What is a property?

The usual answer is that it is an attribute or characteristic of some individual; an individual being a thing we might name. Hence the common logical notation f(a), were 'f' is a predicate or property and 'a' is an individual.

Change, then, is simply what occurs when a property true of some individual is no longer true of that individual.

Space, and time, is involved only incidentally.

So the answer to your question is that while properties might change, change is not a property.

The other thread on change makes the same logical error.

Change, then, is simply what occurs when a property true of some individual is no longer true of that individual. — Banno

change is not a property. — Banno

I think I understand. But let me ask you something: an individual must occupy some sort of space (an individual must necessarily be different from whatever it is that contains it to be categorized as such - it must differ from its "background", or it must be discernible from it); if individuals are contained within a space and properties are features of individuals, could we conclude that properties are features of space and not of individuals, the latter being a property of space itself?

The thing is that properties of objects are spatial. You may try to highlight a property, but it includes space, you can't take it out.

Changes can occur in the object, or in the perceiving subject. It depends on each specific circumstance.

an individual must occupy some sort of space — Daniel

In positing this you are restricting your discussion to physical individuals.

• What space is occupied by your Mortgage?
• What space is occupied by Philosophy forums?
• What space is occupied by three hundred?

That is, there are other sorts of individuals besides physical objects.

So suppose we take on that restriction, confining ourselves to physical individuals. Must it be the case that these individuals be discernible? There are various problems with this view - see The Identity of Indiscernibles. That this principle holds is at least arguably not the case.

But beyond that, whether you consider being at points (a,b,c) in space a property of an object or prefer to consider having an object at point (a,b,c) a property of space seems to be just two ways of saying the very same thing.

In either case, change is not a property, so much as what properties sometimes do.

The thing is that properties of objects are spatial. — Manuel

Why would you think that?

Being the Capital of France does not seem to be a spacial property of Paris. It's not hard to think up other examples.

Paris is spatial. So is the sentence. You can't say "Capital of France" absent space. You need a world with people who speak to each other and can understand such things as "the Capital of France".

Another issue is if you want to say that the Capital of France is a property, as opposed to a fact.

Paris is spatial. — Manuel

Sure. But your claim demands that being the Capital of France is spacial. So if Orleans became the Capital, it would presumably have to move to where Paris is.

The thing is that properties of objects are spatial. — Manuel

No, they don't. Being half of six is a property of three. What space does "half of six" occupy? Being the third letter of the alphabet of a property of "c". What space does "being third in the alphabet" occupy? The loaf of bread cost $2.00. What space does "costing $2.00" occupy?

Philosophical mistakes occur when one considers only a limited set of examples. Look for more counterexamples yourself.

If there exist individuals that do not occupy a space, how can they be differentiable? How do you separate an individual that does not occupy a space from another individual that does not occupy a space?

If there exist individuals that do not occupy a space, how can they be differentiable? — Daniel

How do we tell my mortgage from yours? The money in my account from the money in your account? Not all properties are physical.

If there exist individuals that do not occupy a space, how can they be differentiable? How do you separate an individual that does not occupy a space from another individual that does not occupy a space? — Daniel

by time.

What space does "being third in the alphabet" occupy? — Banno

the space between B and D.

:smile:

Space and time seem to be the subjective expression, by means of perception, of a real feature of objects. The space between them and the variations thereof, constitute change. Objects need space and time to interact. Space is a means for objects to interact. Without space no change (time), without change no interaction.

by time. — Arne

Why would this not be the same individual, extended in time?

I'm facing problems treating change as a property. As far as I know, change is defined in terms of properties: an apple is green at one time, red at another time (color is a property) and this is called change (in color).

To ask whether change is a property (of space, objects, or anything else for that matter) is like asking whether paying is money? Paying is what happens to the money and itself can't be money.

Is change a property of space, objects, or both?

Neither it seems to me. I think both "space" and "objects" are "properties" (i.e. events) of change (i.e. advent) just as currents, eddies, ripples, waves, whirlpools are emergent aspects of running rivers.

Why would this not be the same individual, extended in time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because my answer was to the simple and general question of how to differentiate entities not in space. .

Someone other than I postulated a mortgage as an example of an entity that is not in space.

After that, someone other than I asked how would you differentiate entities not in space.

And it occurred to me that if we accept for the sake of discussion that mortgages are not in space, we can differentiate them by the order in which they are created, i.e., we could differentiate them by time. That is why we call one mortgage the first mortgage and the other mortgage the second mortgage.

