There is no strong emergence

[Bahman]

Physical theories are deterministic. That applies to quantum mechanics as well (I believe in Bohmian interpretation).

No they don't, not all of them. Physical laws are deterministic when they deal with closed, linear, non-random systems, but the universe in general seems to be full of contingency, randomness, uncertainty, and many scientific approaches in physics must rely on probabilistic distributions.

The universe is a closed system and it obeys the laws of physics so it is deterministic.

The universe is, as far as we know, an open, dynamic system, full of contingency and randomness, even when considering the laws of physics and deterministic sub-systems.

What is called randomness is only observed in sub-systems. In fact, randomness is not real but we include it in our theories in order to include the impact of the rest of the universe that we have no knowledge of it on the sub-system.

It’s exactly the other way around: the behavior of sub-systems is more or less predictable in the sense that we can take in consideration a very limited number of variables to make a model to which we can apply our equations, but as systems become entangled with other systems, the variables multiply exponentially, processes become a lot more complex and unpredictable, so the broader our look into the world, it’s not deterministic.

It is the other way around but I am not going to discuss it further since it is off topic.

Here is my argument for the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y, where X and Y are two different states of the substance. X and Y cannot lay on the same point at the time since otherwise, they would occur simultaneously and there would be no change. Therefore the substance in the state of X has to vanish to leave room for the substance in the state of Y and in order to allow the substance in the state of Y to be caused. This means that there is a gap between X and Y. But the substance in the state of X cannot possibly cause the substance in the state of Y because of the gap.

You use the words “different” and “states”, but those already imply modes of the substance that have been identified in time by an observer that has also moved in time. State Y corresponds to a moment in time Yt and state X corresponds to time Xt. To the gap between X and Y corresponds a gap between Yt and Xt, so nothing needs to “vanish”, it’s just two different instances of observation, so here you are just explaining change as a function of the observation, not as a function of intrinsic or extrinsic factors affecting the substance. The change of the substance itself is also purely modal, it is still the same substance.

No the substance in the state of X is different from the substance in the state of Y because there is a gap between.

Therefore, there must be a mind with the ability to experience the substance in the state of X and cause the substance in the state of Y.

No, we are only talking about two moments of observation from the same observer, without even getting into the cause of each state.

No, a car for example is an emergent thing but it is not a strong emergent thing. It is a weak one. Consciousness is believed to be strong emergence though since the brain has a property that its parts don't.

Sorry, but a car is just a composite object, a machine that is the sum of its parts, not an emergent thing.

Could you please give an example of emergence?

Life, consciousness, culture, the collective action of a crowd, traffic.

Consciousness is strong emergence within materialism. The rest are weak emergence.

[Count Lucanor]

No the substance in the state of X is different from the substance in the state of Y because there is a gap between.

Again, you're just talking about the observed state X and the observed state Y, which makes the observer part of the game when you account for the "gap". There's no gap in the existence of the substance.

Consciousness is strong emergence within materialism. The rest are weak emergence.

I suppose that is your argument: that consciousness as an emergent material process or property does not exist.

[Bahman]

No the substance in the state of X is different from the substance in the state of Y because there is a gap between.

Again, you're just talking about the observed state X and the observed state Y, which makes the observer part of the game when you account for the "gap". There's no gap in the existence of the substance.

I am not talking about an observed state. I am talking about the fact that states of X and Y cannot be simultaneous therefore there is a gap between them.

Consciousness is strong emergence within materialism. The rest are weak emergence.

I suppose that is your argument: that consciousness as an emergent material process or property does not exist.

Yes.

[Count Lucanor]

No the substance in the state of X is different from the substance in the state of Y because there is a gap between.

Again, you're just talking about the observed state X and the observed state Y, which makes the observer part of the game when you account for the "gap". There's no gap in the existence of the substance.

I am not talking about an observed state. I am talking about the fact that states of X and Y cannot be simultaneous therefore there is a gap between them.

But that's a "gap" that only appears as a result of observation occurring at two distinct moments, therefore it is not a gap of the thing in itself, it doesn't "vanish" from one state to appear in another.

