Philosophy Now Forum

I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

WHY do you 'have to' prove two things?

And, WHO do 'you', supposedly, 'have to' prove two things to, EXACTLY?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

X does NOT necessarily 'have to' vanish to leave room for Y, if there is change. VERY SIMPLY because X COULD, itself, just change INTO Y.

There is NEVER "nothing" when X vanishes. As there is STILL a WHOLE Universe STILL EXISTING.

You say here that "nothing cannot cause Y". YET it is 'you' who also likes to CLAIM that the Universe/Everything came from 'nothing', or in other words, "nothing caused thee Universe/Everything". Or, do I have something WRONG here?

Now, let us just ASSUME for a minute that "X HAS TO vanish to leave room for Y, if there is a change", and let us also ASSUME that "there is NOTHING when X "vanishes", but also 'nothing' can cause Y". HOW EXACTLY does this INSTANTLY JUMP to the "conclusion" that there is A "mind" that CAUSED Y?

To 'me', just through the continual process of Creation, Itself, or EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY re-action is just ANOTHER action, itself, which is just causing ALL physicality to be continually changing in shape and form, and SO, to me, ANY and ALL X's, themselves, just change INTO Y's through A CONSTANT PROCESS of CHANGE, or also known as EVOLUTION.

To 'me' there is NO start/stop in Creation NOR in change. So, there is NOT an actual separation between X's and Y's, other than in thought and contemplation ONLY.

There is NO 'nothing' BETWEEN one labeled X to a Y. There is just a CONSTANT-CHANGE occurring, which can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN at the sub-atomic/quantum level of 'things'.

However, besides saying this there is a 'nothing' between and around ALL matter, which again can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD at and from the smallest pieces, or particles, of 'matter', itself.

So, you do NOT have PROOF for what you CLAIM here. ALL you are REALLY doing here is TRYING TO back up and support your ALREADY gained and held BELIEF that some "mind", which you have YET to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, CAUSES physical 'things' to appear.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

Just say and define what a 'mind' IS or COULD even BE, then 'we' the readers will decide if one or if many exist.

Your argument here is just like the ones from those who call themselves, and/or are labeled, "christians" when they are TRYING TO prove their CLAIM that God exists. That is: they argue;

P1) There is existence (which is just change, itself, by the way)
P2) Any existence requires a God. (without EVER stating what this 'God' thing is EXACTLY)
C) Therefore, there is a God.

Now, you would OBVIOUSLY NOT accept this, so called, "argument". And, is this because of just YOUR currently held BELIEFS, or because the, so called, "argument" is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS?

Your Honest answer/s here would be most appreciated.

By the way, just like YOU have an ALREADY gained and held onto set of BELIEFS, so to do THEY. And, BOTH of 'you' are and will 'TRY' absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to back up and support YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

WHY do you 'have to' prove two things?

And, WHO do 'you', supposedly, 'have to' prove two things to, EXACTLY?

Because in order to prove the argument in the title I have to prove the second premise. The first premise is evident.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

X does NOT necessarily 'have to' vanish to leave room for Y, if there is change. VERY SIMPLY because X COULD, itself, just change INTO Y.

There is NEVER "nothing" when X vanishes. As there is STILL a WHOLE Universe STILL EXISTING.

You say here that "nothing cannot cause Y". YET it is 'you' who also likes to CLAIM that the Universe/Everything came from 'nothing', or in other words, "nothing caused thee Universe/Everything". Or, do I have something WRONG here?

Now, let us just ASSUME for a minute that "X HAS TO vanish to leave room for Y, if there is a change", and let us also ASSUME that "there is NOTHING when X "vanishes", but also 'nothing' can cause Y". HOW EXACTLY does this INSTANTLY JUMP to the "conclusion" that there is A "mind" that CAUSED Y?

