I think that you cannot truthfully state that a change has taken place unless that change has been measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another fallacious mistake. I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that.

I'm not positing nonphysical change. I'd say the idea of nonphysical anything is incoherent. I'm a physicalist and a nominalist who rejects that there are any real abstracts.

I have the same problem with "proceed." You'd have to explain how we could have something proceed without changing.

Another fallacious mistake. I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that. — noAxioms

I was not asserting that. I've been saying that time is not change. It's Terrapin's assumption, that time is change, which leads to the conclusion that change which cannot be measured has occurred.

I have the same problem with "proceed." You'd have to explain how we could have something proceed without changing. — Terrapin Station

As per my explanation, time may pass, or "proceeds" without any physical change. That was my explanation. Don't create the illusion of circular reasoning by asking me to repeat the explanation I've already made. Remember when I made the explanation, you had difficulty distinguishing between the part of the explanation which I said physicists had demonstrated and the part which was my conception.

You just won't accept my explanation because you refuse to consider the possibility of proceeding without change, even though I explained it as time passing without change. If this is too difficult for you, then let's consider the possibility of non-physical change. Then we might create compatibility between you assertion "time is change", and my description of something (time) proceeding without any physical change. What do you think, will this make "non-physical change" coherent, if we say that time is change, yet we allow that time can pass without physical change occurring?

Isn't the idea of essential phenomenal change nonsense rather than true of false?

To say "phenomena is always changing" is to assume the meaning of "phenomena could be still". But what exactly is a still experience? For i've never had an intrinsically still experience. Whenever I have ordinarily declared that everything is still, is in relation to performing a task during which I observed things were changing, but not in a way considered important to the task.

So if 'still phenomena' is logically impossible, then to assert the opposite that phenomena is changing is meaningless if interpreted to be an essential statement of experience.

As per my explanation, time may pass, or "proceeds" without any physical change — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. That's what you said. The problem is that "pass" and "proceed" are terms that imply change or motion, unless you have some novel definition of them that you'd need to explain for the idea of time not requiring change or motion to make any sense.

I didn't actually specify "physical change" in anything I said, by the way. Just change. So if you want to posit "nonphysical change"--whatever that would be--okay, but it's still change.

One of those "you can't have x if there is none of x's opposite" arguments?

I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that.
— noAxioms

I was not asserting that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair enough. You said physicists have determined that, and they don't claim that.

I've been saying that time is not change

With that I agree. "I changed my political viewpoint after the last election" "How much?" "By just over 2 hours"
Indeed, that makes no sense. Time may require change to be meaningful, but change is not what it is.

With that I agree. "I changed my political viewpoint after the last election" "How much?" "By just over 2 hours" — noAxioms

The claim isn't about how we conventionally use language.

The problem is that "pass" and "proceed" are terms that imply change or motion, unless you have some novel definition of them that you'd need to explain for the idea of time not requiring change or motion to make any sense. — Terrapin Station

Those terms do not necessarily imply change or motion, that's just what your claim is. I've already explained to you how time can pass or proceed without any change or motion. So you simply have a faulty understanding of those terms if you think that they necessarily imply change or motion.

I didn't actually specify "physical change" in anything I said, by the way. Just change. So if you want to posit "nonphysical change"--whatever that would be--okay, but it's still change. — Terrapin Station

I suggested non-physical change as a compromise, a way of resolving our impasse. I would allow that time is a type of change, if you would allow that the type of change which is time is, is non-physical.

Time may require change to be meaningful, but change is not what it is. — noAxioms

That's pretty close to what I've been trying to tell Terrapin, change requires time, but change is not what time is.

I've already explained to you how time can pass or proceed without any change or motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you give a clue re a few words that the explanation started with so that I can look it up again?

Otherwise, re "pass" and "proceed" you'd have to explain the definition you're using that doesn't involve change or motion. And re "nonphysical change" you'd have to explain what that is so that I can make any sense of it.

Can you give a clue re a few words that the explanation started with so that I can look it up again? — Terrapin Station

It's the post where you focused on my claims as to what physicists have determined rather than on the content of the post. Here's the specifics. "Change" and "motion" refer to activities of physical things. As per my explanation in that other post, time can be passing (proceeding) without any change or motion occurring. Therefore "pass" and "proceed" (as in what time does) do not necessarily imply change or motion.