[Bahman]

No the substance in the state of X is different from the substance in the state of Y because there is a gap between.

Again, you're just talking about the observed state X and the observed state Y, which makes the observer part of the game when you account for the "gap". There's no gap in the existence of the substance.

I am not talking about an observed state. I am talking about the fact that states of X and Y cannot be simultaneous therefore there is a gap between them.

But that's a "gap" that only appears as a result of observation occurring at two distinct moments, therefore it is not a gap of the thing in itself, it doesn't "vanish" from one state to appear in another.

No, the gap is real. I don't want to repeat myself. Please read the bold part and let me know what it implements.

[Count Lucanor]

Again, you're just talking about the observed state X and the observed state Y, which makes the observer part of the game when you account for the "gap". There's no gap in the existence of the substance.

I am not talking about an observed state. I am talking about the fact that states of X and Y cannot be simultaneous therefore there is a gap between them.

But that's a "gap" that only appears as a result of observation occurring at two distinct moments, therefore it is not a gap of the thing in itself, it doesn't "vanish" from one state to appear in another.

No, the gap is real. I don't want to repeat myself. Please read the bold part and let me know what it implements.

Just a gap in time between the two observed states. It is most likely that between X and Y there are other states, known as degrees, which not considering observations, are theoretically infinite. So your "gap" is actually filled with other states, and when you want to point to a gap between them, you will have to resort to observations in time.

[Bahman]

I am not talking about an observed state. I am talking about the fact that states of X and Y cannot be simultaneous therefore there is a gap between them.

But that's a "gap" that only appears as a result of observation occurring at two distinct moments, therefore it is not a gap of the thing in itself, it doesn't "vanish" from one state to appear in another.

No, the gap is real. I don't want to repeat myself. Please read the bold part and let me know what it implements.

Just a gap in time between the two observed states. It is most likely that between X and Y there are other states, known as degrees, which not considering observations, are theoretically infinite. So your "gap" is actually filled with other states, and when you want to point to a gap between them, you will have to resort to observations in time.

The reality is discrete. I discuss this here.

[Count Lucanor]

But that's a "gap" that only appears as a result of observation occurring at two distinct moments, therefore it is not a gap of the thing in itself, it doesn't "vanish" from one state to appear in another.

No, the gap is real. I don't want to repeat myself. Please read the bold part and let me know what it implements.

Just a gap in time between the two observed states. It is most likely that between X and Y there are other states, known as degrees, which not considering observations, are theoretically infinite. So your "gap" is actually filled with other states, and when you want to point to a gap between them, you will have to resort to observations in time.

The reality is discrete. I discuss this here.

A set or a succession of discrete units can make a discrete whole, but it is still divided in those smaller, related units, pointing to a continuum or scaled units (degrees).

[Bahman]

No, the gap is real. I don't want to repeat myself. Please read the bold part and let me know what it implements.

Just a gap in time between the two observed states. It is most likely that between X and Y there are other states, known as degrees, which not considering observations, are theoretically infinite. So your "gap" is actually filled with other states, and when you want to point to a gap between them, you will have to resort to observations in time.

The reality is discrete. I discuss this here.

A set or a succession of discrete units can make a discrete whole, but it is still divided in those smaller, related units, pointing to a continuum or scaled units (degrees).

No, you cannot divide a discrete variable.

[Count Lucanor]

Just a gap in time between the two observed states. It is most likely that between X and Y there are other states, known as degrees, which not considering observations, are theoretically infinite. So your "gap" is actually filled with other states, and when you want to point to a gap between them, you will have to resort to observations in time.

The reality is discrete. I discuss this here.

A set or a succession of discrete units can make a discrete whole, but it is still divided in those smaller, related units, pointing to a continuum or scaled units (degrees).

No, you cannot divide a discrete variable.

I can divide for sure an entity in parts, processes and many things in smaller units. By definition, an entity is countable, and therefore discrete. I can count its identifiable parts as discrete entities themselves.

