Definitions can not be correct or incorrect, it's a decision, you can define something however you want in principle. — ChatteringMonkey
They can be more or less useful though, and I'm saying they don't seem to be very useful if they only apply to a theory of time that can't be the case and that nobody believes in. — ChatteringMonkey
But a lot of scientists believe in eternalism, and I'm pretty sure very few of them believe that there can be no motion under it. Are they just all that stupid for not realizing that motion is impossible under eternalism, or doesn't it have to entail that and the presupposed qualification sceme is simply misguided? — ChatteringMonkey
I don't see that there is anything in eternalism per se that precludes motion, unless you define it as such. — ChatteringMonkey
... objects are arranged in space in an orderly way. Their arrangement can be described without referring to "passage of space" or some equivalent of motion. — Echarmion
I don't think anybody claims that these theories of time are complete physical theories. The way I see it that they are merely theories about time that could possibly fit our experiences. And my point is that I don't see that there is anything in eternalism per se that precludes motion, unless you define it as such. — ChatteringMonkey
Nothing in eternalism "precludes" motion — Metaphysician Undercover
Criticisms of Presentism just seem to be much more prevalent. — Luke
I think that's because the criticism is of a different order, not merely definitional. A universal now or present has been shown to be a problematic idea in relativity. So either you say relativity is wrong, which will be a hard sell because it has been tested over and over again, or you adjust presentism and maybe you could save some sort of universal now or present that accounts for relativity. Or you bite the bullet of relativity entirely and adjust the theory so that it only allows for local nows, which gets you close to some kind a solipsism. — ChatteringMonkey
Unless you are talking about the Moving Spotlight theory (which I consider to be a hybrid of Eternalism and Presentism/A-theory, rather than true Eternalism), or unless you can provide an explanation for how motion is possible under B-theory Eternalism (i.e. without temporal passage), then I think it is clear that Eternalism does logically preclude motion. — Luke
Maybe ChatteringMonkey is right that nobody really believes in this extreme, pure version of Eternalism, and the same probably applies at the other end of the spectrum, too, but I think it's worth pointing out what those extremes entail. Criticisms of Presentism just seem to be much more prevalent. — Luke
The point was that eternalism does not make motion impossible, because all you have to do is add more premises, like your spotlight theory does. Therefore we cannot say that it precludes motion. — Metaphysician Undercover
what is motion but a spatial path in spacetime anyway? — jorndoe
Even if the start of the 4D object is at position x1 at t1 and the end of the 4D object is at position x2 at t2, it still would not have moved from x1 to x2, because this would be to treat the four-dimensional object as a three-dimensional object ("modulated by the passage of time") instead. — Luke
Because what is motion other that something changing position over time, that is literally the definition of motion. — ChatteringMonkey
You seem to assume that existence at all points is the same as moving from one point to another. — Luke
And yes why not split a 4d object up into 3d objects... — ChatteringMonkey
Why would you think that lines that are arbitrarily drawn by us humans, that the language we choose to use, would have consequences for the nature of reality? — ChatteringMonkey
I'm not really concerned with it. I'm interested in the logical implications of the concepts. — Luke
So what moves? Whatever part of the 4d object that changes position over time. — ChatteringMonkey
In eternalism, what word would you use to differentiate between a 4d object that only exist at one place and 4d object that exists over multiple positions? — ChatteringMonkey
In eternalism, I see no need to differentiate between them. To what end? — Luke
So 3D parts of the 4D object change position over time, despite the fact that the 4d object as a whole does not change position over time. Isn't this just smuggling in Presentism and/or the A-theory? — Luke
To our ends of course, as human beings. Even if eternalism is true, we would only experience part of it, and things existing over multiple positions over time presumably would be still of interest to us. — ChatteringMonkey
So 3D parts of the 4D object change position over time, despite the fact that the 4d object as a whole does not change position over time. Isn't this just smuggling in Presentism and/or the A-theory?
— Luke
No I don't thinks so, you need another concept of movement, like I said earlier. — ChatteringMonkey
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.