You are the one disregarding variations in ordinary word usage. — Pierre-Normand
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.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
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?In so far as Kant concludes that change must be temporal, he is in error. — Banno
Now it is very clear that the fields change into birds. And further, that this happens over distance, not over time. — Banno
t is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if you "keep it constant" or not. Banno's image doesn't change over time.How on Earth you wanna keep t constant? — 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.Which means time is involved in the change in color. — Cornwell1
But why is that relevant?The very observation that it stays constant in time needs time in the first place. — Cornwell1
We have some crossed wires here.Because the picture you look at can't exist without time. — Cornwell1
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
There's too much baggage ridding on the investment in change being only temporal. — Banno
There's a lot of repetition here so I'm going to cull my responses down to focus. — 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
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
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
Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. — InPitzotl
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
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
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. — sime
Perhaps one can say that the mind is change — sime
What does change are distances. A change in spatial distance is a change in time. — Cornwell1
Distance doesn't exist in the Universe, as it is something that occurs through time. — pfirefry
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: — SophistiCat
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.