I referred to, and showed, the image at https://i.stack.imgur.com/5chm6.png — Banno

I know. You asserted that this image "changes from one colour to another, from left to right". But it's not the image that changes. 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.

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

Just like the flooring in Banno's house.

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

So, if someone wanted to state it more precisely, they might say that the ice thickness changes with the distance from the center. In ordinary speech we rarely have to resort to such precisifications, because the meaning can be inferred from the context, but in scientific writing it is more common. For example (from a random paper): "a screening that changes both with charge carrier doping level Q and temperature T."

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.

I like the not-really-definition of physical time proposed by Zinkernagel:

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

(See the chapter "The meaning of time" in the paper for a good discussion.)

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

We were not attempting to define time or change. We were instead criticising Banno's bizarre assertion that "Time and change have no special relation", and his attempt to argue that there can be change-over-space without change-over-time.

Twaddle. The image is white on the left, yellow on the right, and changes from one to the other, left to right.

You're squirming.

But it's not the image that changes. — Pierre-Normand

The image changes from white on the left to yellow on the right. That's clear.



Pretending not to understand doesn't become you.

It's the same image I saw yesterday. Nothing about it has changed.

Pretending not to understand doesn't become you. — Banno

It's the same image I saw yesterday. — Luke

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).

Incidentally, I have "the image" here in quotes because this entire forum is a fictional place and "the image" is a fictional object with a fictional location in this fictional place. The sense in which it's the same image as yesterday is non-trivial.

there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right — InPitzotl

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time?

Not to mention you are saying that it is “you” that moves or changes, not the image.

Twaddle. The image is white on the left, yellow on the right, and changes from one to the other, left to right. — Banno

The image being white on the left and yellow on the right are two unchanging features of the image. I know you want to say that it (the image) is unchanging with respect to time but that it (the image) is changing with respect to space. But that doesn't seem right either since this relies on an equivocation.

Getting back to your initial floor example, you suggested the "floor changes from wood to bamboo, from one room to another, at the one time." Would you be willing to say that if you consider a further spatial displacement the same distance in the same direction, you are therefore getting out the house altogether and "the floor" changes into a pine tree in the backyard? Or maybe 'it' changes from being a floor altogether to being a thin slice out of this pine tree? If that doesn't make sense it's because the pine tree isn't a part of the floor at all. But since your construction depends on us talking about separate parts of the floor, I want to remind you that the whole floor isn't numerically identical with any one of its proper material parts. So, saying that "the floor" changes from (being materially constituted of) wood to "it" (being materially constituted of) bamboo, while insisting that it's always about "the floor" (that is, the whole floor) that you are talking about, equivocates on two distinct senses of "the floor".

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke

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.

The metaphor specifically conveys degree-of-change-in-place in the image along a particular direction; namely, to the right. We can use other metaphors. The image is 1110 pixels wide. The x-coordinate (in classic computer graphics labeling) ranges from 0 to 1109; or 0 to 1106 if we ignore the 3-pixel gray area. Using this labeling, we can say that the color changes towards yellow with respect to a change in the x coordinate.

The metaphorical motion here is to the right, but nobody is actually moving right here (you could attend to points and move your attention to the right, but you aren't changing the image by doing so; you're just noting that change).

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. 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?)

There are road signs BTW that say strange things like "Road narrows". Nobody is removing road ahead of this sign, and they aren't talking about the roads shrinking due to the cold weather. The narrowing is a change with respect to place.

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

That seems to be different from what @Banno is saying. You acknowledge that the image does not change. 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. That is alright as far as ordinary language goes. But Banno further insists that it is "the image" that changes, which you just acknowledged it doesn't.

That seems to be different from what Banno is saying. — Pierre-Normand

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.

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

Yes.

But Banno further insists that it is "the image" that changes, which you just acknowledged it doesn't. — Pierre-Normand

But that's nuanced too:

The sense in which it's the same image as yesterday is non-trivial. — InPitzotl

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.

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time?
— Luke

That's the wrong question. — InPitzotl

What’s the right 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. — InPitzotl

If the motion is metaphorical then the change is also metaphorical (i.e. not actual).

The metaphor specifically conveys degree-of-change-in-place in the image along a particular direction; namely, to the right. — InPitzotl

I don’t know about “degree-of”. The metaphor simply seems to indicate change-of-place in the image along a particular direction. But what changes place? Nothing in the image.

All things are in a constant state of motion and change, and what we call time is just a measurement of those changes. The present moment is the zero point from which all measurements of time are taken, simply because it is always the present moment, and there is no other time besides NOW! It has always been NOW, throughout your entire life and it still is!

But that doesn't seem right either since this relies on an equivocation. — Pierre-Normand

I don't see how. If you prefer, the colour of the image changes from left to right. There's nothing odd about such a locution. 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. Nothing at all odd or equivocal.

