Doesn't the interval of time represent some change of temporal location? — Luke
I don't see what difference it would make to my arguments, but I'm happy to discuss them. — Luke
Does a distance represent some change in spatial location? It's the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
A "change" in temporal position, as referred to by myself, meant nothing more than an interval of time over which we can consider different positions of the same object — Kenosha Kid
It can, can't it? — Luke
does something need to change temporal location in order for us to have a concept of duration? — Kenosha Kid
I'm trying to understand. You said that "change in temporal position" is only a length and "not something an object does." So is an object's change in spatial position, or its motion, at different times also "not something an object does"? — Luke
So is an object's change in spatial position, or its motion, at different times also "not something an object does"?
— Luke
Yes. — Kenosha Kid
I see. So you concede that, in terms of classical kinematics at least, objects do not move? — Luke
Okay you kinda edited out the bit that was clearly talking about lengths. — Kenosha Kid
Yes. We might colloquially say that a ruler goes from one end to another, but nothing is really going anywhere: it just occupies that space. — Kenosha Kid
You're still left with v = dx/dt, and as long as you have that, you have motion. — Kenosha Kid
Well, either "dt" represents a length/duration for comparison purposes only (is "not something an object does"), or else it represents a change in temporal position. You can't have it both ways. — Luke
Well, either "dt" represents a length/duration for comparison purposes only (is "not something an object does"), or else it represents a change in temporal position. You can't have it both ways. — Luke
This seems more an objection to terminology than the necessity of motion arising from 4D geometry. — Kenosha Kid
From "outside of time", viewing time as just another dimension like space, that looks like an object that spans time and space, geometrically, changing where it is in space over time. — Pfhorrest
If you're looking at a 4D object, where one of the four dimensions is time, then you're standing outside of time, and there is no dimension that seems timelike to you in which for the 4D object to move.
An object moving in three dimensions with respect to the fourth will just look like a 4D object to you, though. — Pfhorrest
If you stare at a clock for one minute, you will have changed your temporal location by one minute. Of course, you don't need to stare at a clock in order to change your temporal location, you can do whatever you like. You only need to age and experience life as you always do. Apparently, you have no choice but to do this. Taking this (literally) everyday aspect of the experience of time's passing to be reflective of something real in the world, this is known as temporal passage (aka the passage of time, time passing, etc.). — Luke
How can anything move through time if there is only one time, the present? — Pfhorrest
However, if an object does not actually change its temporal position, then it cannot actually change its spatial position either. And if an object does not actually change its spatial position, then it doesn't actually move. According to the above definition of motion, that is. — Luke
It is not a condition in eternalism that a 4D object need move within a 4D space to have motion, since that would be a new kind of motion (hypermotion, I guess) in an even higher-dimensional space that would be hard to conceive of. — Kenosha Kid
I've only ever been talking about the motion of 3D objects in the 4th dimension; that is, 3D parts of the 4D object. — Luke
If so, are you satisfied that a 3D part at time t' may differ from the 3D part a time t? — Kenosha Kid
Yes, representing a change in temporal position of the object. That is, the object has changed its temporal position. — Luke
And you've agreed that the object has moved from t to t'. — Luke
Either the object moves from t to t' and there is temporal passage (not B-theory).
Or the object does not move from t to t' and there is no motion. — Luke
Then your definition of motion depends on temporal passage, which kinematics does not. — Kenosha Kid
If you are happy with a ruler having length without changing position, you have no reasonable objection to a 4D object having duration without changing temporal position. — Kenosha Kid
If time is continuous, what else could change in temporal position of the object mean except that the object moves from one time to the next , i.e., temporal passage? — Luke
If time is like a ruler, as per Eternalism, then there is no motion. — Luke
Again, if you're arguing that time passes "inside" of time but not "outside", then you're saying that temporal passage is real. — Luke
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.