To 'me', just through the continual process of Creation, Itself, or EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY re-action is just ANOTHER action, itself, which is just causing ALL physicality to be continually changing in shape and form, and SO, to me, ANY and ALL X's, themselves, just change INTO Y's through A CONSTANT PROCESS of CHANGE, or also known as EVOLUTION.

To 'me' there is NO start/stop in Creation NOR in change. So, there is NOT an actual separation between X's and Y's, other than in thought and contemplation ONLY.

There is NO 'nothing' BETWEEN one labeled X to a Y. There is just a CONSTANT-CHANGE occurring, which can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN at the sub-atomic/quantum level of 'things'.

However, besides saying this there is a 'nothing' between and around ALL matter, which again can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD at and from the smallest pieces, or particles, of 'matter', itself.

So, you do NOT have PROOF for what you CLAIM here. ALL you are REALLY doing here is TRYING TO back up and support your ALREADY gained and held BELIEF that some "mind", which you have YET to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, CAUSES physical 'things' to appear.

Even at the quantum level, the motion is described by annihilation and creation the second one comes after the first one. The problem is that there is a gap between annihilation and creation when there is nothing. So as I proved a mind is needed to fill this gap otherwise no information can go from one state of affair to another state of affair.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

Just say and define what a 'mind' IS or COULD even BE, then 'we' the readers will decide if one or if many exist.

Your argument here is just like the ones from those who call themselves, and/or are labeled, "christians" when they are TRYING TO prove their CLAIM that God exists. That is: they argue;

P1) There is existence (which is just change, itself, by the way)
P2) Any existence requires a God. (without EVER stating what this 'God' thing is EXACTLY)
C) Therefore, there is a God.

Now, you would OBVIOUSLY NOT accept this, so called, "argument". And, is this because of just YOUR currently held BELIEFS, or because the, so called, "argument" is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS?

Your Honest answer/s here would be most appreciated.

By the way, just like YOU have an ALREADY gained and held onto set of BELIEFS, so to do THEY. And, BOTH of 'you' are and will 'TRY' absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to back up and support YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS.

Prove (P2). I already proved my (P2).

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

WHY do you 'have to' prove two things?

And, WHO do 'you', supposedly, 'have to' prove two things to, EXACTLY?

Because in order to prove the argument in the title I have to prove the second premise. The first premise is evident.

Are you AWARE that what is 'evident' to 'you' is NOT necessarily 'evident' to absolutely ANY one "else"?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

X does NOT necessarily 'have to' vanish to leave room for Y, if there is change. VERY SIMPLY because X COULD, itself, just change INTO Y.

There is NEVER "nothing" when X vanishes. As there is STILL a WHOLE Universe STILL EXISTING.

You say here that "nothing cannot cause Y". YET it is 'you' who also likes to CLAIM that the Universe/Everything came from 'nothing', or in other words, "nothing caused thee Universe/Everything". Or, do I have something WRONG here?

Now, let us just ASSUME for a minute that "X HAS TO vanish to leave room for Y, if there is a change", and let us also ASSUME that "there is NOTHING when X "vanishes", but also 'nothing' can cause Y". HOW EXACTLY does this INSTANTLY JUMP to the "conclusion" that there is A "mind" that CAUSED Y?

To 'me', just through the continual process of Creation, Itself, or EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY re-action is just ANOTHER action, itself, which is just causing ALL physicality to be continually changing in shape and form, and SO, to me, ANY and ALL X's, themselves, just change INTO Y's through A CONSTANT PROCESS of CHANGE, or also known as EVOLUTION.

To 'me' there is NO start/stop in Creation NOR in change. So, there is NOT an actual separation between X's and Y's, other than in thought and contemplation ONLY.

There is NO 'nothing' BETWEEN one labeled X to a Y. There is just a CONSTANT-CHANGE occurring, which can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN at the sub-atomic/quantum level of 'things'.

However, besides saying this there is a 'nothing' between and around ALL matter, which again can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD at and from the smallest pieces, or particles, of 'matter', itself.

