Change cannot happen at now

[bahman]

You say that when there is an interaction between two electrons, one of them whimsically decides to emit a photon?

It does emit photon constantly. That is why there is an electromagnetic field around the electron.

You seem indecisive. In the case of the interaction between two electrons, what is cause and what effect?

One electron is the cause of the motion of another electron and vice versa.

Which is prior and which is later. If the interaction is between photon and electron, which is cause and which effect and which is prior and which is subsequent?

Think of two electrons, A and B. First, A emits photons regardless if there is another electron or not. But if there is another electron then A causes B to move due to the exchange of photons and in the same manner, B causes A to move also.

[psycho]

It does emit photon constantly. That is why there is an electromagnetic field around the electron.

You seem indecisive. In the case of the interaction between two electrons, what is cause and what effect?

One electron is the cause of the motion of another electron and vice versa.

Which is prior and which is later. If the interaction is between photon and electron, which is cause and which effect and which is prior and which is subsequent?

Think of two electrons, A and B. First, A emits photons regardless if there is another electron or not. But if there is another electron then A causes B to move due to the exchange of photons and in the same manner, B causes A to move also.

Why does this scenario prove that the cause precedes the effect and that the changes do not occur in the present?

[bahman]

You seem indecisive. In the case of the interaction between two electrons, what is cause and what effect?

One electron is the cause of the motion of another electron and vice versa.

Which is prior and which is later. If the interaction is between photon and electron, which is cause and which effect and which is prior and which is subsequent?

Think of two electrons, A and B. First, A emits photons regardless if there is another electron or not. But if there is another electron then A causes B to move due to the exchange of photons and in the same manner, B causes A to move also.

Why does this scenario prove that the cause precedes the effect and that the changes do not occur in the present?

There is a time between the emission of one photon and its absorption. Once B receives a photon from A then it moves. There is a quanta of energy perceived during the absorption of a photon and this takes time too since a photon is a packet. The electron moves from the state of X to Y due to the absorption of a photon. There are examples of an electron poping from X to Y once it receives enough energy as a form of a photon. Such as an electron in an atom bombard with photons.

[psycho]

One electron is the cause of the motion of another electron and vice versa.


Think of two electrons, A and B. First, A emits photons regardless if there is another electron or not. But if there is another electron then A causes B to move due to the exchange of photons and in the same manner, B causes A to move also.

Why does this scenario prove that the cause precedes the effect and that the changes do not occur in the present?

There is a time between the emission of one photon and its absorption. Once B receives a photon from A then it moves. There is a quanta of energy perceived during the absorption of a photon and this takes time too since a photon is a packet. The electron moves from the state of X to Y due to the absorption of a photon. There are examples of an electron poping from X to Y once it receives enough energy as a form of a photon. Such as an electron in an atom bombard with photons.

That is an unfortunate interpretation!

It is equivalent to assuming that the hit that a pedestrian receives when being hit by a car begins when the vehicle leaves the garage.

If the electron emitted a photon, this will only be a cause when it is absorbed. The absorption process (if it occurred extended in time) would also have a direct relationship between the partial part (at each instant) that affects the photon and its effect on the electron. Each temporal instant contains a cause (partial if it varies temporarily) and its effect. This happening in each of the moments.

I don't see the stage prove your point.

[bahman]

Why does this scenario prove that the cause precedes the effect and that the changes do not occur in the present?

There is a time between the emission of one photon and its absorption. Once B receives a photon from A then it moves. There is a quanta of energy perceived during the absorption of a photon and this takes time too since a photon is a packet. The electron moves from the state of X to Y due to the absorption of a photon. There are examples of an electron poping from X to Y once it receives enough energy as a form of a photon. Such as an electron in an atom bombard with photons.

That is an unfortunate interpretation!

It is equivalent to assuming that the hit that a pedestrian receives when being hit by a car begins when the vehicle leaves the garage.

If the electron emitted a photon, this will only be a cause when it is absorbed. The absorption process (if it occurred extended in time) would also have a direct relationship between the partial part (at each instant) that affects the photon and its effect on the electron. Each temporal instant contains a cause (partial if it varies temporarily) and its effect. This happening in each of the moments.

I don't see the stage prove your point.

There is no effect while the photon is traveling. There is a gap between the emission of a photon and its absoption.

