the clock indicates "10:42" is, the clock indicates 10:42, just like the clock indicates "10:43" is the clock indicate 10:43. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but how is "No" coming into this. Why isn't that T1 and T2? That's what I've named it--T1 and T2. You're saying I can't do that. Well, why not? Why do you "need another premise"? There's something you're thinking that, to me, you're not expressing very well, because this comment makes no sense to me.

Sure, but how is "No" coming into this. Why isn't that T1 and T2? Why do you "need another premise"? — Terrapin Station

I don't know how to make it any clearer, except to explain to you that 1 is not the same as 2. 10:42 is what the clock reads. Then 10:43 is what the clock reads. We could assume that the clock indicates "the time". Then we have, "the time is 10:42", and then "the time is 10:43". Now you propose that we replace "the time" with T1 and T2. On what principle do you replace, something identical, "the time", with something different, 1 and 2?

You could say that you never assumed the identity of "the time" in the first place, but what does "T" stand for then? And if we remove time, then all we have is the shear difference of 1 and 2. And we are not discussing time at all.

So to support your assumption of a T1 and a T2, we need some difference between these. That difference is the assumption that T is not the same at T1 as it is at T2. What, other than the assumption that time is passing, supports the claim that T1 is different from T2? It is necessary that T1 is different from T2, otherwise we would just refer to them both as T. The proposition of T1 and T2 is a proposition of difference.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, except to explain to you that 1 is not the same as 2. 10:42 is what the clock reads. Then 10:43 is what the clock reads. We could assume that the clock indicates "the time". Then we have, "the time is 10:42", and then "the time is 10:43". Now you propose that we replace "the time" with T1 and T2. On what principle do you replace, something identical, "the time", with something different, 1 and 2? — Metaphysician Undercover

T1 is the first time variable. T2 is the second time variable.

In this example, were plugging "10:42" into the first time variable, while we're plugging "10:43" into the second time variable.

We can't call them both T1, as the values are different. And we want a way to distinguish the values. Is that clear to you?

Oh, and yes, "T" is an conventional abbreviation for "time" or "the time" if you like.

T1 is the first time variable. T2 is the second time variable. — Terrapin Station

Yes, now do you agree that "T1" and "T2" implies a difference in time? And, that the difference described by T1 and T2 can only be supported by an assumption such as "time is passing"?

We can't call them both T1, as the values are different. And we want a way to distinguish the values. Is that clear to you? — Terrapin Station

It's very clear to me, but is it clear to you that the difference in the values of T1 and T2, is due to the fact that time is passing? If not, then can you propose some other reason why T1 is different from T2? Please, don't say that it is a change in the clock, from 10:42 to 10:43, which supports this assumption, because then we have that circular reasoning.

Yes, now do you agree that "T1" and "T2" implies a difference in time? — Metaphysician Undercover

???

Why would you have thought that I was saying there are no differences of time? I don't know what I would have written that might suggest that to you. After all, since time is motion/change, time IS difference. So you don't have time if you don't have difference.

And, that the difference described by T1 and T2 can only be supported by an assumption such as "time is passing"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, "time is passing" = "change/motion is occurring." And in the example I gave, the change that occurred is that the clock's display changed from 10:42 to 10:43.

is it clear to you that the difference in the values of T1 and T2, is due to the fact that time is passing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, and again that simply amounts to "change is occurring."

Sure, "time is passing" = "change/motion is occurring." — Terrapin Station

OK, you have two distinct phrases, "time is passing", "change/motion is occurring". My question is, on what premise do you equate these?

You have justified "time is passing" by referring to change, the clock changes from 10:42 to 10:43. How do you know if time hasn't passed with no change occurring? Perhaps the clock still says 10:42, time has still passed without change, seconds went by without a change in the clock's registry of minutes. And if your clock registers seconds, there would still be a shorter period of time. And so we go on to the shortest period of time which can be measured by change, and we can still assume the possibility of a shorter period of time, in which no change occurred.

How does "time is passing" necessitate "change/motion is occurring"?

Right, so you're instead asking why I believe that time is identical to change/motion.

It's due to a functional analysis, over many years, countless contexts, etc. of what we're referring to with "time." I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are in that. It's not a survey of beliefs. It's a functional analysis of what is being actually referred to, extensionally, that is; how the term is being used, etc.

There's no reason to believe that "time could be passing with no change"--what the heck would we even be referring to there? What are we "pointing at" in other words?