So, you do NOT have PROOF for what you CLAIM here. ALL you are REALLY doing here is TRYING TO back up and support your ALREADY gained and held BELIEF that some "mind", which you have YET to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, CAUSES physical 'things' to appear.

Even at the quantum level, the motion is described by annihilation and creation the second one comes after the first one.

It is ONLY 'described' this way by 'you', human beings, because this 'separating' and 'making distinction' is the ONLY way that you can LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND the 'world'/Universe around 'you'.

But, just because 'you', human beings, describe 'things' by 'annihilation' AND 'creation' does NOT mean that this is what is ACTUALLY occurring at the REAL and ACTUAL True 'level' of 'things'.

In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE IS, and WILL BE SHOWN and REVEALED to be, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You, human beings, can describe 'motion' in a stop/start fashion. But doing so partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, can NOT YET, in the days when this is being written, UNIFY your OWN separate 'theories' and 'stories'.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm The problem is that there is a gap between annihilation and creation when there is nothing.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing. This is an ILLUSION of your OWN making. And this happens AND occurs because you WRONGLY describe 'motion', itself.

You even wrote, the 'motion' is DESCRIBED in the terms of 'annihilation' AND 'creation'. Therefore, 'you' are MAKING the GAPS, which, literally, are NOTHING.

There are NO 'gaps'. These are just ANOTHER 'thing' of YOUR MAKING and IMAGINATION ONLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm So as I proved a mind is needed to fill this gap otherwise no information can go from one state of affair to another state of affair.

Thee One and ONLY Mind SEES NO 'gap' at ALL. This is because IN Truth there are NO 'gaps' AT ALL.

The ONLY 'gaps' IN Existence are the ones of YOUR OWN MAKING, which are held within the thoughts, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS within that head, and the ONLY other gaps in Existence, Itself, is the 'space' between and around 'matter', itself.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

Just say and define what a 'mind' IS or COULD even BE, then 'we' the readers will decide if one or if many exist.

Your argument here is just like the ones from those who call themselves, and/or are labeled, "christians" when they are TRYING TO prove their CLAIM that God exists. That is: they argue;

P1) There is existence (which is just change, itself, by the way)
P2) Any existence requires a God. (without EVER stating what this 'God' thing is EXACTLY)
C) Therefore, there is a God.

Now, you would OBVIOUSLY NOT accept this, so called, "argument". And, is this because of just YOUR currently held BELIEFS, or because the, so called, "argument" is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS?

Your Honest answer/s here would be most appreciated.

By the way, just like YOU have an ALREADY gained and held onto set of BELIEFS, so to do THEY. And, BOTH of 'you' are and will 'TRY' absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to back up and support YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS.

Prove (P2). I already proved my (P2).

And "christians" ALSO SAY and CLAIM that they have already proved their (P2) as well. BUT, does this make IT SO?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

What if Y emerges from X?
There’s no disappearance of X.
Any possible impossibility of something from nothing is not a factor in this kind of change.
There is a kind of change that doesn’t require a mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

As I have argued, there is only a mind [as defined] when there is a normal living human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

It is this human mind that can sense changes in space and time.

Thus;

• P1) There is a change perceived by a human mind
  P2) Any change requires a human mind
  C) Therefore, there is a human mind
  But there is only a human mind, if there are normal living humans.

Thus there is no mind that exists independent of any human being.

This point contradict your view that there are independent minds* beyond human existence.
* souls that survive physical death.

The perception of change requires a human mind to perceive it.

This poses no problem for those who believe that the images and thoughts we produce are actual reality.

But what can be said to comfort those who believe the images and thoughts are mere representations of the real world?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am WHY do you 'have to' prove two things?

And, WHO do 'you', supposedly, 'have to' prove two things to, EXACTLY?

Because in order to prove the argument in the title I have to prove the second premise. The first premise is evident.

