Sure it is. Say you have a universe with just one item, a number of the form x:yz (Say that it just appears in the manner of a digital display floating in a vacuum) — Terrapin Station

Now you've assume a universe. That universe is the principle of continuity, the thing that remains the same throughout the change. First it was "the clock" that provided the continuity. Then you replaced "the clock" with "the clock face". Now you've replaced "the clock face" with "a universe". Why don't you just face the facts, and accept the reality that the concept of "change" requires that there is something which stays the same, a principle of continuity? Change only occurs relative to something which stays the same. Without that something which stays the same you simply have two distinct states, and not change.

If 9:31 is the number, then it disappears and 9:32 appears instead, that's a change, even if the two numbers have no causal connection whatsoever. — Terrapin Station

Causal relationship is irrelevant, although cause/effect, implying a temporal continuity may sometimes be cited as the continuity which the change is relative to.

Look what you've done here though. 9:31 disappears, then 9:32 appears. You have divided the change into two changes. Wasn't the point you were arguing that a change is indivisible? But let's assume that a change is like this, the prior thing disappears, and is replaced by the later thing. Wouldn't this imply that there is a time when there is nothing, when the 9:31 disappears? Surely a change is not really like this. At the point when 9:31 disappears, there must be something going on, and that something must be producing the 9:32.

That universe is the principle of continuity, the thing that remains the same throughout the change. — Metaphysician Undercover

The universe in the thought experiment doesn't exist aside from the number.

The universe doesn't exist aside from which number, 9:31 or 9:32? If the universe disappears when 9:31 disappears, then there is nothing. Where does 9:32 come from if there is nothing? If the universe exists for both 9:31 and 9:32, then it is that thing which stays the same, which I've been trying to explain to you, is a necessary aspect of the concept of change. Without the universe in the thought experiment, there is no change, only two distinct numbers, 9:31 and 9:32.

The universe doesn't exist aside from which number, 9:31 or 9:32? If the universe disappears when 9:31 disappears, then there is nothing. Where does 9:32 come from if there is nothing? I — Metaphysician Undercover

Aside from 9:31, which disappears,then 9:32 instantaneously appears in its place instead. "Where it comes from" is irrelevant in this thought experiment. It instantaneously appears in place of 9:31, which disappeared. There's no causal etc. connection between them.

Again there isn't something that exists (a universe) aside from the number and only the number in this thought experiment. The numbers are identical to the universes in question.

Aside from 9:31, which disappears,then 9:32 instantaneously appears in its place instead. "Where it comes from" is irrelevant in this thought experiment. It instantaneously appears in place of 9:31, which disappeared. There's no causal etc. connection between them. — Terrapin Station

Now you are describing a temporal continuity with the word "instantaneously". With the use of that word, you have referenced the passing of time, and the passing of time is now that thing which bridges the gap between 9:31 and 9:32. The passing of time is the same for 9:31 and for 9:32.

We only have a "change" described here because you are relating 9:31 and 9:32 to the passing of time. If you remove your reference to the passing of time, the word "instantaneously", then we have two distinct states, 9:31 and 9:32, and there is no change described.

Now you are describing a temporal continuity — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no time aside from the succession of numbers described. You're thinking of time so that in your view, it's something other than particular changes. That it's instantaneous is just stressing that no other changes occur in between the two events. You keep wanting to add stuff to our universe(s)--you're making the universe something other than the number in question, you're making time something other than the change in question, etc. In this thought experiment, at least, nothing exists except for one number, which disappears, and then a different number, which appears acausally.

There's no time aside from the succession of numbers described. — Terrapin Station

What did "instantaneously" mean in you thought experiment then? Let's just remove it, because it's redundant according to what you are now asserting. We need to remove "succession" as well, because it has the temporal referent of before and after. So, we have two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31. I don't see any change here, just two distinct numbers. Do you agree?

You're thinking of time so that in your view, it's something other than particular changes. — Terrapin Station

I'm only thinking of time because you used the word "instantaneously" two times in your short post. And clearly "instantaneously" refers to an extremely short period of time. So I am only thinking of time because you mentioned time. Now you use "succession", so you again refer to time. If you don't want me to think of time, then don't refer to time.

That it's instantaneous is just stressing that no other changes occur in between the two events. — Terrapin Station

Of course no other changes occurred, because it's already been stipulated that these two numbers are all that exist. Let's just remove "instantaneous", and "succession", so that I am not tempted to think that it refers to time, when you are asserting that these terms really are redundant, they refer to nothing other than what you've already said.