That you need to talk of things being "numerically identical" or having "proper material parts" to articulate your supposition does not bode well for you; It makes the sophistry more apparent. If we were to go down that path I'd point to Wittgenstein's demonstration that what counts as a "simple" depends on the task at hand.

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

Yes, I agree that there isn't anything odd about this locution. But what it conveys it is perfectly consistent with the claim that the image itself doesn't change. It also lends itself readily to the analysis I had suggested with my skater and frozen lake example. The locution you used earlier was "the following image changes from one colour to another, from left to right" (my emphasis). This sounds more odd, at least to my ears. Furthermore, the odd formulation isn't innocent. It's meant to buttress you initial philosophical claim that "Time and change have no special relation. Change occurs from place to place as well as from time to time". This thesis is not an expression of mere common sense and it is telling that you had to make use of an odd locution to buttress it.

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.

If the motion is metaphorical then the change is also metaphorical (i.e. not actual). — 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.

The metaphor simply seems to indicate change-of-place in the image along a particular direction. — Luke

That's not what is being described here:

there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right that approaches the color on the right — 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). 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.

This thesis is not an expression of mere common sense — Pierre-Normand

These examples show that it is a game that we play:

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

@InPitzotl provides further examples.

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.

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

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.

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

You still haven’t told me what moves or what is “in transit” from one x-coordinate to another, even if metaphorically speaking.

It sounds like a conditional: that if you were to gradually move (or look) from one place to another, left to right, then you would see the colour change from white to yellow. Okay, but how is that potential motion (or perception) possible without time?

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

Some of the locutions you used would indeed be well understood in some ordinary life contexts. Other locutions that you made use of seemed rather strained to my ear and, as I have already pointed out, seemingly relied on equivocation for you to make a characteristically philosophical point about change and time. Against the charge of equivocation you offered no defense.

Wittgenstein's idea that meaning is use may be strained too much in saying that what change, as such, requires can be elucidated through looking at every ordinary language use of the word "change" and homing in on what is required for "change" (that is, whatever "change" refers to in those contexts) to meaningfully be said to occur in all of those uses. Using this methodology, one could claim that there is no conceptual connection between something being a rabbit and something being a mammal since there are ordinary uses of the word "rabbit" where this word refers to wooden sculptures, or images of rabbits, that aren't mammals at all. I think it is likewise mistaken to move from instances of ordinary language where the word "change" is meaningfully used in order to draw philosophical conclusion about some unique concept being referred to by that word and identify what is or isn't necessary for it to find meaningful instances. It is, it seems to me, this unwarranted move from the multifaceted uses of a word in very dissimilar contexts to philosophical conclusions about essential or inessential features of an allegedly unique concept being referred to by it that constitutes a paradigmatic example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday".

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

One can see that the colour changes from left to right. Your pretence of not seeing this is duplicitous, your wordplay disingenuous.

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.

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

Nope. I am quite interested in how the word "change" is actually used. But I am also pointing out that one must be sensitive to the fact that not all the different contexts of use are equally suitable to buttressing the philosophical thesis that you were putting forth. (Although your thesis was negative, an amounted to the denial of a necessary connection between change and time, it was still a characteristically philosophical thesis).

One can see that the colour changes from left to right. — Banno

As I noted in my first post and have re-stated a couple more times since:

Time is required to get "from place to place" or to perceive (and compare) one place and then another. — Luke

You still haven't addressed this point as yet. I won't hold my breath.

It’s your responsibility to clarify what you meant by “as you move from left to right”, not mine. — Luke

And likewise it's your responsibility to ask a sensible question, not mine. The question you asked is invalid:

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — 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:

...but that statement doesn't mean that the second neighbor is only lower in the future, or that the second neighbor is only lower if you walk to him. The hill is there at T=0. Your question has nothing to do with the substance of the claim (that there is a change in height on the hill that varies according to place); it only has to do with some irrelevant dead end fork you took by taking a metaphor too seriously.

I could suggest a better question... "how can you explain the change without a metaphorical walk"? And incidentally I've answered that question (even here; there's a change in height as a function of where you are on the road (place to place). But that's not necessarily the question you want to ask. The question you asked, though, is simply invalid. The metaphorical walk is simply a description of what changes as a function of place, as my description of the shape of the hill.

You explained it as a “metaphorical motion”, which is not any actual motion or change, is it? — 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 still haven’t told me what moves — 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.

It sounds like a conditional — 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.

& others.

My take on the so-called planck time:

It's basically the smallest time a clock with the smallest possible "tick" can measure. Time has been defined in terms of frequency of light. So, imagine there's an upper limit for such frequencies, call it x Hz. So the planck time = $\frac{1}{x}$ seconds. Planck time then has something to do with gamma rays.

Am I getting this right?