Experienc only happens in absence of existence

[Bahman]

That is not a fact, Bahman. It is the conclusion that you would like to reach. But so far, you have not put the means to do it.

This applies to you very well. You get the (name removed by moderator)ut from your intellect/brain. This (name removed by moderator)ut appears as an awareness/experience in your consciousness. It is very you who decide about the situation for example moving your body or judging something. The outcome of decision then become actual when it arrives in the brain and the action is executed then.

Martin Heidegger wrote the outstanding book “Being and Time”. It belongs to philosophy. I think you could open a thread here. If I can be of any assistance to you, I will be pleased.

I don’t have the book. I would be very happy if you could please open a thread providing the fruit of the book and we then jump on it criticizing it. I already have a thread about time.

It sounds nice, but you need to prove it. Philosophy intends to be a rigorous discipline; it is not a collection of “beautiful thoughts”, though it can be beautiful, of course.

I will open a thread for this.

My pleasure. Consider this example: If you put a crystal of sodium chloride in a glass containing water in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, and think of it as your closed system, you will “observe” (you must know that this is a very technical word) how it changes over the time (making a suitable physical monitoring of it). You will observe that the concentration of sodium and chloride ions starts increasing around the crystal and how a concentration gradient develops within the liquid. Finally, the crystal will disappear (or if it is too big, will stop dissolving) and the concentration of ions within the liquid will become “practically” (this is another technical word) homogeneous.

So, what are the parts that we can consider in this experiment? One is the salt crystal, and the other is water. The crystal is releasing corpuscles (sodium and chloride ions) and the migrate into the liquid.

Was it clear?

That I understand now. But I don’t understand what was your reason for providing this example. What did you have in your mind?

Based upon the accepted premises of science and using its methods, you can’t do more.

How can the laws of Newton be derived? If your question belongs to the realm of science you can find a response reading Newton’s works. If your question concerns epistemology, then it would be convenient for you to study Immanuel Kant. He was the first to develop a theory trying to explain how is the newtonian physics possible.

Regards
Juan Florencio

Well, I don’t know I might succeed. To me Newton second laws is a fit. The third one is based on a deep intuition, very good for a philosophical attack. The third one is about definition of mass again, very good for a philosophical attack.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, but it did not create itself. It cannot both be and not be at the same time. Therefore its existence is due to another. But this cannot go on to infinity. Therefore the creator of my mind is God, who has the power to do it.

Linus2nd

Do you believe that your decision is uncaused cause? In simple word, is it very you who decide about the situation? Or is it the result of influence of whatever?

 

[Bahman]

In other thread you have identified “consciousness” with the “I”. You have said also that we don’t have experiences until we have a body. It seems to imply that “consciousness” is affected by the body. Please, confirm or correct your views.

I/consciousness is the essence of any being with the ability to experience and affect mental state.

When you say now that "Consciousness is what rules the system, dictating how S should change to S’ " do you mean that it rules the system consciously?

Yes.

No, I don’t. As I said before: My conclusion is that the path of events that takes place is this:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

where “;” means simultaneity or, if you please, processes running in parallel.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

That unfortunately leads to epiphnomalism (there is no use of awareness). It doesn’t apply to you hence reality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How could God create the universe? You don’t know and your God didn’t reveal it to you. The act creation is impossible. I have over 100 threads on this very topic.

God revealed to mankind that he created the whole universe.
So you have a 100 threads. It might as will be a million, you would then be wrong a million times. .

I already show that Thomas is wrong given a simple example a living being which can sustain itself and move.

Oh, you mean the one who nourishes itself? Well that just shows you don’t understand Thomas. Your " living being " does not cause himself to exist, not matter how much nourishment he takes. The act of existence is not the being itself. The two are separate but they compose the being such that the being cannot exist without its act of existence which it receives from God.

One counter example is enough. Who sustain other changes? God, gods, etc. I will rather say that I don’t know.

And you have not given a counter example. Creatures can cause changes, but it is God who causes existence. Creatures are composed of a potentiality principle called matter, and formal principle, which determines genus and species Together they form an essence, which answers the question, " What is it? " But the essence does not tell that the essence actually exists. Only if the essence has an act of existence can we say that, " It is or it exists. " Only God, who is Pure, Self Sustained Existence can cause the essence to actually exist by giving it an act of existence…

You think that my love is not longing for the perfection so called God? It is unapproachable somehow. It is either an idea or we cannot objectively perceive it

I already have an argument for it in Thomas’s forth way. I can repeat it again if you wish.

Repeat it if you like.

You know it is time for you to take a break from arguing for a week or two and do some serious reading. How about the Confessions of St. Augustine. You can get a cheap copy for a few bucks.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

They deleted my post arguing that it is related to philosophy!

I’m not surprised. I saw your thread before it got pulled and you posted exactly the same OP as here, even down to the same misspellings. It’s strange that as a physicist you would post your entire philosophical speculation rather than just ask the science question, for instance you could just ask “Is it valid to treat all closed physical systems as finite state machines?”.

I think you will then be told no, as unless relativity is denied there is no absolute time (no master clock) within a system by which to slice the states.