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. — Luke
I could suggest a better question... "how can you explain the change without a metaphorical walk"? The question you asked, though, is simply invalid. — InPitzotl
Why must something move? — InPitzotl
The claim is that change can occur place to place as well as time to time. The height of the hill changes (change) as a function of where you are on the road (place to place) without involving any movement. — InPitzotl
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. — InPitzotl
Nothing about it has changed. — Luke
Time is required[.....]to perceive (and compare) one place and then another. — Luke
Time is required to perceive the change from white to yellow. That's not in question. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Time and change have no special relation.
Change occurs from place to place as well as from time to time. — Banno
Because it has nothing to do with the claim you're objecting to.It's a different example, so I don't see how my question is invalid. — Luke
Metaphorical motion is not motion; literal motion is motion. I repeat the question... why must things move?Why must something move? — InPitzotl
Because you said there was metaphorical motion. — Luke
Nonsense (see below).Unless you actually move "place to place" and change "where you are on the road", then it makes no sense to say that "the height of the hill changes (change) as a function of where you are on the road (place to place)". — Luke
Yes. And if it has different heights at different parts, then it must have different heights in different places. Therefore a change in place can correspond to a change in height. So what's the problem?It has different heights at different parts. — Luke
Then you're either insane or you're lost. Let's zoom in.I still don't see support for your stronger claim that the height of the hill not only has different parts with different heights, but that its height changes (at any give time) — Luke
Because it has nothing to do with the claim you're objecting to. — InPitzotl
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? — Luke
Metaphorical motion is not motion; literal motion is motion. I repeat the question... why must things move? — InPitzotl
Yes. And if it has different heights at different parts, then it must have different heights in different places. Therefore a change in place can correspond to a change in height. So what's the problem? — InPitzotl
Then you're either insane or you're lost. — InPitzotl
Nothing has to actually move from A to B for that change to be a change of dx1 in x coordinates or a change of dy1 in color. And nothing has to move from B to C for that change to be a change of dx2 in x coordinates or a change of dy2 in color. — InPitzotl
Yes. Contrast change-over-place now with change-over-time. Forget the concept for a moment and look at those those two phrases. In the phrases, what's different?I'm objecting to Banno's claim that there can be change-over-place irrespective of time. — Luke
Wrong... and I'll repeat this:My question has everything to do with the claim I'm objecting to and is completely valid. — Luke
...so here is your question again:The problem here isn't in what I'm saying. The problem here is only that you're insisting what I mean by change isn't what you think change means. — InPitzotl
You are asking how something ("you") moves irrespective of time. That question presumes something is moving in the first place. But nothing moves when a hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. You're the one insisting it's a valid question... you're the one insisting something must move for a hill to change its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet, so you tell me what it is that is moving.How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke
...doesn't say anything at all about anything moving. Luke is the only one insisting something must be moving. Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. Change in height over change in position (the hill) is not motion. Change in color over change in position (the image) is not motion.I'm objecting to Banno's claim that there can be change-over-place irrespective of time. — Luke
Hint: You're just lost.Then you're either insane or you're lost. — InPitzotl
Nice. — Luke
The graph is just a representation. It's spatial because graphs are spatial things. The x coordinate on the graph corresponds to an x coordinate in Banno's image, but the y coordinate on the graph corresponds to a difference in color. We could talk about the RGB space as "spatial", but it's obviously just an abstraction. On this graph, only one coordinate is spatial (in the sense of physical space; and even this requires us to "play the game" of talking about the image the way we're supposed to).Nothing needs to move for something to change its spatial coordinates (or for what is at a spatial coordinate to change)? — Luke
More "moving" questions? Banno's claim is not about something moving (change-in-place over change-in-time; speed; feet per second). Banno's claim is about something changing over place (change in color over change in x coordinate; color gradient; color-distance per pixel). Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time).And exactly what is changing coordinates here? — Luke
There are instants of time embedded in infinitesimal intervals. — jgill
You're conflating change and the perception of change — ZzzoneiroCosm
Can you explain the difference in a mathematically justified picture? Can change be mathematically described without reference to time? — HKpinsky
Contrast change-over-place now with change-over-time. Forget the concept for a moment and look at those those two phrases. In the phrases, what's different? — InPitzotl
Contrast this with a hill. In 150 feet (unit-of-distance), the hill rises 50 feet (unit-of-distance). So the hill has a gradient of 50 feet over 150 feet. The units cancel and we're left with a gradient of 1/3. The hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. — InPitzotl
Wrong... and I'll repeat this:
The problem here isn't in what I'm saying. The problem here is only that you're insisting what I mean by change isn't what you think change means. — InPitzotl
You are asking how something ("you") moves irrespective of time. — InPitzotl
That question presumes something is moving in the first place. But nothing moves when a hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. You're the one insisting it's a valid question... you're the one insisting something must move for a hill to change its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet, so you tell me what it is that is moving. — InPitzotl
Luke is the only one insisting something must be moving. Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. Change in height over change in position (the hill) is not motion. Change in color over change in position (the image) is not motion. — InPitzotl
Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time). — InPitzotl
For their to be time, there would have to be a change of some kind, and that change has to be measurable in some way. — Sam26
This is why it makes no sense to talk of persons outside of time, timelessness is completely static, because there is no measurable change. I don't think we could make any sense of a universe outside of time or change. — Sam26
Sure. Using x,y,z,t coordinates, A=(1,1,1,1), B=(2,1,1,1), C=(1,1,1,2), D=(2,1,1,2). A to B is a change in place. A to C is a change in time. A to D is a change in place and time.One says "place" and one says "time". I invite you to also consider the idea of change-over-place (without time). — Luke
You're mixing change and motion here (second time you did that). But let's talk motion. Let's say an object O moves from A to D. The problem is, facts at points in time don't change. So if O moves from A to D, O is always at A and always at D. In fact, we can talk about O-at-A and O-at-D separately; change (and motion) requires us to do so. O-at-A is what is at x,y,z coordinate (1,1,1). O-at-D is what is at (2,1,1). We don't really consider O to have moved in this case unless O-at-A and O-at-D are "the same O".In such a scenario, there is no change at any spatial location; nothing changes or moves at (or from) any spatial coordinate. — Luke
Definitionally. You have a hill only if there is a change in height of a terrain such that some place in the terrain is higher than surrounding areas. A terrain H like this could be a hill: A1=(1,1,1), A2=(1,2,1), A3=(1,3,1), A4=(2,1,1), A5=(2,2,2), A6=(2,3,1), A7=(3,1,1), A8=(3,2,1), A9=(3,3,1). The height changes at A5 versus the surrounding specified areas from 1 to 2. A5 is "the same hill" as A1, "just in a different point in space" (cf above). There is a change in H's z coordinate from H-at-A1 to H-at-A5 for the same H.How does the hill "change" its height? — Luke
Sure. But:I asked this question in response to your statement that "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right". — Luke
...this is just narrative. The problem is that there's no way to take this narrative seriously, as there's no sane reading of "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right" in a non-metaphorical sense.You have since backpedalled, at first claiming this motion is only "metaphorical", and now pretending as though you never said anything at all about motion. — Luke
Sure. Nothing is moving. The distance from my head to the wall is about four feet. The direction from my head to the wall is west. Neither of these statements require a thing to move from my head to the wall. If they "appear" to be about motion to you, that is simply because you're choosing to imagine it that way.Why don't you tell me what is moving, given that it appears to be part of your calculation. — Luke
Well first let's fix your question. "Distance" here refers to horizontal distance from a peek. The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time. So you should analogously be asking if something changes height over distance, does it move? And the answer is no, it doesn't. Motion is a time relative change; a change in position over a change in time.If something changes distance, then doesn't it move? — Luke
Answered above, repeated here. The hill is changing height. The-same-hill is at a different height at A4 as it is at A5; i.e., 0 units from peek it is at a height of 2, 1 unit a height of 1.I'll ask again: what changesdistanceheight in these examples? — Luke
Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time). — InPitzotl
Now you're outright conflating change with motion. If a change in color over a change in x coordinate is not motion, that does not mean it is not a change; in fact, it kind of presumes it is a change.Yes, a change in position requires time. That's my point. — Luke
Why don't you tell me what is moving, given that it appears to be part of your calculation.
— Luke
Sure. Nothing is moving. The distance from my head to the wall is about four feet. The direction from my head to the wall is west. Neither of these statements require a thing to move from my head to the wall. — InPitzotl
...this is just narrative. The problem is that there's no way to take this narrative seriously, as there's no sane reading of "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right" in a non-metaphorical sense. — InPitzotl
The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time. — InPitzotl
I have not used that phrase in this thread.That's great, except that (until now) you have been talking about a change in distance, not merely distance. — Luke
...and that I plotted the difference four posts later as a Euclidean distance. Is this what you're referring to? I'll go with that for now.there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right that approaches the color on the right — InPitzotl
The colors are changing their distance to (252,176,65). The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. That is equivalent to saying the color-distance of the color to the color at the right approaches 0. You can see exactly what I described in this graph; as x increases, the trace of color distance of that color to the color at the right approaches 0.Once again, what is it that changes distance? — Luke
Why would it imply such a thing?This would imply that it is the hill that changes its distance. — Luke
Is what only part of the hill?Or is it only part of the hill? — Luke
O has a x-y-z coordinate of 1,1,1 at the time t=1. The same O has a x-y-z coordinate of 1,1,2 at the time t=2.Which one does 'O' represent? — Luke
That's great, except that (until now) you have been talking about a change in distance, not merely distance.
— Luke
I have not used that phrase in this thread. — InPitzotl
A to B represents a change in place of dx1 (along the x coordinate), and a change in color of dy1. I remind you the claim is that there can be a change from place to place. Well, there's a change in place with a change in color. — InPitzotl
I think you're confused. This statement refers to the degree of difference of the color at a given x coordinate in Banno's image to "the color on the right" — InPitzotl
The colors are changing their distance to (252,176,65). The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. That is equivalent to saying the color-distance of the color to the color at the right approaches 0. — InPitzotl
You can see exactly what I described in this graph; as x increases, the trace of color distance of that color to the color at the right approaches 0. — InPitzotl
The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time.
— InPitzotl
This would imply that it is the hill that changes its distance.
— Luke
Why would it imply such a thing? — InPitzotl
Or is it only part of the hill? — Luke
Is what only part of the hill? — InPitzotl
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.