If you want to insist that "pass" and "proceed" (as in what time does) necessarily implies change, then we'll have to allow that "change" doesn't necessarily refer to physical things, and a non-physical thing (time) could change

Otherwise, re "pass" and "proceed" you'd have to explain the definition you're using that doesn't involve change or motion. — Terrapin Station

What kind of nonsense is this? First you asked me to define "pass", so I did with reference to "proceed". Now you want me to define "proceed". I think this will be a never ending (continuous) adventure, as you seem to have difficulty understanding the English language. Nevertheless, I'll oblige you, I mean "proceed" in the sense of "continue".

More consecutive funniness.

Time may require change to be meaningful, but change is not what it is.
— noAxioms

That's pretty close to what I've been trying to tell Terrapin, change requires time, but change is not what time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm contrasting this with what Terrapin quotes immediately after:

I've already explained to you how time can pass or proceed without any change or motion. — Meta

So you loosely agree that time without change is not meaningful, but here you say time can pass without any change.

T-S, You seem to defend a definition of time as change, but complain about common language use, which I was not trying to do. I haven't read all your posts, but perhaps you could point to a post where you explain that if that's what you claim.

So you loosely agree that time without change is not meaningful, but here you say time can pass without any change. — noAxioms

Yes, I wouldn't exactly say that time without change is meaningless. If that were the case there wouldn't be much point to saying it. I would say that for most, if not all practical purposes, such a thing is useless. But as a logical possibility, and an aid toward understanding the nature of temporal reality, I think it's meaningful.

T-S, You seem to defend a definition of time as change, but complain about common language use, which I was not trying to do. I haven't read all your posts, but perhaps you could point to a post where you explain that if that's what you claim. — noAxioms

I'm not clear on your comment.

I'm saying that what time is ontologically is change or motion. That can't be refuted by pointing out that substituting "change" or "motion" for "time" and vice versa in various sentences sounds funny or is ungrammatical, because the argument that "what time is ontologically is change or motion" isn't about language usage, language substitution, etc. It's about the ontological or metaphysical "nature" of time.

OK, but twice as much motion is not twice as much time.
It's like saying that momentum is kinetic energy. An object can't have one without the other, but it doesn't follow that they're ontologically the same thing.
'Change' is better than 'motion', the latter being just a subset of change. The paint on my house fades over time. That's change, but not motion. I can also have change without time: The air gets thinner with altitude: change over altitude vs change over time. Change seems not to be ontologically equivalent to time.

, but twice as much motion is not twice as much time. — noAxioms

What would you mean by "twice as much motion"? I'm not saying that doesn't make sense, but I'm just not sure what would be an example of that.

Re this:

I can also have change without time: The air gets thinner with altitude: — noAxioms

What exactly is changing in that example? The air density at a particular altitude isn't changing, is it? It seems like you're conflating change and comparative difference there. Comparative difference is conceptual, abstract.

Two equal size wheels spinning, and one goes around twice as fast as the other. That seems to be twice the motion (change) in the same time. The one changes by 2 degrees while the other changes by 1 degree, and if change were equivalent to time, the one must take twice the time of the other to do that.

Two equal size wheels spinning, and one goes around twice as fast as the other. That seems to be twice the motion (change) in the same time. — noAxioms

Okay. That makes sense but you're just pointing out that time is relative (in a different sense than the special relativity sense) to whatever we're using as the change for measurement. In other words, "In the same time"=you have to be referring to some set of changes that you're using for the relative measurement. For example, the changes in a clock.

If you were using the wheel that goes around twice as fast as the change for (time) measurement, then it would mean twice as much time.

Normally we try to use changes that seem phenomenally regular to us as the change for (time) measurement, but we wouldn't have to. It just has convenience for us.

One of those "you can't have x if there is none of x's opposite" arguments? — Terrapin Station

Yes, because if y cannot fail to have x, then x is part of what y means .

"Phenomena is always changing" is analogous to "Every rod has a length"

So just has we can eliminate the concept of length by only referring to rods, we can eliminate the concept of change by only referring to phenomena - where "phenomena" means to refer to the world in general.

Yes, because if y cannot fail to have x, then x is part of what y means — sime

I think those arguments are inane. I don't understand the "if y cannot fail to have x" part of your comment, though.

We're also probably not going to agree on what meaning is.

Okay. That makes sense but you're just pointing out that time is relative (in a different sense than the special relativity sense) to whatever we're using as the change for measurement. In other words, "In the same time"=you have to be referring to some set of changes that you're using for the relative measurement. For example, the changes in a clock. — Terrapin Station

Don't understand what you're saying. It doesn't need to be any particular amount of time for the one wheel to change twice as fast as the other. I chose rotation because rotation is absolute, not relative to anything. Sure, there are two wheels and thus there is a relation to them, but I didn't need to specify the relation with time (the RPM of either) to make my point.