Are you AWARE that what is 'evident' to 'you' is NOT necessarily 'evident' to absolutely ANY one "else"?

I am talking about the first premise, the change exists, that is evident. The second premise, I proved it. Therefore, the conclusion follows.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am X does NOT necessarily 'have to' vanish to leave room for Y, if there is change. VERY SIMPLY because X COULD, itself, just change INTO Y.
There is NEVER "nothing" when X vanishes. As there is STILL a WHOLE Universe STILL EXISTING.

You say here that "nothing cannot cause Y". YET it is 'you' who also likes to CLAIM that the Universe/Everything came from 'nothing', or in other words, "nothing caused thee Universe/Everything". Or, do I have something WRONG here?

Now, let us just ASSUME for a minute that "X HAS TO vanish to leave room for Y, if there is a change", and let us also ASSUME that "there is NOTHING when X "vanishes", but also 'nothing' can cause Y". HOW EXACTLY does this INSTANTLY JUMP to the "conclusion" that there is A "mind" that CAUSED Y?

To 'me', just through the continual process of Creation, Itself, or EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY re-action is just ANOTHER action, itself, which is just causing ALL physicality to be continually changing in shape and form, and SO, to me, ANY and ALL X's, themselves, just change INTO Y's through A CONSTANT PROCESS of CHANGE, or also known as EVOLUTION.

To 'me' there is NO start/stop in Creation NOR in change. So, there is NOT an actual separation between X's and Y's, other than in thought and contemplation ONLY.

There is NO 'nothing' BETWEEN one labeled X to a Y. There is just a CONSTANT-CHANGE occurring, which can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN at the sub-atomic/quantum level of 'things'.

However, besides saying this there is a 'nothing' between and around ALL matter, which again can only be Truly and CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD at and from the smallest pieces, or particles, of 'matter', itself.

So, you do NOT have PROOF for what you CLAIM here. ALL you are REALLY doing here is TRYING TO back up and support your ALREADY gained and held BELIEF that some "mind", which you have YET to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, CAUSES physical 'things' to appear.

Even at the quantum level, the motion is described by annihilation and creation the second one comes after the first one.

It is ONLY 'described' this way by 'you', human beings, because this 'separating' and 'making distinction' is the ONLY way that you can LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND the 'world'/Universe around 'you'.

But, just because 'you', human beings, describe 'things' by 'annihilation' AND 'creation' does NOT mean that this is what is ACTUALLY occurring at the REAL and ACTUAL True 'level' of 'things'.

In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE IS, and WILL BE SHOWN and REVEALED to be, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You, human beings, can describe 'motion' in a stop/start fashion. But doing so partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, can NOT YET, in the days when this is being written, UNIFY your OWN separate 'theories' and 'stories'.

Do you think that experience and causation are simultaneous? If not one comes after another. This means that there is a gap between cause and effect.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm The problem is that there is a gap between annihilation and creation when there is nothing.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing. This is an ILLUSION of your OWN making. And this happens AND occurs because you WRONGLY describe 'motion', itself.

You even wrote, the 'motion' is DESCRIBED in the terms of 'annihilation' AND 'creation'. Therefore, 'you' are MAKING the GAPS, which, literally, are NOTHING.

There are NO 'gaps'. These are just ANOTHER 'thing' of YOUR MAKING and IMAGINATION ONLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm So as I proved a mind is needed to fill this gap otherwise no information can go from one state of affair to another state of affair.

Thee One and ONLY Mind SEES NO 'gap' at ALL. This is because IN Truth there are NO 'gaps' AT ALL.

The ONLY 'gaps' IN Existence are the ones of YOUR OWN MAKING, which are held within the thoughts, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS within that head, and the ONLY other gaps in Existence, Itself, is the 'space' between and around 'matter', itself.

The fact is that there is a gap between experience and causation. Otherwise, our conversation would be simultaneous that is not.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:46 am Just say and define what a 'mind' IS or COULD even BE, then 'we' the readers will decide if one or if many exist.

