Change and contingency

[bahman]

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.

[Age]

Consider a change in an object, X to Y.

Will you provide an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?

This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y.

OBVIOUSLY.

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.

Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things' coming, or combining, together.

This is HOW the Universe works, and this has been happening FOREVER, HERE-NOW.

[promethean75]

I see what you did there, bahman. You're saying that during the transition between states X and Y, state X reaches a point where it's no longer X... but if it's no longer X, what would be continuing the cause of the change from X to Y.

See I don't like these philosophical problems of identity bro. I don't think in two thousand years these guys have come to an agreement on anything. And why not. Because of what they're tryna do. They're tryna use the incidence of the rules of valid inference and deductive logic to establish, or prove, the fact that definite such phenomena must exist as (and in the way) described by that representational language. It's a claim that the world of actual events mirrors the logical form of the language used to describe it... naturally identity statements like A=A would produce facts and certainties about the world, in that case.

But would they?

All we know is that we can now produce a contradiction with A = -A. But what would such a contradiction be like? That is to ask, what part of the reality such a statement is made about would be different in either case, for me.

We know what it would be like for the form of a proposition; I would be scolded for making an error, not following an accepted rule of inference, etc.

But what if I said the combination of oxygen and hydrogen molecules cannot be the cause of water because they themselves are not stable identities and are constantly changing.

This would work, because of I were wrong, you'd not even notice. Identity is a purely theoretical and conceptual problem. You can argue that identity is sustained over time as easily as you could argue that it is not. And since causality can't be experienced and is only inferred, it becomes an a priori concept, the use of which wouldn't be recognized as wrong if it was indeed used wrongly.

Nothing to see here folks. These are pseudo-probs.

[bahman]

Consider a change in an object, X to Y.

Will you provide an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?

A falling apple.

This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y.

OBVIOUSLY.

Cool.

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?

Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things' coming, or combining, together.

This is HOW the Universe works, and this has been happening FOREVER, HERE-NOW.

By contingency, I mean that the object is needed a cause to exist. If it is obvious to you then cool, but you need to prove it.

[bahman]

I see what you did there, bahman. You're saying that during the transition between states X and Y, state X reaches a point where it's no longer X... but if it's no longer X, what would be continuing the cause of the change from X to Y.

See I don't like these philosophical problems of identity bro. I don't think in two thousand years these guys have come to an agreement on anything. And why not. Because of what they're tryna do. They're tryna use the incidence of the rules of valid inference and deductive logic to establish, or prove, the fact that definite such phenomena must exist as (and in the way) described by that representational language. It's a claim that the world of actual events mirrors the logical form of the language used to describe it... naturally identity statements like A=A would produce facts and certainties about the world, in that case.

But would they?

All we know is that we can now produce a contradiction with A = -A. But what would such a contradiction be like? That is to ask, what part of the reality such a statement is made about would be different in either case, for me.

We know what it would be like for the form of a proposition; I would be scolded for making an error, not following an accepted rule of inference, etc.

But what if I said the combination of oxygen and hydrogen molecules cannot be the cause of water because they themselves are not stable identities and are constantly changing.

This would work, because of I were wrong, you'd not even notice. Identity is a purely theoretical and conceptual problem. You can argue that identity is sustained over time as easily as you could argue that it is not. And since causality can't be experienced and is only inferred, it becomes an a priori concept, the use of which wouldn't be recognized as wrong if it was indeed used wrongly.

Nothing to see here folks. These are pseudo-probs.

Of course, A cannot be identical to -A unless A zero.

[promethean75]

I know but even tho the Mississippi river is still the Mississippi river five minutes from now, what the Mississippi river is composed of, its size, shape and volume, has changed significantly between these times.

So what exactly is 'A' in the case of the Mississippi river?

Again tho this is just another trifle of identity theory. if I said simply 'take the Mississippi river and you'll get there faster than walking', it wouldn't matter if I were wrong about the contents of the river. You'd know what river i wuz talking about.

It's philosophers who muddy the Mississippis.

Imagine not trusting my advice to take the river because I wuz a Heraclitean mereologist. Right? Like how irrelevant would that be?

