Well, in that case, you simply can't have any two contiguous things no matter what. You could only have one contiguous thing . . . although I don't think that makes any sense at all with respect to the word "contiguous." Contiguity is a relation. And while I wouldn't say that we can't have a relation of a thing to itself, I'm not sure if I'd agree that you can have any relation of a thing to itself other than identity, and even that's really just a way of speaking/thinking insofar as it being a relation goes. — Terrapin Station
There is an issue with contiguity and identity in relation to a thing's existence in time. We assume that the same identified thing exists through a period of time despite some minor changes to that thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is the principle of identity as presented by Aristotle, the identity of the thing is within the material thing itself, not the form of the thing, which may be changing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Aletheist has been arguing that these two distinct forms must be temporally contiguous, t — Metaphysician Undercover
However, this position is what creates the absurdity pointed out by Aristotle. It leaves no time for the change from the first form to the second form, to have actually occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover
If something changes from not-Y to Y, then if we adhere to the law of excluded middle, there is no time in between, when the thing is changing, or "becoming" Y. — Metaphysician Undercover
Aletheist has been arguing that these two distinct forms must be temporally contiguous, that at one moment the thing has one form, and at the very next moment it has the other form. — Metaphysician Undercover
You might remember from other discussions (although not with you) that I don't buy identity through time. In my view saying that the same thing persists through time is just a convenient abstraction--convenient because it's far easier to think and talk about things that way than as if we just have changing-but-developmentally-related things from moment to moment. — Terrapin Station
On my view, time IS change, so it makes no sense to say that "there is no time for (a) change to have occurred." — Terrapin Station
Correct, but Terrapin Station defines time as the series of changes itself, so of course he holds that there is no time in between. He explains this by claiming that the changes are contiguous, while I do not see how they can be anything but discrete (in his model). — aletheist
That is not what I have been arguing at all, since I have not said anything whatsoever about "forms." We have been talking about gaining or losing a (non-essential) property. If we were using Aristotle's framework and terminology - which we are not - then this would be accidental change, rather than substantial change. Furthermore, if there really is a "very next moment," then I have been arguing that time is discrete rather than continuous. — aletheist
By the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle, X is never both Y and not-Y at the same time, and X is always either Y or not-Y at any assignable time. Suppose that X is Y at time T1 and not-Y at time T2; i.e., X changes from Y to not-Y sometime between T1 and T2. There can be no particular instant of time between T1 and T2 when X is changing from Y to not-Y; it is always either one or the other, and never both. Hence if everything is particular, including time, then there is no "present" at which changes "are occurring," just discrete instants before and after each change. — aletheist
Do you deny that everything is always - i.e., at all times - either P or not-P, where P is some particular property? — aletheist
X is P before the change, and X is not-P after the change, but there is no time in between when X is changing from P to not-P. — aletheist
See, you are saying that X has one particular static form (state) at one moment (before the change), and another particular state at the next moment (after the change), but there is no time in between, during which the change occurs. So you have denied the possibility of real activity. All there is, is one particular state (static form), then the next particular state, and so on, each state being temporally contiguous, such that there is no time in between these states during which real activity could be occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover
Please read the exchange more carefully. I was saying that this is what Terrapin Station's view entails, not that it is my own view. — aletheist
So do you think that my chair is not the same chair that it was yesterday because it's gotten a bit worn from me sitting on it? — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you saying that there is no continuity of existence of this entity, the chair, it's just convenient for talking about things, but there's no real continuity of that entity, the chair? That seems rather absurd to me. Do you think that at every moment of passing time, when a molecule, or even an electron of the chair changes, the hand of God is actually replacing the chair which was there, with a completely new chair? — Metaphysician Undercover
See, you are saying that X has one particular static form (state) at one moment (before the change), and another particular state at the next moment (after the change), but there is no time in between, during which the change occurs. So you have denied the possibility of real activity. All there is, is one particular state (static form), then the next particular state, and so on, each state being temporally contiguous, such that there is no time in between these states during which real activity could be occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover
So your insistence on these logical laws is not representative of Terrapin's position at all. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not logically identical to the chair it was yesterday because it's not the same in every detail, in every aspect. That it's worn a bit is part of it. It's molecules have also shifted position in countless ways, it's lost and gained molecules, and so on. — Terrapin Station
Whether there's any "continuity of existence" depends on whether you mean by that that the chair is logically identical at T1 and T2. If so, then there's no "continuity of existence." This doesn't imply that the chair at T2 has no connection to the chair at T1. They're developmentally, causally, continuously related. — Terrapin Station
No, they are the same chair at two different times. It's just the natural effect of passing time (what you call change), that the very same thing will not be logically identical at two different times. How could they be logically identical if the passing of time is change? But this doesn't mean that it's not the same thing, just because it's changed. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether there's any "continuity of existence" depends on whether you mean by that that the chair is logically identical at T1 and T2. If so, then there's no "continuity of existence." This doesn't imply that the chair at T2 has no connection to the chair at T1. They're developmentally, causally, continuously related. — Terrapin Station
It's plainly obvious that by definition you're not mistaken about having the experience when you are having the experience. — John
But how do you know you are having the experience? — John
This is Aristotle's principle of identity, it allows that a thing can change, and therefore be not logically identical to the thing which it was before, yet still be the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
B-series time (objective time being a changeless, tenseless time). — javra
The problem with that on my view is that "changeless time" is a contradiction. — Terrapin Station
It's plainly obvious that by definition you're not mistaken about thinking you are (I had edited this, but you responded before I did apparently. But I don't think it really makes any difference to the sense) having the experience when you are having the experience. — John
Well, that's all I'm saying. — Terrapin Station
It's simply a matter of having it when you do. — Terrapin Station
It appears to me that the past is constantly changing. In fact, it is the only thing that is changing as it evolves into a new past. — Rich
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.