And of course, on my analysis, the notion of that is simply incoherent, it's contradictory.

McTaggart suggests an A and a B series to time. The A series views time's passage. The B series views time from moment to moment historically. The B series would be impossible without the A series, even if the B series is ontologically superior to the A series. It seems to me, in reading your conversations, that both of your positions mashup these differences...The A series I associate with Augustine's phenomenal position and the B series with Aristotle's mechanistic/scientific position.

Of course his argument is about the unreality of time, but I find it helpful in thinking about time.

Right, so you're instead asking why I believe that time is identical to change/motion. — Terrapin Station

That's what I've always been asking you, because it's what you assume to be justification for your claim that there cannot be time passing without change. The point is that this supposed identity is false, and therefore does not justify your claim at all.

It's due to a functional analysis, over many years, countless contexts, etc. of what we're referring to with "time." I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are in that. It's not a survey of beliefs. It's a functional analysis of what is being actually referred to, extensionally, that is; how the term is being used, etc. — Terrapin Station

Clearly that's a faulty functional analysis, as is indicated by your example, x is different from x' because x is at T1, and x' is at T2. The difference between x and x' is based in the assumed difference between T1 and T2.

The difference between x and x' is assumed to be something different then the difference between T1 and T2. This is expressed by the two distinct sets of symbols {x, x'} and {T1,T2}. To support your claim, requires that you demonstrate how there is a relationship of equivalence between x and T1, and between x' and T2. You need to demonstrate that x is equivalent to T1, not just related to T1. Then the difference between x and x' (which is called change), is equivalent to the difference between T1 and T2 (which is called time). Inability to demonstrate such an equivalence indicates a failure of your functional analysis. In other words, it is very clear that what we refer to with "time" is something different from what we refer to with "change", despite the fact that these two are commonly related. Therefore you have produced a faulty functional analysis.

That's what I've always been asking you, — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but that wasn't clear to me with the way you'd asked before.

Clearly that's a faulty functional analysis — Metaphysician Undercover

C'mon man. Obviously I'm not going to think that it's false just because you have a different view that you're explaining. It's not like I just came up with this yesterday and your objection-oriented comments are the first I've run into.

x is different from x' because x is at T1, and x' is at T2. The difference between x and x' is based in the assumed difference between T1 and T2. — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is that time is any change/motion, of anything. Or in other words, it ranges over, in the sense of being identical to, ALL changes/all motion. The T variable represents this.

The x variable in this case is being applied to the clock, as a clock, as "that object" in other words. It wouldn't apply to water dripping from a faucet, say, as that's not the clock, That can be y and y' or whatever. The water dripping, however, is also T1 and T2 (or T3 and T4--if we're talking about the same example, it would only be T1 and T2 if the dripping happened simultaneously with the clock display changing.). But time isn't something other than those changes/motions. Again, it's change/motion in general, that is, the changes or motions of everything. But if we're focusing on a particular thing, like a clock or water dripping or whatever, a clock isn't the same thing as water dripping obviously.

To support your claim, requires that you demonstrate how there is a relationship of equivalence between x and T1, — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not an equivalence. It's that x (the clock) is in one state, which is T1, and then it's in another state--it has changed. So that's T2. Change is what we're naming with T1 and T2. "X" on the other hand, is a variable for the clock.

it is very clear that what we refer to with "time" is something different from what we refer to with "change", — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm not saying that you have change in mind with "time," but that's what you're referring to functionally.

The difference is that time is any change/motion, of anything. Or in other words, it ranges over, in the sense of being identical to, ALL changes/all motion. The T variable represents this. — Terrapin Station

Now you have taken a generalization, an abstraction, change, which is what we say about any change, that it is a change, and assigned the name of a particular thing "time" to that abstract thing. So either that particular thing which you refer to as the "T variable" has no meaning other than as the abstract generalization, "change", in which case the T variable is redundant, or else it refers to a real particular thing, time, and therefore it could not be the same as the generalized "change". Which is it, is time a thing to be referred to, or is it just a generalized "change"?.

But time isn't something other than those changes/motions. — Terrapin Station

OK, so what we have is "the clock reads 10:42", and "the clock reads 10:43". This is change, in one instance 10:42, and the other, 10:43. The difference between these is the difference between a 2 and a 3. That is the change which has occurred, a 2 has been changed to a 3. How do you infer that there is something other than this, which is called time? If there is nothing other than the change from a 2 to a 3, what is this "T variable"? How is the change from a 2 to a 3 construed as a T variable?