Your argument here is just like the ones from those who call themselves, and/or are labeled, "christians" when they are TRYING TO prove their CLAIM that God exists. That is: they argue;

P1) There is existence (which is just change, itself, by the way)
P2) Any existence requires a God. (without EVER stating what this 'God' thing is EXACTLY)
C) Therefore, there is a God.

Now, you would OBVIOUSLY NOT accept this, so called, "argument". And, is this because of just YOUR currently held BELIEFS, or because the, so called, "argument" is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS?

Your Honest answer/s here would be most appreciated.

By the way, just like YOU have an ALREADY gained and held onto set of BELIEFS, so to do THEY. And, BOTH of 'you' are and will 'TRY' absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to back up and support YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS.

Prove (P2). I already proved my (P2).

And "christians" ALSO SAY and CLAIM that they have already proved their (P2) as well. BUT, does this make IT SO?

I have an argument against the existence of God. Therefore, (P2) in their case doesn't follow.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

What if Y emerges from X?
There’s no disappearance of X.

X and Y either are simultaneous or not. There is no change in the first case since X and Y exist at the same point. There is a change, however. Therefore, Y comes after X. This means that there is a gap between X and Y. The point is no information can be transferred from a Gap unless there is a mind that experiences X, survive the gap, and causes Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm Any possible impossibility of something from nothing is not a factor in this kind of change.

It is. There is nothing between X and Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm There is a kind of change that doesn’t require a mind.

Like what?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:16 am I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) The title.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

What if Y emerges from X?
There’s no disappearance of X.

X and Y either are simultaneous or not. There is no change in the first case since X and Y exist at the same point. There is a change, however. Therefore, Y comes after X. This means that there is a gap between X and Y. The point is no information can be transferred from a Gap unless there is a mind that experiences X, survive the gap, and causes Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm Any possible impossibility of something from nothing is not a factor in this kind of change.

It is. There is nothing between X and Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm There is a kind of change that doesn’t require a mind.

Like what?

Like the kind where Y resides within X before emerging from X.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm
What if Y emerges from X?
There’s no disappearance of X.

X and Y either are simultaneous or not. There is no change in the first case since X and Y exist at the same point. There is a change, however. Therefore, Y comes after X. This means that there is a gap between X and Y. The point is no information can be transferred from a Gap unless there is a mind that experiences X, survive the gap, and causes Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm Any possible impossibility of something from nothing is not a factor in this kind of change.

It is. There is nothing between X and Y.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:08 pm There is a kind of change that doesn’t require a mind.

Like what?

Like the kind where Y resides within X before emerging from X.

What is the meaning of before?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm
Because in order to prove the argument in the title I have to prove the second premise. The first premise is evident.

Are you AWARE that what is 'evident' to 'you' is NOT necessarily 'evident' to absolutely ANY one "else"?

I am talking about the first premise, the change exists, that is evident. The second premise, I proved it.

ONCE MORE, are you AWARE that what is 'proved' to 'you' has NOT YET necessarily been 'proven' to absolutely ANY one else?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm Therefore, the conclusion follows.

I AGREE the conclusion follows, to 'you'.

But, considering 'you' ACTUALLY ASSUMED and BELIEVED that the conclusion was true BEFORE, that you would say here that the "conclusions follow" actually would, logically, follow.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm
Even at the quantum level, the motion is described by annihilation and creation the second one comes after the first one.

It is ONLY 'described' this way by 'you', human beings, because this 'separating' and 'making distinction' is the ONLY way that you can LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND the 'world'/Universe around 'you'.

But, just because 'you', human beings, describe 'things' by 'annihilation' AND 'creation' does NOT mean that this is what is ACTUALLY occurring at the REAL and ACTUAL True 'level' of 'things'.