You keep wanting to add stuff to our universe(s)--you're making the universe something other than the number in question, you're making time something other than the change in question, etc. In this thought experiment, at least, nothing exists except for one number, which disappears, and then a different number, which appears acausally. — Terrapin Station

I'm not the one adding stuff, you clearly used the word "instantaneously" twice in that post. now you've replaced it with "succession". Since the conventional use of these words imply a temporal referent, it is you who adds "time" to your thought experiment, not I. How was I to know that what you really mean is something totally unconventional?

So, are we now in agreement? We remove "instantaneously" because it is redundant. The impossibility of any other change has already been stipulated. We remove "succession" because it implies before and after, time. All we have is two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31. Do you agree with me, that all we have is two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31? There is no change being described here.

So, we have two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31. I don't see any change here, — Metaphysician Undercover

If there's one thing and then something else replaces it, that's not a change?

I was simply observing that it is impossible to conceive of a universe with just one item. 'One' depends on there being 'more than one'. — Wayfarer

How so?

In reference to the further comments, of course it's impossible to observe anything if you're absent.
You mean you can't imagine something you're not observing?
That seems a bit like incredulity.

I was simply observing that it is impossible to conceive of a universe with just one item. 'One' depends on there being 'more than one'.
— Wayfarer

How so? — jorndoe

What actual entity is a simple unity? Objects themselves are always composite. 'The atom' was supposed to be a simple entity, but atoms in that sense don't exist, they're ideal objects rather than real things.

The only point at which the Universe could be thought of as a unity would be the aptly-named 'singularity' but as I understand it, at the point of the singularity, there was no Universe.

If there's one thing and then something else replaces it, that's not a change? — Terrapin Station

Sure , but "then" in this context is referring to a temporal succession, so you have still assumed the passing of time. You have only replaced "succession" with "then". You only have "change" by referring to this other thing, the passing of time. Remove that temporal reference, and you have one thing, 9:31, and you have another thing, 9:32, but you have no change.

And clearly time is not the same thing as change in your example, because "then" is implying after, or later, it is not implying that 9:31 is changing into 9:32. "Then" refers to something other than the change, it refers to later.

@Wayfarer, I was thinking in terms of ontological self-identity, consistency.
Your 'one' doesn't seem contradictory to me, not "impossible to conceive".
But if you're thinking physics, well, then who knows, things are a lot more complicated, and I'd tend to agree (though something like a photon seems indivisible, in a manner of speaking).
Was that what you meant by "impossible to conceive"?

'imagining a universe with a single thing' seems literally impossible to me. Even the concept of 'in' requires a distinction or a duality - the area or space in which 'the thing' resides, and the space it resides 'in'. And then you already have 'more than one', namely, the entity, and the space it occupies. You have edges, boundaries, and sides. For this reason it is simply an empirical and logical impossibility that there could be a universe comprising a single entity.

Right, so on your view, 9:31 obtains, it disappears and 9:32 obtains in its place--that's not a change?

'imagining a universe with a single thing' seems literally impossible to me. Even the concept of 'in' requires a distinction or a duality - the area or space in which 'the thing' resides, and the space it resides 'in'. And then you already have 'more than one', namely, the entity, and the space it occupies. You have edges, boundaries, and sides. For this reason it is simply an empirical and logical impossibility that there could be a universe comprising a single entity. — Wayfarer

On my view, and this is no thought experiment, space isn't something separate from particular existents. Space isn't something existents are "in." It's those existents' extensions and their extensional relations to each other.

It's those existents' extensions and their extensional relations to each other. — Terrapin Station

But in a 'universe of one thing', how can there be any relations?

Right, so on your view, 9:31 obtains, it disappears and 9:32 obtains in its place--that's not a change? — Terrapin Station

Yes on my view that could be called a change, because you've referred to a succession. Therefore it is implied by what you say, that there is something distinct from 9:31 and distinct from 9:32 causing, or allowing, the one to disappear and the other to appear. The point is that without this distinct third thing there is no change. If you proceed to deny the third thing, then I will insist that there is no change, and you speak in deceptive terms, terms which do not represent what you mean.

Yes on my view that could be called a change, because you've referred to a succession. Therefore it is implied by what you say, that there is something distinct from 9:31 and distinct from 9:32 causing, or allowing, the one to disappear and the other to appear. The point is that without this distinct third thing there is no change. If you proceed to deny the third thing, then I will insist that there is no change, and you speak in deceptive terms, terms which do not represent what you mean. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. so it's not a change on your view, because we specified that there is no third thing, that it's acausal, etc. I just want to confirm that on your view, it's not a change. Would you say that 9:31 to 9:32 is the same then?