I thought of an example of change without meaningful time: I have a universe with an unstable particle. It eventually decays. The time it takes to do that is meaningless.

I have a million such particles, and at some point, x% of them have decayed. Is there any meaning to a half-life of them? Is there meaning to the concept of half-life at all, as distinguishable from just a list of the order in which the million particles decay? The latter is just a numbered list. I don't see how 'time' has any effect on that where it is meaningful to assert that a lot of particles decay at first, but the last ones take much longer between decay events. Maybe the curve is the other way around and the final ones take place 'close together'. There would be no way to distinguish that model from another.

Don't understand what you're saying. It doesn't need to be any particular amount of time for the one wheel to change twice as fast as the other. — noAxioms

Right. You asked if it's twice as much time. The answer is yes, if you're using the faster wheel as the time basis. We always use some changing phenomenon (or phenomena) as our time basis (when we're making measurements like this, which is the context you're presenting). Other changes we measure relative to whatever we've chosen as a measurement changes. Changes are always relative to other changes.

I thought of an example of change without meaningful time: I have a universe with an unstable particle. It eventually decays. The time it takes to do that is meaningless. — noAxioms

Talking about time in the sense of measurement there, if that's all you have in your universe, "the time it takes to decay" is simply whatever unit you apply to the change in question.

Is there any meaning to a half-life of them? — noAxioms

I don't really understand what you're asking there. Because I don't understand how you're using "meaning" really. If you're literally talking about semantics, meaning is subjective. It's a mental act of association. So are you asking if someone (who?) performs associative acts in that situation?

If you were using the wheel that goes around twice as fast as the change for time measurement, then it would mean twice as much time. — Terrapin Station

Then you're relating processes anywhere to that wheel, and not to time.

Then you're relating processes anywhere to that wheel, and not to time. — noAxioms

I don't understand your comment.

When we're talking about measuring time, we choose some changes as the basis. I already explained this.

We then measure other changes relative to the changes we chose as our measurement basis. We could use the relatively twice as fast wheel as the measurement basis. We could use any changes as the measurement basis.

I thought of an example of change without meaningful time: I have a universe with an unstable particle. It eventually decays. The time it takes to do that is meaningless.
— noAxioms

Talking about time in the sense of measurement there, if that's all you have in your universe, "the time it takes to decay" is simply whatever unit you apply to the change in question. — Terrapin Station

There can be no units. There is nothing on which said units could possibly be based.

So are you asking if someone (who?) performs associative acts in that situation?

There is no simulation. It is a universe with ordered events.

There can be no units. There is nothing on which said units could possibly be based. — noAxioms

It's always based on some set of changes. You posited a change in the universe. So it would be whatever you assign to that change.

Re "So are you asking if someone (who?) performs associative acts in that situation?"

There is no simulation. It is a universe with ordered events. — noAxioms

I don't know if you read "situation" as "simulation"?? I have no idea what your response amounts to otherwise.

It's always based on some set of changes. — Terrapin Station

Yes. The changes are the particles that have already decayed, and the ones that have not. There is nothing else to go on.

You posited a change in the universe. So it would be whatever you assign to that change.

The change is the decay of one of the particles. Not sure what you're thinking I'm assigning to that change other than the order in which it occurs. It is meaningless to say they decay at a fast rate at first, and tapering off. That case is not in any way distinct from them decaying slowly at first, and quickly at the end.

The change is the decay of one of the particles. Not sure what you're thinking I'm assigning to that change other than the order in which it occurs. It is meaningless to say they decay at a fast rate at first, and tapering off. That case is not in any way distinct from them decaying slowly at first, and quickly at the end. — noAxioms

You were positing something decaying at different speeds where there's only that particle decaying? That wasn't clear from your earlier comment.

"At different speeds" would be nonsensical in that situation. "At different speeds" has to be relative to another change.

You were positing something decaying at different speeds where there's only that particle decaying? That wasn't clear from your earlier comment. — Terrapin Station

I had one particle at first, but immediately moved on to the example of a million such particles.

"At different speeds" would be nonsensical in that situation. "At different speeds" has to be relative to another change.

Agree. My example illustrates that: change without meaningful time. Time is not equivalent to change.

You're ignoring the issues I brought up re "meaningful."

If you're going to base an argument on that idea, you can't ignore those issues.