You are the one disregarding variations in ordinary word usage. — Pierre-Normand

Well, no. Consider this:



Now it is very clear that the fields change into birds. And further, that this happens over distance, not over time.

The locution "The fields change into birds" makes sense in the context. It's clear what it being said. If you were to ask for a print of the Esher in which fields change into birds, it would be clear what you were after.

And it is I who is saying these locutions are part of our world, a way of talking that makes sense, and you who must make the claim, in the face of the evidence, that they do not. It is you who is the one disregarding variations in word use.

Frankly, Kant was writing more than two hundred years ago. When folk invest some considerable amount of their time reading him, as they must if they are to understand him, they look for a payout in terms of using what they have learned. Hence the defensiveness so often found in his acolytes.

In so far as Kant concludes that change must be temporal, he is in error.

Again, it is not I who seeks to restrict the use of the word "change" to temporal events. It is not I who disregards ordinary use.

Again, it is not I who seeks to restrict the use of the word "change" to temporal events. It is not I who disregards ordinary use. — Banno

I object. You center a meaning of a word in a context, and then generalize it. And that's a bad move. Yes I and I think most people understand what is meant wrt the Escher print. I also understand that what was meant is not what was said. Nothing in the print changes. No field becomes a bird or vice versa. Breaking it down, I see a succession of differences in shapes suggestive of different things, no changes at all.

In so far as Kant concludes that change must be temporal, he is in error. — Banno

An example, please, of a non-temporal change. I assume you mean that time is no part of the change, and that the change occurs, what?, in no time whatsoever? Is that what you mean?

An example, please, of a non-temporal change. — tim wood

:roll:

Now it is very clear that the fields change into birds. And further, that this happens over distance, not over time. — Banno

Only when your eyes gaze over Escher the day turns into night. Escher even predetermined you gaze and perception. You have to stop time first. Only then the partial derivative makes sense. The changes in space, dx/dy, pertain to constant time. How you stop time?

How on Earth you wanna keep t constant? — Cornwell1

t is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if you "keep it constant" or not. Banno's image doesn't change over time.

Which means time is involved in the change in color. — Cornwell1

What gave you the idea that it means that? O changes location over changes in time. The color change in Banno's image is over a change in x coordinate.

t is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if you "keep it constant" or not. Banno's image doesn't change over time — InPitzotl

The very observation that it stays constant in time needs time in the first place.

The very observation that it stays constant in time needs time in the first place. — Cornwell1

But why is that relevant?

O is at x,y,z,t=(1,1,1,1) and at x,y,z,t=(2,1,1,2). A change in time coordinate here from t=1 to t=2 results in a change in the x,y,z coordinates here from (1,1,1) to (2,1,1). So that is a change in x,y,z coordinates (position) over a change in t coordinate.

Banno's image has colors like r,g,b,x=(253,216,182,850) and r,g,b,x=(253,204,155,900). A change in x coordinate here from x=850 to x=900 results in a change in r,g,b values from (253,216,182) to (253,204,155). So this is a change in r,g,b coordinates (color) over a change in x coordinates.

But Banno's image doesn't change over time. Right now (t=0), we have r,g,b,x,t=(253,216,182,850,0). 999 time units from now, it will be (253,216,182,850,999). Here we have a change in time coordinates from t=0 to t=999. But that results in the same r,g,b coordinate: (253,216,182) versus (253,216,182). So we have an equivalence of color over a change in time, not a change in color over a change in time.

But why is that relevant — InPitzotl

Because the picture you look at can't exist without time.

It's the same problem that's encountered in the Wheeler-de Witt equation. No time involved, the whole block universe is laid out in advance. Problem is:how do things move on worldlines then?

Because the picture you look at can't exist without time. — Cornwell1

We have some crossed wires here.

I've shown that a change in t coordinate does not correspond to a change in color. You respond to that by trying to demonstrate, in effect, that there are at least two t coordinates. It appears to me that you're a wee bit behind what you replied to.

Your discussion on block universes might be of some interest in the thread, but it has little to do with the thing I've been discussing.