In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE IS, and WILL BE SHOWN and REVEALED to be, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You, human beings, can describe 'motion' in a stop/start fashion. But doing so partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, can NOT YET, in the days when this is being written, UNIFY your OWN separate 'theories' and 'stories'.

Do you think that experience and causation are simultaneous? If not one comes after another. This means that there is a gap between cause and effect.

If you want to make the CLAIM that there IS 'a gap' between cause and effect, then just EXPLAIN and/or SHOW WHERE EXACTLY this, alleged, "gap" IS.

Can you do this?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm The problem is that there is a gap between annihilation and creation when there is nothing.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing. This is an ILLUSION of your OWN making. And this happens AND occurs because you WRONGLY describe 'motion', itself.

You even wrote, the 'motion' is DESCRIBED in the terms of 'annihilation' AND 'creation'. Therefore, 'you' are MAKING the GAPS, which, literally, are NOTHING.

There are NO 'gaps'. These are just ANOTHER 'thing' of YOUR MAKING and IMAGINATION ONLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm So as I proved a mind is needed to fill this gap otherwise no information can go from one state of affair to another state of affair.

Thee One and ONLY Mind SEES NO 'gap' at ALL. This is because IN Truth there are NO 'gaps' AT ALL.

The ONLY 'gaps' IN Existence are the ones of YOUR OWN MAKING, which are held within the thoughts, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS within that head, and the ONLY other gaps in Existence, Itself, is the 'space' between and around 'matter', itself.

The fact is that there is a gap between experience and causation. Otherwise, our conversation would be simultaneous that is not.

OBVIOUSLY, there is A DURATION between what is KNOWN as "experience" AND "causation" but there is NO ACTUAL 'gap'.

Because 'you' are NOT LOOKING AT 'things' PROPERLY NOR CORRECTLY, you are NOT able to SEE that there is just One Thing in continual change, evolution, AND creation.

That there are 'things' (with an s) is ONLY because 'you', human beings, have made up distinct boundaries to differentiate, and then created labels and names and placed them on those conceptualized separations.

A PERFECT EXAMPLE of this is with 'motion', itself. Or, what some of 'you' call with the label 'time'.

There is NO actual 'gap' absolutely anywhere. But because there is some ASSUMPTION/BELIEF there is 'a gap' they MAKE UP a distinct boundary, which they have labeled with the MADE UP created name 'planck time' or 'planck length'.

Some of 'you' even say this as though it actually exists.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:07 pm
Prove (P2). I already proved my (P2).

And "christians" ALSO SAY and CLAIM that they have already proved their (P2) as well. BUT, does this make IT SO?

I have an argument against the existence of God. Therefore, (P2) in their case doesn't follow.

I am NOT sure if I am met ANY one as BLIND as 'you', "bahman", are here.

So called "christians" ALSO have an argument against YOUR CLAIM. But, just like YOUR ARGUMENT this does NOT make THEIR ARGUMENT sound NOR valid. And, if an argument is NOT sound AND valid, then REALLY it is NOT even that worthy of being EXPRESSED and HEARD.

The only arguments that I find being worthy of being LOOK AT and DISCUSSED are those arguments that are sound AND valid. This is because only those ones are Truly irrefutable.

Oh, and by the way, YOUR, so called, "arguments" here are NOT sound AND valid arguments.

Neither sound nor valid.

(Not sound and valid includes either one of the two.)

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am
Are you AWARE that what is 'evident' to 'you' is NOT necessarily 'evident' to absolutely ANY one "else"?

I am talking about the first premise, the change exists, that is evident. The second premise, I proved it.

ONCE MORE, are you AWARE that what is 'proved' to 'you' has NOT YET necessarily been 'proven' to absolutely ANY one else?

The proof is there. You are free to put effort to understand or leave them non-understod.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm Therefore, the conclusion follows.

I AGREE the conclusion follows, to 'you'.

But, considering 'you' ACTUALLY ASSUMED and BELIEVED that the conclusion was true BEFORE, that you would say here that the "conclusions follow" actually would, logically, follow.