[bahman]

I know but even tho the Mississippi river is still the Mississippi river five minutes from now, what the Mississippi river is composed of, its size, shape and volume, has changed significantly between these times.

So what exactly is 'A' in the case of the Mississippi river?

'A' is the state of the river at a given time. Since we are dealing with a liquid, the position of all water molecules.

Again tho this is just another trifle of identity theory. if I said simply 'take the Mississippi river and you'll get there faster than walking', it wouldn't matter if I were wrong about the contents of the river. You'd know what river i wuz talking about.

It's philosophers who muddy the Mississippis.

Imagine not trusting my advice to take the river because I wuz a Heraclitean mereologist. Right? Like how irrelevant would that be?

Why is Heraclitus relevant in this discussion?

[promethean75]

Heraclitus is always relevant in identity theory. He's like the fuckin Elvis of it, dude. This whole thing comes from an argument he had with his homeboy Parmenides.

[Age]

Consider a change in an object, X to Y.

Will you provide an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?

A falling apple.

So, the ACTUAL 'object' itself is NOT 'changing', only the 'place', the apple IS IN, is 'changing', correct?

If no, then what EXACTLY is 'the change', 'in this object', itself, which I am supposed to be considering here?

This requires that the object not be X in order to be Y.

OBVIOUSLY.

Cool.

So, HOW EXACTLY does this relate back to 'the apple', itself?

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?

The rest of the Universe.

Therefore, Y is caused by something else, the object is contingent.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things' coming, or combining, together.

This is HOW the Universe works, and this has been happening FOREVER, HERE-NOW.

By contingency, I mean that the object is needed a cause to exist.

AND, by Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things', I mean; OF COURSE there is a CAUSE for EVERY object to exist.

What were you IMAGINING?

Were you considering 'things' come from NO 'thing'?

If it is obvious to you then cool, but you need to prove it.

WHEN you are ABLE TO and ACTUALLY DO inform us of what the 'it' word means, or refers to, in your sentence here, then I will DECIDE if I will prove 'it' or not.

Oh, and by the way, WHY are you under some sort of DELUSION that I NEED to prove 'it'?

I do NOT 'need' to prove absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

'you' are the ONE making the CLAIMS here. I am just the one CHALLENGING 'you' and ASKING the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.

[Age]

I see what you did there, bahman. You're saying that during the transition between states X and Y, state X reaches a point where it's no longer X... but if it's no longer X, what would be continuing the cause of the change from X to Y.

But "bahman" does NOT think there is a continuation of change from X to Y.

"bahman" BELIEVES that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING between X and Y. Which is what "bahman" is 'TRYING TO' prove is true.

And the reason is 'TRYING' oh so hard to prove 'this' is because "bahman" BELIEVES the Universe came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Or is this NOT correct, "bahman"?

See I don't like these philosophical problems of identity bro. I don't think in two thousand years these guys have come to an agreement on anything. And why not. Because of what they're tryna do. They're tryna use the incidence of the rules of valid inference and deductive logic to establish, or prove, the fact that definite such phenomena must exist as (and in the way) described by that representational language. It's a claim that the world of actual events mirrors the logical form of the language used to describe it... naturally identity statements like A=A would produce facts and certainties about the world, in that case.

But would they?

All we know is that we can now produce a contradiction with A = -A. But what would such a contradiction be like? That is to ask, what part of the reality such a statement is made about would be different in either case, for me.

We know what it would be like for the form of a proposition; I would be scolded for making an error, not following an accepted rule of inference, etc.

But what if I said the combination of oxygen and hydrogen molecules cannot be the cause of water because they themselves are not stable identities and are constantly changing.

This would work, because of I were wrong, you'd not even notice. Identity is a purely theoretical and conceptual problem. You can argue that identity is sustained over time as easily as you could argue that it is not. And since causality can't be experienced and is only inferred, it becomes an a priori concept, the use of which wouldn't be recognized as wrong if it was indeed used wrongly.

Why do you say and claim that 'causality' can NOT be experienced, and is only inferred?

Nothing to see here folks. These are pseudo-probs.

