Your premise is that time is change. So "was" in the sense of "past time" is meaningless by that premise — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think you need a notion of "past change" in order to hold that when you change 1)A to B, 2)B to A and then 3) A to B again 1) is not identical to 3), unless the state you change is the state of the entire universe. Because under that condition, — Echarmion
Because under that condition, 1) happens in a different universe from 3), and so the full descriptions of the states would not be identical. If you did change the entire state of the universe, then you would time travel, but since this presumably includes your internal state, you wouldn't notice. — Echarmion
That comment simply makes no sense. I'm not saying anything like "There is no time." I'm in no way eliminating time. There is time. I'm simply saying what time is ontologically. Time is change. Past time is changes that have happened.
You completely ignored the entire content of the post explaining the issues by the way. — Terrapin Station
Would your premise be something like "If time isn't different than change/motion, then there would be no difference between motion/changes that are occurring, motion/changes that occurred, and motion/changes that have yet to occur"?
If that's your premise, you'd have to explain how you arrived at it, as it makes no sense to me. — Terrapin Station
I don't see where you get the premise that it would be a different universe. Anyway, "A changes to B" means the same thing as "A changes to B", and whatever universe your referring to is irrelevant unless you allow for violation of the law of identity.. — Metaphysician Undercover
1) and 3) are identical unless "A changes to B" does not mean the same thing as "A changes to B". But that would be nonsense if it didn't. — Metaphysician Undercover
then how do we differentiate between changes which have already happened and changes which have not yet happened? — Metaphysician Undercover
No two instances of something are actually identical. (I'm a nominalist.) — Terrapin Station
You just said the difference. Changes that happened are different than changes that haven't happened. One thing happened. One has not. (And a third option is that it's a change that's happening.) — Terrapin Station
And size is not something different than an object, either. — Terrapin Station
OK, but if there is a difference between changes which have happened and changes which have not yet happened, then this is a temporal difference. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not denying temporal differences, so pointing out that I'm specifying temporal differences isn't an argument against what I'm saying, it's a feature of what I'm saying. Yes, those are temporal differences. That's the whole point. — Terrapin Station
Let's try it this way: could you have a change or motion if one "thing" didn't happen after another "thing"? — Terrapin Station
So let's try it this way. Could time pass without any change occurring? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, of course not. And obviously I'd say that if I'm saying that time and change are identical. — Terrapin Station
Of course. "Changes that haven't happened yet change into changes that already happened" is incoherent, isn't it? — Terrapin Station
according to what the physicists have determined. — Metaphysician Undercover
I explained what I meant. Now you're just changing the subject because you have no defense for your assertion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can we proceed to the justification of your assertion, that time is change? — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry to jump in on this discussion, but you contradict yourself. Physicists have determined no such thing, especially since this would violate conservation laws.Imagine a very short period of time, Planck length or shorter. Physicists have determined that no physical change can occur in a shorter period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
You quote the definition, which is about measurable interval, and yet above you claim that no change takes place in that interval. It simply does not follow that something doesn't exist (small change) just because it cannot be measured.Wikipedia:
"The Planck time is by many physicists considered to be the shortest possible measurable time interval; however, this is still a matter of debate." — Metaphysician Undercover
don't know what nonphysical anything would be. But who knows what you'd claim, and you specified physical change, as if there might be some other sort of change. — Terrapin Station
Okay, so you're using the word "pass" to refer to an absence of change? Could you explain that sense of "pass," as I'm unfamiliar with it. — Terrapin Station
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.