Oh no, I dread to think what that would be like... If only there were some kind of Internet forum where that happened literally all the time... It could act as a warning to avoid such a horror at all costs! — Isaac

It's lucky the idea of the impossibility of shared meaning is not universally accepted, but you might be able to find some local deviations if you search hard enough. You wouldn't be able to go in there and tell the participants they were talking past one another though, because no one really believes there is no shared meaning, and even if they did they wouldn't allow themselves to understand what you were saying. :yikes:

The point is that no purported T1 can be altogether without change — Janus

One could argue from a freeze-frame sort of line of thought. A picture in time. However, one cannot argue from that and arrive at no thing is identical through time for the argument itself requires significant passage of time and the speaker will not be able to remain coherent and successfully identify a thing/entity s/he is picking out to the exclusion of all others unless s/he calls the ever-changing thing by the same name despite the fact that everything is in flux.

A at t1 is A. A at t2 is A.

The alternative is untenable.

The point is that there is no definite limit on any span; — Janus

What would that have to do with what I was explaining re reference and whether two people/two instances can refer to literally the same thing?

You claim that there can be no "same thing" from T1 to T2. But if T1 is of arbitrary span then, within that span, of course there can be. Your argument depends on the reification of a serial or linear model of mathematically determinate time.

You claim that there can be no "same thing" from T1 to T2. But if T1 is of arbitrary span then, within that span, of course there can be. Your argument depends on the reification of a serial or linear model of mathematically determinate time. — Janus

Nothing you said there had any coherence. By the time I read it, the meaning had completely shifted.

Shit! It just happened again with what I'm writing here. What in hell's Creation do I mean? I mean what I don't mean to mean. :scream:

I agree with this; but I think the persistence of identity over time is possible, coherent and actual on account of the fact that the serial dimensionless instant model of time is not ontologically robust. The logical conclusion of that model would be that things never actually exist at all, let alone possess identity over time.

What in hell's Creation do I mean? I mean what I don't mean to mean. :scream: — Merkwurdichliebe

Stop being mean! :naughty:

Your argument depends on the reification of a serial or linear model of mathematically determinate time. — Janus

No, it doesn't. It simply depends on the fact that there is change.

At any rate, you were supposedly taking issue with a post about reference. At least that's what you quoted and seemed to be critiquing.

It simply depends on the fact that there is change. — Terrapin Station

If there is something that changes then there must also be something that remains the same. You are reifying the abstract stipulation that if something changes to any degree whatsoever, it can no longer count as being the same entity; and that way lies incoherence.

If there is something that changes then there must also be something that remains the same. — Janus

Because?

It sounds nice as a bumper sticker, but what's the reason that one would believe that?

Say that only a single electron exists. It ceases to exist and only a single proton exists. That's a change. What remained the same?

Because change is based on relation.
I.E The past is the past in relation to the present, but remains as the present in relation to itself.

The past is the past in relation to the present, but remains as the present in relation to itself. — Shamshir

I read that a few times, but I can't make any sense of it.

The past is changes that happened. I don't understand "but remains" or "as the present in relation to itself"??

The something that changes remains the thing that changes, otherwise all coherence of discourse would be lost. You are reifying abstract nonsense when you argue from irrelevant thought experiments like

Say that only a single electron exists. It ceases to exist and only a single proton exists. That's a change. What remained the same? — Terrapin Station

I read that a few times, but I can't make any sense of it. — Terrapin Station

Too bad.

The past is changes that happened. I don't understand "but remains" or "as the present in relation to itself"?? — Terrapin Station

Think of a man walking. He changes, because his position changes; but his position is not determined in relation to himself, as he is always centered on himself.
So it changes in relation to the environment, and it's the change of the environment that partly changes the man. But he remains the same to himself.

There's nothing abstract about particles like electrons and protons.

The idea that there has to be some nonchanging thing that changes, rather than there just being change, is either unanalyzed or it's due to sloppy analysis of possibilities.

Think of a man walking. He changes, because his position changes; but his position is not determined in relation to himself, as he is always centered on himself. — Shamshir

Someone walking changes for many reasons, including both relations of bodily position--legs change distance relative to each other, knees bend, etc., and relative to things around the person. There's a lot more going on than that, but understandably, we need to grossly simplify this and leave a bunch of stuff out.

"Centered on himself" doesn't seem to make any sense. Neither does "the same to himself."

Someone walking changes for many reasons, including both relations of bodily position--legs change distance relative to each other, knees bend, etc., and relative to things around the person. There's a lot more going on than that, but understandably, we need to grossly simplify this and leave a bunch of stuff out. — Terrapin Station

It's one reason: relation.
The amount of objects in relation is irrelevant.

It's one reason: relation. — Shamshir

In other words, many different relations.

So, according to you there is nothing that distinguishes you from any other entity across the span of your life? In fact there is no you at all that has existed over that time? In fact there are no persistent entities at all since everything is nothing but change? Yeah, sounds like a really well analyzed and/or tight analysis of possibilities! :rofl:

So, according to you there is nothing that distinguishes you from any other entity across the span of your life? In fact there is no you at all that has existed over that time? — Janus

I didn't say anything like that, and no, that's not my view. It would only make sense to figure that something like that is my view if one were to think that the only thing that makes anything distinct from anything else is that things can be identical through time. But I can't imagine anyone thinking that.

In fact there are no persistent entities at all — Janus

That part I'd agree with. But not because of this:

since everything is nothing but change? — Janus

It's not that there's nothing but change. It's just that nothing is identical as changes occur.

So, now you say there is a "you" across time, but that there are no persistent entities at all. Yeah, that makes sense, no contradiction there!

It's not that there's nothing but change. It's just that nothing is identical as changes occur. — Terrapin Station

To say that there is nothing but change just is to say that nothing is identical as changes occur. And there's a sense in which I would agree with this; but identicality is not coterminous with identity. I can be me, which is logically to say the same me (otherwise it is meaningless), across time without having to remain absolutely the same across time.

So, now you say there is a "you" across time, — Janus

I'm not sure what you're referring to there re something I typed, but "you" across time, as a persistent entity, is an abstraction we perform. That abstraction is itself non-identical over time.

I can be same me across time without having to remain absolutely the same across time. — Janus

That's just another way of talking about the abstraction contra the fact that things aren't literally identical through time.

Abstractions are identical over time. Abstractions are not subject to change. The only thing that changes in relation to an abstraction are its expressions and instantiations.

Abstractions are identical over time. — Janus

No they aren't.

Perhaps not in your deluded fantasy...

First off, abstractions are mental acts that individuals perform.

Rubbish; a mental act is not an abstraction, "a mental act" is an abstraction. You seem to be deeply confused about this, so I'm not sure I'll be able to help you.

You remember that I'm a nominalist, right? We're antirealists on abstract objects. Abstractions only exist as something we do mentally. Maybe you could try to formulate some sort of support for your alternate views, rather than just saying things like "rubbish"? How about telling me anything you take to be evidence of real (extramental) abstracts?

there is an abstract aspect to reality as well, if there are abstract concepts with no spatial dimensions, and this must be the case because space can’t contain its antithesis within itself; only the converse can be true. further, that non-spatial aspect of reality must not be identical with the spatial aspect of reality. so by admitting the existence of an abstract concept, you refute nominalism. oh the irony.

there is an abstract aspect to reality as well, if there are abstract concepts — TheGreatArcanum

Abstracts/concepts are actually particular mental events. If you'd bother to learn something about nominalism, you'd see that conceptualism is one of the common nominalist stances.