An argument against materialsim

[STT]

My conclusion is also correct. Cause and effect cannot be at one point. You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

 

[Gorgias]

My conclusion is also correct. Cause and effect cannot be at one point. You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

Actually, it’s “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too”. It means that you can’t keep your cake and also eat it – they’re mutually exclusive; you either keep it or eat it, not both. Simultaneity has nothing to do with it. (After all, I can have my cake until I start to eat my cake. )

In this case, we really do have elements of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ at the same instant of time – that is, at the instant of impact. The effect changes over time, of course – what was first a body at rest becomes a body at impact and then a body in motion. Both the cause (impacting body) and effect (impacted body) are at the same point in the same time.

 

[STT]

Actually, it’s “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too”. It means that you can’t keep your cake and also eat it – they’re mutually exclusive; you either keep it or eat it , not both. Simultaneity has nothing to do with it. (After all, I can have my cake until I start to eat my cake . )

Yes, I wanted to say that.

In this case, we really do have elements of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ at the same instant of time – that is, at the instant of impact. The effect changes over time, of course – what was first a body at rest becomes a body at impact and then a body in motion. Both the cause (impacting body) and effect (impacted body) are at the same point in the same time.

The process is discrete to me. That is mind which experiences, decides and causes. There are three steps unless we follow a chain of causality. The continuity that we experience is an illusion.

 

[Gorgias]

The process is discrete to me.

Fine. Your granularity is too coarse, then. You’re missing events in your discrete model.

There are three steps unless we follow a chain of causality.

There are more than three states.

 

[STT]

Fine. Your granularity is too coarse, then. You’re missing events in your discrete model.

What I am missing?

There are more than three states.

Experiencing, decision and causation. This is three states.

 

[Gorgias]

What I am missing?

I’ve already pointed it out. Your model doesn’t take into account the instants in which the objects are in contact, and what happens to them when they are touching.

Experiencing, decision and causation. This is three states.

No clue what you’re trying to say here.

 

[STT]

I’ve already pointed it out. Your model doesn’t take into account the instants in which the objects are in contact, and what happens to them when they are touching.

There is not such a thing as delta Dirac interaction.

No clue what you’re trying to say here.

Experience is one state, decision is another state and finally causation is another state. These are three states.

 

[Gorgias]

There is not such a thing as delta Dirac interaction.

Not sure why you’re referencing quantum mechanics here. Two objects, when they strike each other, do more than touch for an instant.

Experience is one state, decision is another state and finally causation is another state. These are three states.

Fine. It’s still a non sequitur.

 

[STT]

Not sure why you’re referencing quantum mechanics here. Two objects, when they strike each other, do more than touch for an instant.

I am talking about classical mechanics. Force has a distribution over time even in the case of billiard balls hitting each other. It just seems instantaneous.

Fine. It’s still a non sequitur.

Non sequitur!?

 

[Gorgias]

It just seems instantaneous.

It can be modeled as if it were instantaneous, for the sake of certain types of calculations. Taking that model and asserting that it’s reality itself, though, is what’s leading you to invalid conclusions.