What post again? My take on something being meaningful is that X is meaningful if there is a distinction between a system with X and a system without X. A distinction other than the presence of X.You're ignoring the issues I brought up re "meaningful." — Terrapin Station
What post again? My take on something being meaningful is that X is meaningful if there is a distinction between a system with X and a system without X. A distinction other than the presence of X. — noAxioms
OK, I think I described how I'm using the word in my prior post.This is what I wrote: "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? " — Terrapin Station
Heh... I read you wrong. You said 'situation', not 'simulation'. So much for the eyes.And then you responded with something about "simulation" for some reason.
There is nobody performing acts in my scenario. There were only the million particles.So are you asking if someone (who?) performs associative acts in that situation? — Terrapin Station
I didn't really define time. I just brought up points that seem to find flaw in equating time with change.If you want to make an argument to the effect of "time can only be change if that (that=maybe time, change--whatever you'd need) has an effect on something" or "time can only be change if there is a distinction between a system with x and a system without x" or whatever you'd want to claim, then I'd check out the argument, but you'd have to make the argument.
I didn't really define time. I just brought up points that seem to find flaw in equating time with change. — noAxioms
I'm not proposing anything. I'm finding inconsistency in your proposal.Without an argument, it just seems like arbitrary ideas that have a non sequitur connection with what I'm claiming. — Terrapin Station
I'm not proposing anything. I'm finding inconsistency in your proposal. — noAxioms
OK, I was finding inconsistency with "I'm saying that what time is ontologically is change or motion". Your 'proposal' is perhaps something else. I was finding a counterexample to the quoted statement there.My proposal has absolutely nothing to do with effects on anything or distinctions between systems. — Terrapin Station
OK, I was finding inconsistency with "I'm saying that what time is ontologically is change or motion". — noAxioms
My example showed something where change was quite measurable but time was not, — noAxioms
You can measure change: A count of the particles that have decayed. You have not proposed a way to measure time from that.How did your example show that? I certainly didn't agree that it showed that. — Terrapin Station
Ah, a different definition of change. Perhaps that is the fault in my example.Again, comparative difference is not the same thing as change. I pointed that out with the atmospheric density example. — Terrapin Station
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. — Terrapin Station
The two words are different. Phenomenon implies an experienced thing, whereas change does not imply experience. So two concepts, since it makes sense to speak of non-phenomenal change.My original point was that I cannot make sense of the notion of unchanging phenomena, so "phenomena changes" is a tautology that says nothing. One might as well have said "phenomena is phenomena" or "change is change".
So to my mind, there isn't room for two concepts, namely that of phenomena and that of temporal change. — sime
The two words are different. Phenomenon implies an experienced thing, whereas change does not imply experience. So two concepts, since it makes sense to speak of non-phenomenal change. — noAxioms
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. — Terrapin Station
If it can be proven logically that it is possible for time to pass without any changes occurring, — Metaphysician Undercover
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.