It's not an equivalence. It's that x (the clock) is in one state, which is T1, and then it's in another state--it has changed. So that's T2. Change is what we're naming with T1 and T2. "X" on the other hand, is a variable for the clock. — Terrapin Station

That's not what you said though. You said that there is one state x, and another state x'. Your claim was that you know that x' is different from x, because x was at T1, and x' was at T2. You also claim to know that T1 is different from T2, because of a different reading on the clock. If x now becomes the clock, we have circular reasoning. You now know that x is different from x' because they represent different numbers on the clock, not because one is at T1 and the other at T2, only because 2 is different than 3. So how do you know that any time has past, just because there is a different number on the clock?

Now you have taken a generalization, an abstraction, change, which is what we say about any change, that it is a change, and assigned the name of a particular thing "time" to that abstract thing. So either that particular thing which you refer to as the "T variable" has no meaning other than as the abstract generalization, "change", in which case the T variable is redundant, or else it refers to a real particular thing, time, and therefore it could not be the same as the generalized "change". Which is it, is time a thing to be referred to, or is it just a generalized "change"?. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure I understand all of your comments there, but it is "a set of things to be referred to" if you like, namely all changes. I'm not saying it's an abstraction. Changes aren't abstraction, they're real, particular occurrences. Time is those occurrences, it's all changes/motion. (And at this point I'm just saying the same thing again, really.)

How do you infer that there is something other than this, which is called time? I — Metaphysician Undercover

Why other? Again, change is identical to time. If it's identical, it's not "other." It's the same thing.

If there is nothing other than the change from a 2 to a 3, what is this "T variable"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm having to explain things to you that I already explained. "T" (and "T1" or "T2" etc.) is a variable because we can use it to refer to "10:42" or "10:43" or "this drip" or "that drip" or "that bird wing flap" or whatever. We can plug "10:42" into the variable "T1." This part is like I'm having to explain how variables work to you, which shouldn't be the case if you're capable of having an advanced discussion about ontology.

That's not what you said though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it is. Quite a few posts ago I wrote this for example:

The clock with "10:42" displayed is x, the clock with "10:43" displayed is x'. "10:42" is different than "10:43 — Terrapin Station

You also claim to know that T1 is different from T2, because of a different reading on the clock. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is a change, yes. Time is identical to change. That means difference. You don't have change if there's no difference.

If x now becomes the clock, we have circular reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Circular reasoning" is pertinent to an argument. I'm not really stating an argument here. I'm explaining something to you. But if you want to claim that I'm stating premises and saying that they imply a conclusion, go ahead and tell me what the conclusion is that's also a premise.

You might be mistaking my definitional statements for an argument. "Time is identical to change" isnt' an argument, it's a statement or definition of what time is. Definitions will ultimately be "circular" if you go enough steps, otherwise they're not doing the job they're supposed to do.

As I explained earlier, the reason that I believe that time is identical to change isn't based on anything in the vein of a formal argument, where I'm stating premises and taking them to imply a conclusion that time is change. I believe this--and this is the case for many things I believe--due to years of functional analysis in many different contexts. It's more of an empirical observation than anything like an argument.

ou now know that x is different from x' because they represent different numbers on the clock, — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, x is the clock. x and x' are different because the clock displaying "10:42" is different than the clock displaying "10:43." 10:42 and 10:43 are different.

So how do you know that any time has past, just because there is a different number on the clock? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, since time is identical to change. Part of the problem here might be that you're having a difficult time parsing time in a different way than what you take it to be ontologically (which is obviously quite different than what I take it to be ontologically). It's pretty simple though: if one takes time to be identical to change (and that's a definition, not an argument), then that there's a change tells us that there is time.

I'm not sure I understand all of your comments there, but it is "a set of things to be referred to" if you like, namely all changes. I'm not saying it's an abstraction. Changes aren't abstraction, they're real, particular occurrences. Time is those occurrences, it's all changes/motion. (And at this point I'm just saying the same thing again, really.) — Terrapin Station

OK, there is a set of things named "changes". You want to refer to those things under a different name, "time". What justifies this change of name? You already suggested a "functional analysis", from which you claimed that people use these two words, "time" and "change" to refer to the same thing. But as I demonstrated by referring to your example of x to x' indicating change, and T1 toT2 indicating time, you yourself do not use these two words to refer to the same thing. So this so-called functional analysis has been proven faulty, and does not suffice to support your claim.

