' AT ALL WITH.
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.
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?