I referred to, and showed, the image at https://i.stack.imgur.com/5chm6.png — Banno
The image is made up, at any given time, of all of its parts and this totality doesn't change just by dint of the fact that its parts are distinguishable from one another. — Pierre-Normand
Here is another example. You want to skate on a lake and inquire if the ice is thick enough. Other skaters tell you that the ice becomes thinner towards the center of the lake. What this means is that the part of the frozen surface of the lake that is in the immediate vicinity of whoever is skating on it (and hence affords support to that person) is thinner when the skater is nearer to the center of the lake. — Pierre-Normand
The time-clock relation: There is a logical (or conceptually necessary) relation between ‘time’ and ‘a physical process which can function as a clock (or a core of a clock)’ in the sense that we cannot – in a well-defined way – use either of these concepts without referring to (or presupposing) the other. — On the physical basis of cosmic time
This argument that you are having over the ordinary meaning of the word change is bizarre. What it clearly shows though is that change as a definition of time is of no use. The specific meaning of change in this context is change-over-time, which of course cannot be understood without already understanding what time is. — SophistiCat
Non-sequitur. The pixels on the left of "the image" are not the same pixels as the pixels on the right of "the image". But there's not just a difference here... there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right that approaches the color on the right (and change is the right word to use here)... except for that one odd place where the transition leaves a much whiter color than should be there (the fact that I can talk about that place at all kind of tends to prove the point).It's the same image I saw yesterday. — Luke
Twaddle. The image is white on the left, yellow on the right, and changes from one to the other, left to right. — Banno
That's the wrong question. Certainly you don't think when I "move from left to right", I'm actually walking on my monitor along that path, right? I don't "move from left to right" in the first place. This is metaphorical motion.How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke
So? What's being claimed is that change can be applied place to place. Your notion of "change in image" here is a red herring. There's a change from place to place on this image that does not change. In fact, the fact that there is a change being described despite the image not changing kind of counters your very point (if change only applied to time, and the image doesn't change, how could there be a change in it?)Not to mention you are saying that it is “you” that moves or changes, not the image. — Luke
So? What's being claimed is that change can be applied place to place. Your notion of "change in image" here is a red herring. There's a change from place to place on this image that does not change. — InPitzotl
Best I can tell that's illusory. I'm just calling the entire array the image, and referring to the colors of pixels at specific locations in the image. Banno's referring to parts of the array as the image (the parts on the left versus the right). We're saying the same thing, just using slightly different dictionaries.That seems to be different from what Banno is saying. — Pierre-Normand
Yes.What you qualify as "change" just is a functional dependency of the color the image has at some location as a function of this location. — Pierre-Normand
But that's nuanced too:But Banno further insists that it is "the image" that changes, which you just acknowledged it doesn't. — Pierre-Normand
Luke says the image is the same as the one he saw yesterday. But that itself requires us to play a kind of game equating now-image with yesterday-image. By saying "the image is the same", we're making claims like "location x-y on yesterday's image has the same color value as location x-y on today's image". Incidentally, it's still a fictional object, sometimes off my screen and sometimes on it, not necessarily being defined as what's on my screen, I can speak of "pixels" partially because it's a PNG image, etc.The sense in which it's the same image as yesterday is non-trivial. — InPitzotl
How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time?
