There is a motion therefore there is a mind

[bahman]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thought to contemplate: Mind is the purest form of motion due to its spontaneity?

[Walker]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

"There is however nothing when S vanishes ..."

Nothing cannot be.

"Many quantum physicists have even drawn the conclusion that nothingness itself cannot exist."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... othing-god

[jayjacobus]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

That's not how the universe works. The second 5 is dependent on the first 5 and the brain remembers the first 5. So, the mind experiences both 5's and creates neither.

[bahman]

Thought to contemplate: Mind is the purest form of motion due to its spontaneity?

I think it is better to say "Thought is the purest form of motion caused by spontaneous mind".

[bahman]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

"There is however nothing when S vanishes ..."

Nothing cannot be.

"Many quantum physicists have even drawn the conclusion that nothingness itself cannot exist."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... othing-god

What they/you say confuses me. So there was no big bang, nothing then something?

[bahman]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

That's not how the universe works. The second 5 is dependent on the first 5 and the brain remembers the first 5. So, the mind experiences both 5's and creates neither.

Where are things in the first 5 seconds when there can only be one thing in a place at second 5?

[FlashDangerpants]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

Your conclusion non sequitur. Even if the premise were valid, the argument would still be structurally faulty.

But there is an infinitely divisible sequence of intermediate states between S and S,' so nothing disappears. Things move by changing location, not by blinking out of existence entirely and magically reappearing elsewhere. Or at least that is what the concept of movement entails, so you need to invoke some concept other than movement if you wish your stated premise to be meaningful.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thought to contemplate: Mind is the purest form of motion due to its spontaneity?

I think it is better to say "Thought is the purest form of motion caused by spontaneous mind".

Spontaneity is the purest form of motion, thoughts maintain the highest degree of spontaneity, hence thought is the purest form of movement?

[Walker]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

"There is however nothing when S vanishes ..."

Nothing cannot be.

"Many quantum physicists have even drawn the conclusion that nothingness itself cannot exist."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... othing-god

What they/you say confuses me. So there was no big bang, nothing then something?

The big bang, and the pre-big bang, was not this universe.

[jayjacobus]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

That's not how the universe works. The second 5 is dependent on the first 5 and the brain remembers the first 5. So, the mind experiences both 5's and creates neither.

Where are things in the first 5 seconds when there can only be one thing in a place at second 5?

Things in the first 5 seconds are the same things in the second 5 second but they are in different states.

[bahman]

Your conclusion non sequitur. Even if the premise were valid, the argument would still be structurally faulty.

These are just claims. Lets see what are your objections?

But there is an infinitely divisible sequence of intermediate states between S and S,' so nothing disappears.

There is nothing between S and S'. They are two consecutive states. The definition of continues limit can be obtained by a limit, when you set the limit of the number of parts in an interval equal to infinity.

Things move by changing location, not by blinking out of existence entirely and magically reappearing elsewhere.

That is not correct. The quantum filed theory for the tree forces consists of a set of fields operator which destruct and create particles. What you are saying is classical/Newtonian limit.

Or at least that is what the concept of movement entails, so you need to invoke some concept other than movement if you wish your stated premise to be meaningful.

As I mentioned the classical/continues motion is only a limit.

[bahman]

Thought to contemplate: Mind is the purest form of motion due to its spontaneity?

I think it is better to say "Thought is the purest form of motion caused by spontaneous mind".

Spontaneity is the purest form of motion, thoughts maintain the highest degree of spontaneity, hence thought is the purest form of movement?

Yes, that follows. What I said is also correct, OP and my claim in this post.

[bahman]

"There is however nothing when S vanishes ..."

Nothing cannot be.

"Many quantum physicists have even drawn the conclusion that nothingness itself cannot exist."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... othing-god

What they/you say confuses me. So there was no big bang, nothing then something?

The big bang, and the pre-big bang, was not this universe.

Of course the big bang theory is an attempt to explain the existence of this universe. It is fitted with the best cosmological data.

[bahman]

That's not how the universe works. The second 5 is dependent on the first 5 and the brain remembers the first 5. So, the mind experiences both 5's and creates neither.

Where are things in the first 5 seconds when there can only be one thing in a place at second 5?

Things in the first 5 seconds are the same things in the second 5 second but they are in different states.

That is classical interpretation of motion of a thing which is only a limit of quantum interpretation. Particles are created and annihilated during a motion in quantum interpretation.