You might be mistaking my definitional statements for an argument. "Time is identical to change" isnt' an argument, it's a statement or definition of what time is. Definitions will ultimately be "circular" if you go enough steps, otherwise they're not doing the job they're supposed to do. — Terrapin Station

Definitions are not circular, they are grounded in how a word is used. The dictionary provides a description of how each word is commonly used. Your definition of "time" clearly does not represent the way that "time" is commonly used, and is therefore unacceptable as a proposition.

I believe this--and this is the case for many things I believe--due to years of functional analysis in many different contexts. It's more of an empirical observation than anything like an argument. — Terrapin Station

This functional analysis is clearly faulty, as your example demonstrates, you yourself do not use "time" and "change" in the same way. I really don't believe you ever carried out any such functional analysis of many different contexts over years of time. Just try replacing the word "change" for the word "time" in any common statement to demonstrate how absurd your claim is. "It's time to change my clothes" becomes "it's time to time my clothes". "Something has changed here" becomes "something has timed here". "Change is what an object does" becomes "time is what an object does". Your so-called functional analysis appears to be a real farce.

It's pretty simple though: if one takes time to be identical to change (and that's a definition, not an argument), then that there's a change tells us that there is time. — Terrapin Station

I agree with "that there's a change tells us that there is time". But this does not entail that time and change are identical, because it does not exclude the possibility of time without change. "If X then Y", does not necessitate "if Y then X". That would be affirming the consequent which is a known logical fallacy. Furthermore, we cannot start with the assumption that time and change are identical, due to the arguments presented above. Therefore you still have not presented me with a premise, or principle whereby we can say that if there is time, then there is change.

Once two people get into a ding-dong it's hard to butt in! I liked what you said anyway, Cava :)

Once two people get into a ding-dong it's hard to butt in! I liked what you said anyway, Cava :) — mcdoodle

I couldn't see the relevance of Cavacava's post.

Of course his argument is about the unreality of time, but I find it helpful in thinking about time. — Cavacava

TS and I were discussing the reality of time. TS thinks that in reality, time is nothing other than change. I've been trying to dispel that illusion, but TS is persistent.

MU I think McTaggart's argument is like a river you must cross to get to the promised land, there might be another route but I have not found it yet.

By the way Aristotle thought about time in three ways:
1) Quantitatively as a measure
2) As motion
3) Chronologically, 'before & after'

I'm just going to do one point at a time until we're done with each point, because I'm explaining the same things over and over to you.

OK, there is a set of things named "changes". You want to refer to those things under a different name, "time". What justifies this change of name? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not a name change, It's a statement of an identity relationship. What justifies asserting the identity relationship is the years of functional analysis re how "time" is used--what it actually refers to, functionally.

Do you understand that part so that I don't have to explain it again? I know you don't agree with it, but I shouldn't have to keep explaining it as my view.

I've been trying to dispel that illusion, but TS is persistent. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, well, this has been my view for decades now, including in the context of doing academic philosophical work, and it's remained my view throughout tens of extended discussions with philosophers and physicists etc. who've had different views, so more than likely one more person with a different view isn't likely to persuade me to change my view, especially when I feel like most of your comments are odd misunderstandings of what I'm saying. (Such as you parsing me as suggesting a "name change" rather than an identity relationship.)

it's not an name change, It's a statement of an identity relationship. What justifies asserting the identity relationship is the years of functional analysis re how "time" is used--what it actually refers to, functionally.

Do you understand that part so that I don't have to explain it again? I know you don't agree with it, but I shouldn't have to keep explaining it as my view. — Terrapin Station

As I said, I think your functional analysis is faulty. Try, as I suggested, replacing "change" with "time", in any common use of the word "change". You will find that the meaning of the statement is greatly changed. "Change is what objects do" becomes "time is what objects do". Any such exchange which I tried ends in absurdity, so really I don't see any validity to your claim of identity.

Therefore your claim is incomprehensible to me, and I really don't understand it. If you could proceed to explain your functional analysis, and how you came to this conclusion, which appears to be extremely faulty, perhaps you could help me to understand.

As I said, I think your functional analysis is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, obviously.