The locution "The fields change into birds" makes sense in the context. It's clear what it being said. If you were to ask for a print of the Esher in which fields change into birds, it would be clear what you were after.

And it is I who is saying these locutions are part of our world, a way of talking that makes sense, and you who must make the claim, in the face of the evidence, that they do not. It is you who is the one disregarding variations in word use. — Banno

I acknowledged that those locutions make sense. But they are making use of the word "change" in a derivative way. I never said they were nonsense (except in the few cases where you were equivocating on the reference of "it" in order to suggest that some determinate thing literally changed into something else). Clearly, there is a sense in which the fields remain fields and the birds remain birds. In that sense, they don't change. They are elements from a static picture. And in another sense, the fields change into birds (and the background patches between the white birds change into black birds, and vice versa).

How can something both change and remain unchanged? It would have to change in some respect and remain the same in another respect. But that's not what's occurring here. The repeated pictorial elements both change*, and fail to change, in the exact same respect: that is, in what they depict. The only reason why there isn't a contradiction is that the word "change" is being used in two different ways, with two different senses, or in a literal sense and a derivative sense. In the present case, the derivative sense is clear. Escher created a pattern of repetition with small incremental spatial variations meant to evoke a metamorphosis: something that is changing in the first, primary, sense. The pictorial elements change* (secondary sense) in the sense that they evoke a change (primary sense).

In Banno's example of color change, that change is of a dy/dx type. But as the eye moves from left to right, that change is of the dy/dt type. When x=x(t), dy/dt=(dy/dx)(dx/dt).

Yes. dy/dx remains the crunch example.

I can't see this discussion making progress... see . There's too much baggage ridding on the investment in change being only temporal.

Might leave it there.

This thread illuminates what it is to be a philosopher in modern times when all the sciences have progressed to the point that philosophical inquiries in them mean scientific speculation - requiring depths of knowledge in the subjects. Legal and moral and ethical and political issues also require specialized knowledge. What is left?

I see this in mathematics. It's hard to reach and survive on the leading edges, no matter what intellectual direction one takes. What's left to ponder are elemental concepts, long eclipsed by experts, as we've seen on this forum.

Again, it is not I who seeks to restrict the use of the word "change" to temporal events. It is not I who disregards ordinary use. — Banno

It seems like objecting to change as being temporal is precisely disregarding ordinary use, but hey what do I know.

@Banno

I think what others are trying to say is true, your images show change with change in distance, but can change in distance take place without change in time?

I commend you nonetheless since you've managed to interpose distance between change and chronos. That's a win in my book.

Yours is a telling analysis, that leaves me somewhat in a state of disbelief - or even grief. Philosophy becoming the poor cousin in academia.

But I don't think that this - our present topic - is so very specialised. Intelligent, well-educated folk should know that dx/dy describes a change without time. It's pretty elementary stuff - high school applied maths.

There's too much baggage ridding on the investment in change being only temporal. — Banno

I didn't even attempt to argue that change only is temporal. I simply indicated conceptual connections that illuminates the core concept and pointed out that that conflation with derivative uses of the word "change" tend to obscure those connections. So, basically I tried to widen the context of the discussion beyond the simplistic thesis that change is whatever people use the word "change" to refer to regardless of context or intent.

There's a lot of repetition here so I'm going to cull my responses down to focus. — InPitzotl

It seems to me that you have ignored some of the more difficult questions I put to you, such as how a colour in Banno's image can "approach" the rightmost x-coordinate, or how an x-coordinate can increase.

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

Surely the statement refers to a change in the degree of difference of the color at a given x coordinate?
— Luke

No, it refers to a change in degree of difference of the color over different x coordinates. — InPitzotl

Okay, thank you for correcting (my correction of) your original statement.

You're just misconceiving change. When O moves from A=(1,1,1,1) to D=(2,1,1,2), nothing is changing time. — InPitzotl

According to the definition of motion you gave the other day:

Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. — InPitzotl

Per this definition of motion, how can O move if "nothing is changing time"?

Analogously, how can O move if nothing is changing position?

