Anything that coherently changes is contingent

[bahman]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y can be two states of a falling apple). We say that this change is coherent if X and Y are somehow related (like the example of the falling apple the two stats of the falling apple are related). Such as system can be categorized as a system that follows a set of laws (like falling apple follows laws of physics). Here, we argue that such a change cannot happen on it is own and it is contingent. By contingent, we mean that such a change depends on the existence of something else. We show that such as change requires a mind which is changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress. To show this we first need to understand that X and Y cannot lay on the same point on time since otherwise there is no change. This means that Y has to happen after X. But X must vanish in order to later have Y. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y which is related to X. We, however, showed that nothing to something was possible at the beginning of time here. So we have to show that we cannot have a Y related to X from nothing. To show this we have to notice that nothing is an indifferent state so anything arbitrary can come out of it. Here we are talking about coherent change therefore it is clear that nothing cannot cause Y which is related to X since Y is not arbitrary. Therefore there must be something to ensure Y stays related to X. Therefore, any coherent change is contingent. That thing that the change depends on it is either coherently changing or changeless. We are dealing with the regress unless we assume that there is a non-contingent unchanging thing so-called mind that is in the charge of any coherent change.

[Harbal]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y can be two states of a falling apple). We say that this change is coherent if X and Y are somehow related (like the example of the falling apple the two stats of the falling apple are related). Such as system can be categorized as a system that follows a set of laws (like falling apple follows laws of physics). Here, we argue that such a change cannot happen on it is own and it is contingent. By contingent, we mean that such a change depends on the existence of something else. We show that such as change requires a mind which is changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress. To show this we first need to understand that X and Y cannot lay on the same point on time since otherwise there is no change. This means that Y has to happen after X. But X must vanish in order to later have Y. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y which is related to X. We, however, showed that nothing to something was possible at the beginning of time here. So we have to show that we cannot have a Y related to X from nothing. To show this we have to notice that nothing is an indifferent state so anything arbitrary can come out of it. Here we are talking about coherent change therefore it is clear that nothing cannot cause Y which is related to X since Y is not arbitrary. Therefore there must be something to ensure Y stays related to X. Therefore, any coherent change is contingent. That thing that the change depends on it is either coherently changing or changeless. We are dealing with the regress unless we assume that there is a non-contingent unchanging thing so-called mind that is in the charge of any coherent change.

And if it weren't for apples we wouldn't even know about gravity.

[bahman]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y can be two states of a falling apple). We say that this change is coherent if X and Y are somehow related (like the example of the falling apple the two stats of the falling apple are related). Such as system can be categorized as a system that follows a set of laws (like falling apple follows laws of physics). Here, we argue that such a change cannot happen on it is own and it is contingent. By contingent, we mean that such a change depends on the existence of something else. We show that such as change requires a mind which is changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress. To show this we first need to understand that X and Y cannot lay on the same point on time since otherwise there is no change. This means that Y has to happen after X. But X must vanish in order to later have Y. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y which is related to X. We, however, showed that nothing to something was possible at the beginning of time here. So we have to show that we cannot have a Y related to X from nothing. To show this we have to notice that nothing is an indifferent state so anything arbitrary can come out of it. Here we are talking about coherent change therefore it is clear that nothing cannot cause Y which is related to X since Y is not arbitrary. Therefore there must be something to ensure Y stays related to X. Therefore, any coherent change is contingent. That thing that the change depends on it is either coherently changing or changeless. We are dealing with the regress unless we assume that there is a non-contingent unchanging thing so-called mind that is in the charge of any coherent change.

And if it weren't for apples we wouldn't even know about gravity.

Yes. My point is that gravity is enforced by the mind.

[Impenitent]

are you saying that without a human mind making an observation, no change can happen?

I am so glad the universe has stopped expanding... wait...

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

are you saying that without a human mind making an observation, no change can happen?

I am so glad the universe has stopped expanding... wait...

-Imp

A mind can change through observation that never changes, therefore the mind is a myth, as nothing changes the changeless.

Illusions are magic like that. There are only two magic tricks the universe can pull off, one is not, the other is.

[Flannel Jesus]

Bahman, You should try out for the Olympic long jump team, because these logical leaps are seriously impressive

[bahman]

are you saying that without a human mind making an observation, no change can happen?

I am so glad the universe has stopped expanding... wait...

-Imp

By mind, I don't only mean the human mind. Natural laws are enforced by a mind or minds.

[bahman]

Bahman, You should try out for the Olympic long jump team, because these logical leaps are seriously impressive

I challenge you. Where is the leap in my argument?

[Flannel Jesus]

Bahman, You should try out for the Olympic long jump team, because these logical leaps are seriously impressive

I challenge you. Where is the leap in my argument?

Well, the biggest most egregious one is this one:

We are dealing with the regress unless we assume that there is a non-contingent unchanging thing so-called mind that is in the charge of any coherent change.

The leap to saying that the only thing capable of creating or supporting change is a mind

[bahman]

Bahman, You should try out for the Olympic long jump team, because these logical leaps are seriously impressive

I challenge you. Where is the leap in my argument?

Well, the biggest most egregious one is this one:

We are dealing with the regress unless we assume that there is a non-contingent unchanging thing so-called mind that is in the charge of any coherent change.

The leap to saying that the only thing capable of creating or supporting change is a mind

Well, I argued that any coherent change is contingent so its existence depends on something else, let's call it A. A is either changing or changeless. If it is changing then it is contingent and its existence depends on something else, let's call it B. If A is changeless then we achieved our point, A is nothing but mind otherwise we are dealing with B. B depends on C if it is changing otherwise it is mind. etc. It is obvious that there is a regress in absence of a mind since A depends on B, B depends on C, C depends on D, etc.

[Flannel Jesus]

Nothing seems obvious about the leap to a mind to me.

[bahman]

Nothing seems obvious about the leap to a mind to me.

I already argued that coherent change leads to regress in absence of any mind. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, there is at least a mind.

I have another argument if you don't like this. I showed that there is nothing between X and Y. I also showed that nothing cannot cause Y that is related to X. Therefore, there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y in order to pass the information about the relation between X and Y.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're just pulling "mind" out of a hat with no context as far as I can tell.

A car needs an engine to run. Engines are usually grey. To be grey, you need a mind.

There's a turd in the toilet. Turds are infinite regress, unless there's a mind.

It just seems like you're putting random words together without any requirement for them to have any relationship with each other.

[bahman]

You're just pulling "mind" out of a hat with no context as far as I can tell.

No, I argue that in absence of mind there is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore there is at least a mind. If you cannot understand such a simple argument then I cannot help you.

A car needs an engine to run. Engines are usually grey. To be grey, you need a mind.

Nonsense. I am not saying that.

There's a turd in the toilet. Turds are infinite regress, unless there's a mind.

Nonsense. I am not saying that.

It just seems like you're putting random words together without any requirement for them to have any relationship with each other.

No.

[commonsense]

You're just pulling "mind" out of a hat with no context as far as I can tell.

No, I argue that in absence of mind there is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore there is at least a mind. If you cannot understand such a simple argument then I cannot help you.

A car needs an engine to run. Engines are usually grey. To be grey, you need a mind.

Nonsense. I am not saying that.

There's a turd in the toilet. Turds are infinite regress, unless there's a mind.

Nonsense. I am not saying that.

It just seems like you're putting random words together without any requirement for them to have any relationship with each other.

No.

Your use of the word “therefore” is unique!