Try, as I suggested, replacing "change" with "time", in any common use of the word "change". You will find that the meaning of the statement is greatly changed. — Metaphysician Undercover

A comment I've encountered unfortunately too many times in discussions about this. Unfortunate, because this is yet another odd midunderstanding. Why? Well, because I'm not saying anything about conventional language usage per se. I'm not making claims about linguistic substitutions that would work just as well with respect to conventional language usage.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand that? — Terrapin Station

No, you've insisted that time is change, time is identical to change, so why can't we switch names? That doesn't make sense to me. If we are referring to the same thing with two different words, we should be able to switch words at will.

No, you've insisted that time is change, time is identical to change, so why can't we switch names? — Metaphysician Undercover

Wait a minute. I'm asking if you understand that I'm not making claims about linguistic substitutions. You can believe that I'm not making claims about linguistic substitutions while thinking that linguistic substitutions should work given my views.

To say, "No," you don't understand that, should entail that you think that I am indeed making claims about linguistic substitutions. (Otherwise you're not actually answering the question that I asked you.)

You haven't claimed anything about linguistic substitution. But if what you claim is true, that two distinct words refer to the very same thing, linguistic substitution follows logically. We can use either of the two words to refer to that thing

Okay, I just wanted to clear that up. So I'm not making claims about that.

The reason that linguistic substitutions aren't entailed by my view is something I explicitly told you earlier in this thread (for me, it's on this same page even . . . I don't know if everyone is set up to see the same amount of posts per page though). I said this: "I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are in that. It's not a survey of beliefs."

Well, language conventions are what they are because they reflect people's beliefs, how they think about things, etc. I'm not saying anything about that. It's not a survey of beliefs.

It's due to a functional analysis, over many years, countless contexts, etc. of what we're referring to with "time." I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are in that. It's not a survey of beliefs. It's a functional analysis of what is being actually referred to, extensionally, that is; how the term is being used, etc. — Terrapin Station

OK, so you've managed to distinguish between what people think they are referring to, and what people are actually referring to. Don't you think that this is just a case of you misunderstanding these people? I mean, if you determine that people are actually referring to something which is not what they think they are referring to, haven't you misunderstood them?

if you determine that people are actually referring to something which is not what they think they are referring to, haven't you misunderstood them? — Metaphysician Undercover

That would follow if the aim were to talk about persons' beliefs, how they think about things, etc. But for at least the third time now, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are. It's not a survey of beliefs.

What I'm doing is looking at what actually obtains in relation to how terms/concepts are being used, from more of a "behavioral" perspective. Thus, when people are believing myths, fictions, ambiguities, incoherencies, etc. (as might be the case with various terms/concepts/etc.) we can talk about what's really going on in relation to those terms/concepts/etc. with respect to things that do exist.

That would follow if the aim were to talk about persons' beliefs, how they think about things, etc. But for at least the third time now, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not referring to what people have in mind, what their specific beliefs about time are. It's not a survey of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

If you're not referring to what people believe about time, then what are you referring to, your own personal belief? Clearly your own personal belief, that "time" and "change" refer to the same thing is not consistent with what others believe, or else we could exchange these two words in common phrases. Since your belief is not consistent with others, don't you think that the onus is on you to justify this belief?

If you're not referring to what people believe about time, then what are you referring to, your own personal belief? — Metaphysician Undercover

Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you're not capable of understanding it, because I just explained this in the post you're quoting.

What I'm doing is looking at what actually obtains in relation to how terms/concepts are being used, from more or a "behavioral" perspective. Thus, when people are believing myths, fictions, ambiguities, incoherencies, etc. (as might be the case with various terms/concepts/etc.) we can talk about what's really going on in relation to those terms/concepts/etc. with respect to things that do exist. — Terrapin Station

This appears to be irrelevant, if anything more than gibberish. Perhaps you could explain?

This appears to be irrelevant, if anything more than gibberish. Perhaps you could explain? — Metaphysician Undercover

In my opinion it wouldn't be worth my time at this point. My judgment is that you wouldn't be capable of understanding, at least without a monumental effort on my part--basically it would be the equivalent of teaching you for at least a year or so, but it would also be a monumental effort that would require cooperation from you rather than you wanting to argue, which doesn't seem likely.

I have a background in music as well as philosophy. I taught music for awhile, including teaching some private students. What this is reminding me of is a student I had who had a serious learning disability. It took me a year to teach him the concept of major scales. He eventually got it, sort of, but it was a challenge to say the least.