'imagining a universe with a single thing' seems literally impossible to me. Even the concept of 'in' requires a distinction or a duality - the area or space in which 'the thing' resides, and the space it resides 'in'. And then you already have 'more than one', namely, the entity, and the space it occupies. You have edges, boundaries, and sides. For this reason it is simply an empirical and logical impossibility that there could be a universe comprising a single entity. — Wayfarer

Would it be easier to imagine a universe with only one thing if that one thing were a simple, point-like object, with no spatial extension or internal structure? That would negate any problem with whether edges, boundaries, etc constitute "things" in their own right.

But in a 'universe of one thing', how can there be any relations? — Wayfarer

Things stand in certain (reflexive) relations to themselves. For instance, everything is identical to itself; identity is a relation.

But in a 'universe of one thing', how can there be any relations? — Wayfarer

When a response begins with "On my view, and this is no thought experiment, space isn't . . ." it should clue you in to the fact that I'm not talking about the thought experiment at hand--I'm rather making a general statement about what space is.

A given thought experiment might present a completely different view of space. I'm not saying that the thought experiment I presented was doing that, but as a thought experiment, that's certainly something it could do. Thought experiments present fictions.

Obviously a universe with just one item won't contain extensional relations between different items, but it will contain extension re the one item that obtains. That would exhaust that universe's space.

@Wayfarer, anything other than endless 3-dimensional space is difficult to imagine for a universe, isn't it? :) A simpleton universe could just be 'one' "thing" in it's entirety (indivisible, changeless, no green trees however much I like those, etc). As far as consistency goes, that seems fine (to me at least); as far as contemporary physics goes, who knows.

it is simply an empirical and logical impossibility that there could be a universe comprising a single entity — Wayfarer

Logical impossibility isn't implied. Can you derive a contradiction?

As an aside

in the absence of observers, our universe is dead — Davies

Notice that Davies does in fact presuppose (imagine?) an unobserved universe here, namely a "dead" one, by his own words. But Davies is writing about our universe, with us and lovely green trees in it, and a hypothetical "theory of everything" thereof.

Right. so it's not a change on your view, because we specified that there is no third thing, that it's acausal, etc. I just want to confirm that on your view, it's not a change. Would you say that 9:31 to 9:32 is the same then? — Terrapin Station

There is definitely a third thing involved, according to your description. This is the perspective from which 9:31 and 9:32 disappear and appear. As I said before, if 9:31 disappeared absolutely, then there would be absolutely nothing left. And it's nonsense to think that 9:32 could come into existence from absolutely nothing.

If it is stipulated that there is not a third thing involved, then yes 9:31 is the same thing as 9:32 because there is nothing to differentiate between them. But that's why the concept of "change" requires that third thing which the change is relative to, without that third thing, the changing world is illogical, unintelligible. Without the third thing, change cannot be apprehended with logic and that's why the third thing it is an essential aspect of the concept of change.

I really do not understand your attitude of resistance. Change is not a simple concept, it is a very complex concept which philosophers have worked on for thousands of years. Instead of trying to understand the concept of change, you insistently resist any attempt to understand it. Why?

As I said before, if 9:31 disappeared absolutely, then there would be absolutely nothing left. And it's nonsense to think that 9:32 could come into existence from absolutely nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe that's nonsense at all, and not just per a thought experiment. I don't buy the notion that everything must have a cause.

I'm not talking about cause, I'm talking about coming into existence. Do you believe that something can come from nothing? How would you make sense of that? Suppose there is absolutely nothing. How could something come into existence?

Suppose there is absolutely nothing. How could something come into existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess, in that case there couldn't have been anything preventing it either?

Suppose there is absolutely nothing. How could something come into existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

How is that not asking for a cause? You're asking what the mechanism would be, what would trigger it, etc.

How is that not asking for a cause? You're asking what the mechanism would be, what would trigger it, etc. — Terrapin Station

Interpret it as "cause" if you want. But a cause is not necessarily a mechanism, so I'm not necessarily asking for a mechanism. The free will is said to be an immaterial cause it is not a mechanism, it sets the mechanism into motion. But even with willing, it is not a case of something coming from absolutely nothing because the immaterial soul is not nothing.

Do you presume that something could come from absolutely nothing? If so, please explicate. Anyone can claim to believe any sort of absurdity, but without an explanation it is hard to believe that the person really believes what is claimed. You've already claimed to believe that change could happen which was not relative to something else, but I've demonstrated that this is not "change" according to how "change" is normally conceptualized. So it appears like your absurd looking beliefs are actually a case of changing the concepts which the words refer to, thus making your belief appear to be absurd. Do you really hold such an absurd belief, or can you explain it?

The question was "How is that not asking for a cause?"

You didn't answer that.

I said call it a cause if you want. What difference does it make? Can you explain something coming into existence without a cause?

I had already written, "I don't buy the notion that everything must have a cause." So yes, there's no reason to believe that something can't come into existence without a cause.