[psycho]

There is a time between the emission of one photon and its absorption. Once B receives a photon from A then it moves. There is a quanta of energy perceived during the absorption of a photon and this takes time too since a photon is a packet. The electron moves from the state of X to Y due to the absorption of a photon. There are examples of an electron poping from X to Y once it receives enough energy as a form of a photon. Such as an electron in an atom bombard with photons.

That is an unfortunate interpretation!

It is equivalent to assuming that the hit that a pedestrian receives when being hit by a car begins when the vehicle leaves the garage.

If the electron emitted a photon, this will only be a cause when it is absorbed. The absorption process (if it occurred extended in time) would also have a direct relationship between the partial part (at each instant) that affects the photon and its effect on the electron. Each temporal instant contains a cause (partial if it varies temporarily) and its effect. This happening in each of the moments.

I don't see the stage prove your point.

There is no effect while the photon is traveling. There is a gap between the emission of a photon and its absoption.

So?

[bahman]

That is an unfortunate interpretation!

It is equivalent to assuming that the hit that a pedestrian receives when being hit by a car begins when the vehicle leaves the garage.

If the electron emitted a photon, this will only be a cause when it is absorbed. The absorption process (if it occurred extended in time) would also have a direct relationship between the partial part (at each instant) that affects the photon and its effect on the electron. Each temporal instant contains a cause (partial if it varies temporarily) and its effect. This happening in each of the moments.

I don't see the stage prove your point.

There is no effect while the photon is traveling. There is a gap between the emission of a photon and its absorption.

So?

So? A first emits a photon, cause. Photon then travels. B then absorbs the photon, effect. There is a gap between cause and effect.

Even if we accept that each instant contains a cause then its effect comes after.

[Terrapin Station]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

[psycho]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

The elements of an interaction can only interact in the shared instant.
Another interpretation would assume that an element interacts with all the other temporary instances of the element with which it shares the interaction.

[bahman]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

No, one state of affair at any given point at a time, so-called now. I am talking about the cause and effect not being at the same point. That applies to everything including you. There is a time interval between the moment you read my sentence (my sentence is the intermediate cause and I am the cause), understand it (effect), and then responding to it (cause).

[Terrapin Station]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

No, one state of affair at any given point at a time, so-called now. I am talking about the cause and effect not being at the same point. That applies to everything including you. There is a time interval between the moment you read my sentence (my sentence is the intermediate cause and I am the cause), understand it (effect), and then responding to it (cause).

Wherein you completely overlook that I just said that time doesn't actually consist of infinitesimal temporal points. That's a conceptual abstraction.

You want to argue that it's not just a conceptual abstraction. What is the argument for that?

[Terrapin Station]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

The elements of an interaction can only interact in the shared instant.
Another interpretation would assume that an element interacts with all the other temporary instances of the element with which it shares the interaction.

I don't really understand what either sentence is saying there.

[bahman]

"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.

No, one state of affair at any given point at a time, so-called now. I am talking about the cause and effect not being at the same point. That applies to everything including you. There is a time interval between the moment you read my sentence (my sentence is the intermediate cause and I am the cause), understand it (effect), and then responding to it (cause).

Wherein you completely overlook that I just said that time doesn't actually consist of infinitesimal temporal points. That's a conceptual abstraction.

You want to argue that it's not just a conceptual abstraction. What is the argument for that?

So you agree that there is an infinitesimal distance between cause and effect in the fastest case?

[Terrapin Station]

No, one state of affair at any given point at a time, so-called now. I am talking about the cause and effect not being at the same point. That applies to everything including you. There is a time interval between the moment you read my sentence (my sentence is the intermediate cause and I am the cause), understand it (effect), and then responding to it (cause).

Wherein you completely overlook that I just said that time doesn't actually consist of infinitesimal temporal points. That's a conceptual abstraction.

You want to argue that it's not just a conceptual abstraction. What is the argument for that?

So you agree that there is an infinitesimal distance between cause and effect in the fastest case?

What happened to the comment about what you overlooked and the question I asked you?

[bahman]

Wherein you completely overlook that I just said that time doesn't actually consist of infinitesimal temporal points. That's a conceptual abstraction.

You want to argue that it's not just a conceptual abstraction. What is the argument for that?

So you agree that there is an infinitesimal distance between cause and effect in the fastest case?

What happened to the comment about what you overlooked and the question I asked you?

Well, you are asking whether if cause and effect are at the same point. Then, there was no need for a cause if the effect was there. We can remove the cause safely since it does not have any metaphysical contribution. You are left with effect. But no change.