Motion is an inevitable consequence of the geometry of 4D objects. — Kenosha Kid
Things change in space with respect to time. — Pfhorrest
3D object move in three dimensions OVER a fourth (time). They’re not moving THROUGH a fourth — Pfhorrest
car travelling from point A to point B. But let's say that the car is already at point A and at point B simultaneously, with the same car also at every point in between. You wouldn't then say that the car could move from point A to point B, would you? — Luke
A real car moves from spatial point A to spatial point B over time. It's not at both points at the same time: — Pfhorrest
In order for something to move through time, there must be some hyper-time for that motion to occur over. — Pfhorrest
No, this "hyper-time" would be required for the 4D object to move through, but we are talking about a 3D object (potentially) moving through/over the fourth dimension of time. — Luke
Every kind of motion is through one dimension over another dimension. — Pfhorrest
If you want to be a stickler for that sort of usage, then fine. Take any of my former uses of these words to mean the same thing. — Luke
Only if you assume it is. — Luke
I don't, you do. (2) is meaningless garbage you insist upon to hold onto a conclusion you clearly do not understand but for some reason desperately need.2. 'Change in temporal position' means the object does not move from t to t' (there is no motion)
...
You need to explain how 3 can make sense. — Luke
It's a direct consequence of its kinematic definition: dx/dt. — Kenosha Kid
Again, only if you assume motion in the first place. Otherwise there is no change. Which is what you keep saying. — Luke
I guess you're not going to address this question then:
Namely, how does {change in temporal position from t to t'} not mean exactly the same thing as {the object has moved from t to t'}?
— Luke — Luke
In translating phenomena from an eternalist viewpoint to that of subjective experience — Kenosha Kid
I'm just asking you to explain the difference between {change in temporal position from t to t'} and {the object has moved from t to t'}. — Luke
Because motion in 4D is not given by a time duration, it is given by the geometry of the 4D object over that time duration. If the 3D position of the object varies, it is moving. If it does not, it is not. — Kenosha Kid
If the 3D position of the object changes ("varies") from t to t', then it moves from t to t'. — Luke
However, you continually deny that the 3D position of the object changes from t to t', — Luke
No. It moves from position to position. In classical kinematics, a body at rest is not said to move from t to t'. — Kenosha Kid
No, I attest that it does, i.e. its position is time-dependent. I deny that this necessitates something moving from t to t' in order to do so. — Kenosha Kid
But in order for it to move, it needs to change both spatial and temporal position. — Luke
A moving body's position changes with respect to time: that is the very gradient that tells us it is moving. — Kenosha Kid
As I understand it then, according to 4D geometry, a 3D body changes spatial position with respect to temporal position only, but it does not actually change either spatial or temporal position. And despite not actually changing either spatial or temporal position, the 3D body still moves (or there "is" motion). Have I understood that correctly? — Luke
Have I understood that correctly?
— Luke
Not completely. The gradient in 4D may be with respect to other spatial dimensions just as it can in 3D. — Kenosha Kid
However, your position is that a 3D body moves without changing either its spatial or its temporal position. That's quite a magic trick! — Luke
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.