And I suppose there are methods in addition to time such as by reference to other entities that may or may not be in space. For example, this mortgage was taken out by Bob who lives down the street while that mortgage was taken out by Sylvia who is now deceased.

Simply put, if we accept for the sake of discussion that there are entities not in space, then time is one method by which we can differentiate them.

But this raises an additional and perhaps more fundamental issue, i.e., even if we accept for the sake of discussion that there are entities not in space, do they not necessarily refer to an entity that is or once was in space?

Anyone?

I think both space and objects are properties (i.e. events) of change — 180 Proof

An entity having necessary properties cannot exist independent of its necessary properties and properties have no existence independent of that of which they are a property. So your formulation suggests that there can be no change in the absence of space and objects. And if we accept for the sake of discussion that change necessarily implies (and may be synonymous with) time, then there can be space and no objects and no change in the absence of time.

So in the end, isn't it likely that space, objects, and time are all necessary properties of each other and none of them can exist independent of the others? Perhaps that is why Einstein called it the space/time continuum rather than the space and the time continua?

Simply put, I think you are 2/3rds right.

I'm facing problems treating change as a property. — Agent Smith

If we accept for the sake of discussion that some entities have necessary properties, then an entity with necessary properties cannot exist in the absence of a necessary property.

If we accept for the sake of discussion that some entities must change, then why wouldn't change be a necessary property of such entities?

Is it possible for change to be an entity having properties in some situations and to be a property of an entity in other situations?

We are so binary.

Someone other than I postulated a mortgage as an example of an entity that is not in space. — Arne

The mortgage example is not good, it's just a ruse. Numerals have spatial presence, along with the other stated conditions of a mortgage. If we couldn't refer to the numerals and the conditions somewhere, no one would ever know how much anyone owed, and we wouldn't have to pay our mortgages. So that's just wishful thinking, but not reality.

And it occurred to me that if we accept for the sake of discussion that mortgages are not in space, we can differentiate them by the order in which they are created, i.e., we could differentiate them by time. — Arne

If there is not any spatial difference between them, they would all appear to be exactly the same. So how would you be able to say when one or another got created? If there was one in existence, it would just seem like there was still one in existence, because you'd never be able to observe any change, no matter how many, and how often new ones were supposedly created.

Simply put, if we accept for the sake of discussion that there are entities not in space, then time is one method by which we can differentiate them. — Arne

I don't think we should accept such a proposal without some sort of demonstration as to how such proposed entities could exist. Banno is prone to making assertions, then refusing to justify them, so you ought to take this suggestion with a grain of salt.

But this raises an additional and perhaps more fundamental issue, i.e., even if we accept for the sake of discussion that there are entities not in space, do they not necessarily refer to an entity that is or once was in space? — Arne

I don't think it's very useful to "accept for the sake of discussion" a phrase which no one has any real understand of what it means. "Entities not in space" is such a phrase. Banno's examples refer to things whose spatial presence is difficult to describe, being very complex, not things which do not occupy some space. It is the approach of a lazy, unphilosophical mind, to simply assume that these things have no spatial presence, just because their spatial existence is difficult to understand.

Change is what happens to properties. Yes, that's what I wanted to say from the very beginning. As far as I can see, change isn't a property.

However, I've heard of things being described as changeless as if it were a property e.g. God's described as unalterable but this pertains to the properties of God.

Coming to space and objects, we would have to check if the properties of space remain constant over time to come to any conclusion regarding whether they're changeless or not.

Change is what happens to properties. Yes, that's what I wanted to say from the very beginning. As far as I can see, change isn't a property. — Agent Smith

That's not really true AS. Change is what happens to the thing. The thing either has or does not have the property, and in the time between it is changing. The property cannot change, or it would not be that property. It is, by definition, the stated property and there is no possibility of a changing property. Change is what happens to the thing in between having, and not having, the stated property.

I have been trying to observe the world and its contents through the lenses of material continuity as of lately. Asking myself: What lasts the longest? What can I have that I will have for a long period of time?

This comes concurrent with what I own as a human being... part of an economy. I think its very important to ask yourself what things can I have of what value and for how long? The answers so far that I have come to acknowledge is that "physical properties" as in land, houses, or cars, are probably the most valuable and have the highest potential of being changeless.

One modern philosopher said, if you don't own property you don't have much at all.