OTOH, the different states of the same entity can be continuous, and therefore not countable, yet measurable. Continuous states can be measured at different times, producing observations X, Y, Z, etc. The gap between each observation does not imply a gap in the continuous existence in time of the entity.

[Bahman]

The reality is discrete. I discuss this here.

A set or a succession of discrete units can make a discrete whole, but it is still divided in those smaller, related units, pointing to a continuum or scaled units (degrees).

No, you cannot divide a discrete variable.

I can divide for sure an entity in parts, processes and many things in smaller units. By definition, an entity is countable, and therefore discrete. I can count its identifiable parts as discrete entities themselves.

OTOH, the different states of the same entity can be continuous, and therefore not countable, yet measurable. Continuous states can be measured at different times, producing observations X, Y, Z, etc. The gap between each observation does not imply a gap in the continuous existence in time of the entity.

I argued that the continuum does not exist in another thread. This applies to any substance including time.

[Count Lucanor]

A set or a succession of discrete units can make a discrete whole, but it is still divided in those smaller, related units, pointing to a continuum or scaled units (degrees).

No, you cannot divide a discrete variable.

I can divide for sure an entity in parts, processes and many things in smaller units. By definition, an entity is countable, and therefore discrete. I can count its identifiable parts as discrete entities themselves.

OTOH, the different states of the same entity can be continuous, and therefore not countable, yet measurable. Continuous states can be measured at different times, producing observations X, Y, Z, etc. The gap between each observation does not imply a gap in the continuous existence in time of the entity.

I argued that the continuum does not exist in another thread. This applies to any substance including time.

But that argument is quite a mess. Its first premise is a false dilemma fallacy: non-zero is not one instance of measurement, but a wide range that includes many possible measurements: a set of all the positive real numbers. That's quite a range and the variable is not discrete, but continuous, contrary to your statement. Even worst: if you were to consider the first element in your false dilemma, a distance of zero between A and B actually cancels the possibility of existence of any distance altogether. It is not an option to start with.

[Bahman]

No, you cannot divide a discrete variable.

I can divide for sure an entity in parts, processes and many things in smaller units. By definition, an entity is countable, and therefore discrete. I can count its identifiable parts as discrete entities themselves.

OTOH, the different states of the same entity can be continuous, and therefore not countable, yet measurable. Continuous states can be measured at different times, producing observations X, Y, Z, etc. The gap between each observation does not imply a gap in the continuous existence in time of the entity.

I argued that the continuum does not exist in another thread. This applies to any substance including time.

But that argument is quite a mess. Its first premise is a false dilemma fallacy: non-zero is not one instance of measurement, but a wide range that includes many possible measurements: a set of all the positive real numbers. That's quite a range and the variable is not discrete, but continuous, contrary to your statement. Even worst: if you were to consider the first element in your false dilemma, a distance of zero between A and B actually cancels the possibility of existence of any distance altogether. It is not an option to start with.

I am not interested in measurement. I am saying that the distance between two consecutive points is either zero or non-zero. There is no other option.

[Count Lucanor]

I can divide for sure an entity in parts, processes and many things in smaller units. By definition, an entity is countable, and therefore discrete. I can count its identifiable parts as discrete entities themselves.

OTOH, the different states of the same entity can be continuous, and therefore not countable, yet measurable. Continuous states can be measured at different times, producing observations X, Y, Z, etc. The gap between each observation does not imply a gap in the continuous existence in time of the entity.

I argued that the continuum does not exist in another thread. This applies to any substance including time.

But that argument is quite a mess. Its first premise is a false dilemma fallacy: non-zero is not one instance of measurement, but a wide range that includes many possible measurements: a set of all the positive real numbers. That's quite a range and the variable is not discrete, but continuous, contrary to your statement. Even worst: if you were to consider the first element in your false dilemma, a distance of zero between A and B actually cancels the possibility of existence of any distance altogether. It is not an option to start with.

I am not interested in measurement. I am saying that the distance between two consecutive points is either zero or non-zero. There is no other option.

Those are false options, as I just explained.

If you are talking variables, if you are quantifying distance, you are interested in measurement.