To me there were, literally, NO 'problems' AT ALL here.

[Sculptor]

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.

This is not a problem with X or Y, but an artefact of the metaphorical nature of language and the human need for taxonomy.

As adults we all have to accept these limitations.

[promethean75]

"Why do you say and claim that 'causality' can NOT be experienced, and is only inferred?"

C'mon Age tighten up bro. This is like entry level Hume that everybody is supposed to know.

I say 'causality' is never directly experienced because all I experience are bodies moving around space and bumping into each other. I don't observe any logical connection between these things... only that they tend to occur and follow with great regularity.

That is to say, the statement 'A caused B' means only that B followed A. That's all I can know a posteriori, from my experience. I can't know that B existed because of A. There's no necessary logical connection there, and certainly no experience of one... so therefore causation must be infered.

[bahman]

Will you provide an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?

A falling apple.

So, the ACTUAL 'object' itself is NOT 'changing', only the 'place', the apple IS IN, is 'changing', correct?

If no, then what EXACTLY is 'the change', 'in this object', itself, which I am supposed to be considering here?

The actual object changes too. It just seems that it is not changing since the relative positions of all atoms are similar.

OBVIOUSLY.

Cool.

So, HOW EXACTLY does this relate back to 'the apple', itself?

What do you mean? I thought you agree.

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?

The rest of the Universe.

But the universe is subject to change at each instance.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things' coming, or combining, together.

This is HOW the Universe works, and this has been happening FOREVER, HERE-NOW.

By contingency, I mean that the object is needed a cause to exist.

AND, by Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things', I mean; OF COURSE there is a CAUSE for EVERY object to exist.

What were you IMAGINING?

Were you considering 'things' come from NO 'thing'?

But other things are subject to change at each instance too.

If it is obvious to you then cool, but you need to prove it.

WHEN you are ABLE TO and ACTUALLY DO inform us of what the 'it' word means, or refers to, in your sentence here, then I will DECIDE if I will prove 'it' or not.

Oh, and by the way, WHY are you under some sort of DELUSION that I NEED to prove 'it'?

I do NOT 'need' to prove absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

'you' are the ONE making the CLAIMS here. I am just the one CHALLENGING 'you' and ASKING the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.

Ok, so you have no proof.

[Dimebag]

I want to change this question JUST slightly, and show just how ridiculous it is.

We have an object, changing from position x to y.

Now, let’s take away the reference frame. Now, the object is seemingly at rest. The only way we can differentiate movement from rest is via some reference frame, some relative position to other objects.

Would you apply the same concept to an object at rest?

Does an object at rest require a mind in order for the nonchange to happen?

What I am saying is, movement is a relative property. In relation to the moving object, it is stationary, and the object defining the reference frame is at movement.

[bahman]

I want to change this question JUST slightly, and show just how ridiculous it is.

We have an object, changing from position x to y.

Now, let’s take away the reference frame. Now, the object is seemingly at rest. The only way we can differentiate movement from rest is via some reference frame, some relative position to other objects.

Would you apply the same concept to an object at rest?

The concept of an object at rest is just an abstraction. In reality, all atoms of the object even if its center of mass is at rest are under motion.

Does an object at rest require a mind in order for the nonchange to happen?

I have no argument for that. Aquinas, however, has an argument for it. Of course, not all nonchanging things require a mind since the mind is an unchanging thing. Basically, he argues that all things that their nature do not explain their existence are contingent therefore we are dealing with regress. To overcome the regress he suggests God/mind as the first cause.

Here is the argument if you are interested: "Aquinas makes the argument that God is his existence. This claim is centered on the following argument: Whatever can be said of a thing is caused either by the “principles of its nature” (i.e. some aspect of its essence) or something external. Something’s existence cannot be caused (i.e.efficiently caused) by the principles of its nature, because this would be to say that the being causes itself; this is impossible since the efficient cause must ontologically precede the effect, and nothing can ontologically precede itself. Therefore, everything must get its existence from something other than itself. But, if this were to apply to everything, then we would get an infinite regress. Therefore, there must be something that is its existence, and which is the first cause."

By something is its existence he means that his nature explains its existence.