Its very relevant from a personal view-point to see things and their continuity (in space).

I'd also like to add that physics started out as the "method of calculating change." There is something to that when applied. Things change, and you have to focus in on them, to view their place in space-time, having a past, present, and future. All things are cut into those time dimensions.

I don't think it's very useful to "accept for the sake of discussion" a phra — Metaphysician Undercover

"If we accept for the sake of discussion" is used in place of "if".

And I use it because I am tired of having to point out that "if" indicates that I do not necessarily agree with what follows but that I would nonetheless like to discuss its implications in the event it is true. I guess I was spoiled by the Philosophy Department's universal acceptance and understanding of the conditional nature of "if".

As for the rest of my post, I was clear that I was working with the examples and questions as already given by others. Perhaps your criticisms of their examples could be addressed to them? I am sure they would appreciate them as least as much as I. Though perhaps you could spare them the ad hominems.

But thank you for taking the time.

That's not really true AS. Change is what happens to the thing. The thing either has or does not have the property, and in the time between it is changing. The property cannot change, or it would not be that property. It is, by definition, the stated property and there is no possibility of a changing property. Change is what happens to the thing in between having, and not having, the stated property. — Metaphysician Undercover

Asfar as I'm concerned change happens to properties (colors, shapes, temperature, weight, etc.)

Numerals have spatial presence — Metaphysician Undercover

Numerals are symbols and as such they are especially useful when that for which they stand has no spatial existence.

If you would have spent a tad more time reading the last full paragraph of the comment you clearly spent a significant amount of time criticizing, you would see that I already addressed the possibility that even if we accept for sake of discussion that there are non-spatial entities, wouldn't they necessarily have to refer to an entity that is or was a spatial entity.

And if you choose not to accept for the sake of discussion, then we have nothing to discuss. And I good with that.

Asfar as I'm concerned change happens to properties (colors, shapes, temperature, weight, etc.) — Agent Smith

Insofar as an entity must have mass, then mass is a property of that entity.

Insofar as an entity must change, then change is a necessary property of that entity.

Your concerns notwithstanding, there is no way out.

Asfar as I'm concerned change happens to properties (colors, shapes, temperature, weight, etc.) — Agent Smith

"Color" does not refer to a property, nor does "shape", "temperature", or "weight". Otherwise red and green would be the same property, round and square would be the same property, hot and cold would be the same property, and 5 kg and 100 kg would also be the same property. Surely you've got something confused AS.

Numerals are symbols and as such they are especially useful when that for which they stand has no spatial existence. — Arne

Call me daft if you want Arne, but you'll have to explain this to me. In my usage 2 stands for two distinct things with spatial separation between them, and 3 stands for three spatially separated things, etc.. Therefore, contrary to what you say, numerals seem especially useful when they refer to things with spatial existence. And I really don't see how they would be at all useful (except for the purpose of deception) to refer to things without spatial existence, i.e. fictitious things.

If you would have spent a tad more time reading the last full paragraph of the comment you clearly spent a significant amount of time criticizing, you would see that I already addressed the possibility that even if we accept for sake of discussion that there are non-spatial entities, wouldn't they necessarily have to refer to an entity that is or was a spatial entity. — Arne

As I said, I see no point in accepting for the sake of discussion that "there are non-spatial entities", until someone can explain in a reasonable way exactly what a "non-spatial entity" could be. It's one thing to accept the possibility of non-spatial entities, and then move to discuss what a non-spatial entity might be, but it's a completely different thing to accept that there are non-spatial entities, when no one has made it clear how an "entity" could be non-spatial.

"Color" does not refer to a property, nor does "shape", "temperature", or "weight". Otherwise red and green would be the same property, round and square would be the same property, hot and cold would be the same property, and 5 kg and 100 kg would also be the same property. Surely you've got something confused AS. — Metaphysician Undercover

Color: Red, Green, etc.
Shape: Circle, Rectangle, Triangle, etc.

Classes of of properties (shape, color) and individual properties (red, green, circle, rectangle, etc.).

I'm not saying anything new here.

change is a necessary property of that entity. — Arne

Change is a property, ok! Taking a page out of Buddhism, things are transient/ephemeral.

I'm not saying anything new here. — Agent Smith

If you say that color is a property, then when something changes from being green to being red, it still has the same property, color. So you assert change is a property, because for you a property is something which changes. But if green and red are distinct properties, then when something changes from green to red, the change is not a part of either of these properties, and change is not a property.