There is a change therefore there is a mind

[bahman]

No. One does not have to leave space for the other for every change. Space is not necessary, so a mind is not necessary for change.

Could X and Y exist at the same point when you have a change?

[Terrapin Station]

So, say that x is a "system" of two elementary particles, a and b.

Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a.

X has changed. X has not disappeared. No mind was required.

[commonsense]

No. One does not have to leave space for the other for every change. Space is not necessary, so a mind is not necessary for change.

Could X and Y exist at the same point when you have a change?

That’s right. X & Y can exist at the same point whenever X undergoes a metamorphosis into Y.

[bahman]

So, say that x is a "system" of two elementary particles, a and b.

Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a.

X has changed. X has not disappeared. No mind was required.

The behaviour elementary particles are described in terms of quantum fields which annihilated and then created later.

[bahman]

No. One does not have to leave space for the other for every change. Space is not necessary, so a mind is not necessary for change.

Could X and Y exist at the same point when you have a change?

That’s right. X & Y can exist at the same point whenever X undergoes a metamorphosis into Y.

But you cannot have a change since X and Y exist at the same point.

[Terrapin Station]

So, say that x is a "system" of two elementary particles, a and b.

Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a.

X has changed. X has not disappeared. No mind was required.

The behaviour elementary particles are described in terms of quantum fields which annihilated and then created later.

So you're denying that it's metaphysically possible to have to particles that change position relative to each other?

[bahman]

So, say that x is a "system" of two elementary particles, a and b.

Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a.

X has changed. X has not disappeared. No mind was required.

The behaviour elementary particles are described in terms of quantum fields which annihilated and then created later.

So you're denying that it's metaphysically possible to have to particles that change position relative to each other?

Yes, in the absence of mind it is impossible to have a change.

[Terrapin Station]

The behaviour elementary particles are described in terms of quantum fields which annihilated and then created later.

So you're denying that it's metaphysically possible to have to particles that change position relative to each other?

Yes, in the absence of mind it is impossible to have a change.

Sure, and the argument for it being metaphysically impossible for two particles to change position with respect to each other is?

[bahman]

So you're denying that it's metaphysically possible to have to particles that change position relative to each other?

Yes, in the absence of mind it is impossible to have a change.

Sure, and the argument for it being metaphysically impossible for two particles to change position with respect to each other is?

There is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, in the absence of mind it is impossible to have a change.

Sure, and the argument for it being metaphysically impossible for two particles to change position with respect to each other is?

There is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.

That's a claim. It's not an argument. An argument needs premises that we'd agree on and then the conclusion needs to follow from the premises.

Aside from that, in context, where you're supposed to be arguing for why something proposed isn't metaphysically possible, it's also question-begging. The reason it's not metaphysically possible can't be because you're proposing an alternate scenario.

[bahman]

Sure, and the argument for it being metaphysically impossible for two particles to change position with respect to each other is?

There is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.

That's a claim. It's not an argument. An argument needs premises that we'd agree on and then the conclusion needs to follow from the premises.

The other alternative is that X and Y exist at the same point. This is however absurd since a system cannot be in two different states of affair at the same point in time. This means that there can be only one state of affair at any given point. To have change, you need to go from one state of affair to another one though. Both states cannot exist at the same point as it is argued. Then the first state of affair has to vanishes in order to leave room for another state of affair.

Aside from that, in context, where you're supposed to be arguing for why something proposed isn't metaphysically possible, it's also question-begging. The reason it's not metaphysically possible can't be because you're proposing an alternate scenario.

That is the minimal model of reality. Mind and physical. Remove mind, remove the change in physical.

[Terrapin Station]

The other alternative is that X and Y exist at the same point. This is however absurd since a system cannot be in two different states of affair at the same point in time. This means that there can be only one state of affair at any given point. To have change, you need to go from one state of affair to another one though. Both states cannot exist at the same point as it is argued. Then the first state of affair has to vanishes in order to leave room for another state of affair.

First, what I wrote above was "Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a."

And sure, state 1 of x exists at T1, while state 1 doesn't exist at T2, but x is the system, not state 1 of the system. X doesn't cease to exist when state 1 changes to state 2.

[bahman]

The other alternative is that X and Y exist at the same point. This is however absurd since a system cannot be in two different states of affair at the same point in time. This means that there can be only one state of affair at any given point. To have change, you need to go from one state of affair to another one though. Both states cannot exist at the same point as it is argued. Then the first state of affair has to vanishes in order to leave room for another state of affair.

First, what I wrote above was "Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a."

And sure, state 1 of x exists at T1, while state 1 doesn't exist at T2, but x is the system, not state 1 of the system. X doesn't cease to exist when state 1 changes to state 2.

By X and Y I mean different states of affair for the system x, like a particle in two different position x1 and x2. I am talking about the particle which vanishes and created. I am not talking about its position that vanishes and then created.

[Terrapin Station]

The other alternative is that X and Y exist at the same point. This is however absurd since a system cannot be in two different states of affair at the same point in time. This means that there can be only one state of affair at any given point. To have change, you need to go from one state of affair to another one though. Both states cannot exist at the same point as it is argued. Then the first state of affair has to vanishes in order to leave room for another state of affair.

First, what I wrote above was "Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a."

And sure, state 1 of x exists at T1, while state 1 doesn't exist at T2, but x is the system, not state 1 of the system. X doesn't cease to exist when state 1 changes to state 2.

By X and Y I mean different states of affair for the system x, like a particle in two different position x1 and x2. I am talking about the particle which vanishes and created. I am not talking about its position that vanishes and then created.

You need to argue for why a particle "vanishes and then is created." If you're claiming that a can't be distance D1 from b, and then change to distance D2 from b without "b" actually vanishing and then something else appearing in its place at D2, you'd need to actually present that argument.

C'mon, we can't just have post after post of me explaining what you'd need to argue for without you ever arguing for any of it. That gets old quick.

[commonsense]

Could X and Y exist at the same point when you have a change?

That’s right. X & Y can exist at the same point whenever X undergoes a metamorphosis into Y.

But you cannot have a change since X and Y exist at the same point.

How dare you say that metamorphosis isn’t a change!