I am talking about the argument. Not my belief.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am It is ONLY 'described' this way by 'you', human beings, because this 'separating' and 'making distinction' is the ONLY way that you can LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND the 'world'/Universe around 'you'.

But, just because 'you', human beings, describe 'things' by 'annihilation' AND 'creation' does NOT mean that this is what is ACTUALLY occurring at the REAL and ACTUAL True 'level' of 'things'.

In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE IS, and WILL BE SHOWN and REVEALED to be, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You, human beings, can describe 'motion' in a stop/start fashion. But doing so partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, can NOT YET, in the days when this is being written, UNIFY your OWN separate 'theories' and 'stories'.

Do you think that experience and causation are simultaneous? If not one comes after another. This means that there is a gap between cause and effect.

If you want to make the CLAIM that there IS 'a gap' between cause and effect, then just EXPLAIN and/or SHOW WHERE EXACTLY this, alleged, "gap" IS.

Can you do this?

The gap is there. You do even experience it. There is gap between you reading this sentence and then answer to it. You however experience many other things at the same time.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am But there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing. This is an ILLUSION of your OWN making. And this happens AND occurs because you WRONGLY describe 'motion', itself.

You even wrote, the 'motion' is DESCRIBED in the terms of 'annihilation' AND 'creation'. Therefore, 'you' are MAKING the GAPS, which, literally, are NOTHING.

There are NO 'gaps'. These are just ANOTHER 'thing' of YOUR MAKING and IMAGINATION ONLY.


Thee One and ONLY Mind SEES NO 'gap' at ALL. This is because IN Truth there are NO 'gaps' AT ALL.

The ONLY 'gaps' IN Existence are the ones of YOUR OWN MAKING, which are held within the thoughts, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS within that head, and the ONLY other gaps in Existence, Itself, is the 'space' between and around 'matter', itself.

The fact is that there is a gap between experience and causation. Otherwise, our conversation would be simultaneous that is not.

OBVIOUSLY, there is A DURATION between what is KNOWN as "experience" AND "causation" but there is NO ACTUAL 'gap'.

Because 'you' are NOT LOOKING AT 'things' PROPERLY NOR CORRECTLY, you are NOT able to SEE that there is just One Thing in continual change, evolution, AND creation.

That there are 'things' (with an s) is ONLY because 'you', human beings, have made up distinct boundaries to differentiate, and then created labels and names and placed them on those conceptualized separations.

A PERFECT EXAMPLE of this is with 'motion', itself. Or, what some of 'you' call with the label 'time'.

There is NO actual 'gap' absolutely anywhere. But because there is some ASSUMPTION/BELIEF there is 'a gap' they MAKE UP a distinct boundary, which they have labeled with the MADE UP created name 'planck time' or 'planck length'.

Some of 'you' even say this as though it actually exists.

I have already answered that in the previous comment.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:04 am
And "christians" ALSO SAY and CLAIM that they have already proved their (P2) as well. BUT, does this make IT SO?

I have an argument against the existence of God. Therefore, (P2) in their case doesn't follow.

I am NOT sure if I am met ANY one as BLIND as 'you', "bahman", are here.

So called "christians" ALSO have an argument against YOUR CLAIM. But, just like YOUR ARGUMENT this does NOT make THEIR ARGUMENT sound NOR valid. And, if an argument is NOT sound AND valid, then REALLY it is NOT even that worthy of being EXPRESSED and HEARD.

The only arguments that I find being worthy of being LOOK AT and DISCUSSED are those arguments that are sound AND valid. This is because only those ones are Truly irrefutable.

Oh, and by the way, YOUR, so called, "arguments" here are NOT sound AND valid arguments.

Do you want to see my argument against God? You don't know what it is? How could you say that it is unvalid?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:48 pm Neither sound nor valid.

(Not sound and valid includes either one of the two.)

Why?