— Luke
That's the wrong question. — InPitzotl
Certainly you don't think when I "move from left to right", I'm actually walking on my monitor along that path, right? I don't "move from left to right" in the first place. This is metaphorical motion. — InPitzotl
The metaphor specifically conveys degree-of-change-in-place in the image along a particular direction; namely, to the right. — InPitzotl
But that doesn't seem right either since this relies on an equivocation. — Pierre-Normand
I suggest that the notion that change only occurs over time is the result of considering selective, and too few, examples — Banno
If you prefer, the colour of the image changes from left to right. There's nothing odd about such a locution. — Banno
Depends on what you want to ask, but it certainly isn't the question of how I can do what I do not actually do. I'm certainly not literally walking left to right on the image.What’s the right question? — Luke
Nonsense (at least in the manner intended). Insofar as "the image" is such a thing (according to the canon rules of the game we're supposed to play when we treat this fictional object having been posted yesterday as the same object someone else displays on their screen today), it is a matter of fact that at x coordinates 123, 246, 369, and 492, the RGB value is (255,255,255). And at 615, it is (255,252,251). And at 738, it is (254,239,227). And at 984, it is (252,188,111). And at 861, it is (253,213,176). And at 1106, it is (252,176,65). This demonstrates a change in color as the x coordinates increase in value. Incidentally, I reported 984's RGB value before 861 just to drive the point home; it's the x coordinate that this gradient varies on, not the order in which we look at it or the order in which I report the coordinates.If the motion is metaphorical then the change is also metaphorical (i.e. not actual). — Luke
That's not what is being described here:The metaphor simply seems to indicate change-of-place in the image along a particular direction. — Luke
From the samples above, the transition from the RGB value at x-coordinate 492 to that at x-coordinate 615 changes towards the color RGB (252,176,65). From 615 to 738, it changes again towards the color RGB (252,176,65). The color at 615 is closer to RGB(252,176,65) than the color at 492 was, and the color at 738 is even closer still.there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right that approaches the color on the right — InPitzotl
This thesis is not an expression of mere common sense — Pierre-Normand
It would make sense to propose that instead of yellow the white might change to green, for example; or we could have blue changing to red, or make the change from top to bottom; all with a clear meaning. — Banno
What’s the right question?
— Luke
Depends on what you want to ask, but it certainly isn't the question of how I can do what I do not actually do. I'm certainly not literally walking left to right on the image. — InPitzotl
From the samples above, the transition from the RGB value at x-coordinate 492 to that at x-coordinate 615 changes towards the color RGB (252,176,65). — InPitzotl
The point is, we understand these locutions perfectly well, but it plays merry hell with the notion that time is required for change to occurs. — Banno
It’s your responsibility to clarify what you meant by “as you move from left to right”, not mine. You explained it as a “metaphorical motion”, which is not any actual motion or change, is it? I fail to see how you get actual change from metaphorical motion. — Luke
In other words you are not interested in how "change" is actually used, but instead in arbitrarily restricting that use it to suit certain philosophical pretences. — Banno
One can see that the colour changes from left to right. — Banno
Time is required to get "from place to place" or to perceive (and compare) one place and then another. — Luke
And likewise it's your responsibility to ask a sensible question, not mine. The question you asked is invalid:It’s your responsibility to clarify what you meant by “as you move from left to right”, not mine. — Luke
I live on a hill. There is a neighbor down the road; he is lower than me. There's a neighbor further down that is lower still. The statement "If I walk down from here to the first and then the second neighbor, I will get lower and lower on the hill" describes a shape... it describes how the altitude of locations changes as you progress in the direction down the road. The hill might look something like this:How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke
You're begging the question. There's hypothetical motion down the hill here, but there's a real gradient. The change in values per change in location (which is what a gradient is) is real.You explained it as a “metaphorical motion”, which is not any actual motion or change, is it? — Luke
Why must something move? The claim is that change can occur place to place as well as time to time. The height of the hill changes (change in value) as a function of the distance along the road (change in place) without involving any movement.You still haven’t told me what moves — Luke
You're focused too much on the conditional; the graph above is literally a graph of the distance to the color RGB(252,176,65) as a function of the x coordinate in Banno's image up to x=1106 (that bump at x=800 is the anomaly I discussed several posts ago). IF I move left to right, THEN I will go lower. But I don't have to move left to right for that function to be lower at higher values of x. The motion is entirely unnecessary; it can be discarded. It's a factual matter that the curve on the right has lower values than the curve on the left. Even if I start that walk, the points on the right would have the values they have at T=0.It sounds like a conditional — 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.