Perhaps you allow for an object to change in position (even though you do not allow for an object to change in time)? I only ask because you appear to suggest so here:

Nay, O cannot possibly be said to move from (1,1,1) to (2,1,1) unless O is at (1,1,1) at some t coordinate t1, and then finds itself at (2,1,1) at some different t coordinate t2, with the further requirement (due to the use of move from...to) that t2 is in the future direction of t1. — InPitzotl

It seems logical to me that if nothing is changing in time then nothing is changing in place, either. According to such a view, there can be no change over time or place.

There's no such thing as a thing that moves from (1,1,1) at t=1 to (2,1,1) at t=2 — InPitzotl

Then nothing moves or changes (according to your definition of motion).

All of you must be talking nonsense. It's easy to demonstrate that nothing can change in space. How can the same thing exist in two different positions? It's also easy to demonstrate that nothing can change in time. How can the same thing exist in two different points in time? It must be two very similar things, but they are not the same, since they exist at different times. There is no such thing as change.

Yes. In one comment I quoted you for having used two t's, t1 and t2. I thought you had seen the light. Apparently, you hadn't. Of course, the image doesn't change in time. All dx/dy is invariant wrt time. I don't dispute that. I dispute that do arrive at dx and dy you don't need time. It takes time to perform the analysis. The picture is embedded in time. A change in x and y has to be accompanied by a change in t, dt. dx/dy is independent from time. In relativity, $ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2$. So for both dx and dy a dt is involved but they cancel upon dividing. So the use of time is implicitly present but hidden.

All of you must be talking nonsense. It's easy to demonstrate that nothing can change in space. How can the same thing exist in two different positions? It's also easy to demonstrate that nothing can change in time. How can the same thing exist in two different points in time? It must be two very similar things, but they are not the same, since they exist at different times. There is no such thing as change. — pfirefry

Nevertheless, one can still create the idea of 'change' by using an indexical such as 'this' to refer to two or more referents, as when recognising that the colour of an object has changed - something that is objectively nonsense for the reasons you point out, and yet subjectively meaningful.

Perhaps one can say that the mind is change, implying that philosophical theories concerning personal identity over time are unnecessary and redundant.

What does change are distances. A change in spatial distance is a change in time.

Nevertheless, one can still create the idea of 'change' by using an indexical such as 'this' to refer to two or more referents, as when recognising that the colour of an object has changed - something that is objectively nonsense for the reasons you point out, and yet subjectively meaningful. — sime

I can play by these rules, thank you.

Perhaps one can say that the mind is change — sime

That would make sense, but it also wouldn't tell us much :wink:

What does change are distances. A change in spatial distance is a change in time. — Cornwell1

Unfortunately, distance between two points p1 and p2 cannot be measured at a given time t0. To measure distance, we need to move between point p1 and point p2. Movement requires time, as nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Distance doesn't exist in the Universe, as it is something that occurs through time.

I can't be measured but it exists. $ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$, for flat space. The distances between particles change, so time changes accordingly. If distances change, there will be a corresponding change of the hands on the clock.

Distance doesn't exist in the Universe, as it is something that occurs through time. — pfirefry

Distances between particles exist every moment in time, even if we can't measure them. If they change, time changes.

Indeed, to measure a distance, you have to walk with an odometer or, for distances in time, look at the clock. Ýou can even calculate changes in distance by knowing the change in time. $s=\frac{1}{2}at^2$.

You are talking nonsense! ( :wink: ) Change is everywhere!

This thread illuminates what it is to be a philosopher in modern times — jgill

No, it doesn't. To see what philosophy in modern times looks like, read some actual philosophy, e.g. here: https://philpapers.org/browse/time/

It is claimed that the unidirectional nature of time is mysterious. Isn't this, on the contrary, a prerequisite? You can say if one isolated particle moves forward or backward in time. But what about the evolution of a one-particle wavefunction?

This thread illuminates what it is to be a philosopher in modern times when all the sciences have progressed to the point that philosophical inquiries in them mean scientific speculation — jgill

Which means to be a scientist as well? Or better, a mathematician? :roll:

No, it doesn't. To see what philosophy in modern times looks like, read some actual philosophy, e.g. here: — SophistiCat

It does. You just have to actually know something about science and mathematics. Jgill does.