Fundamentally speaking, you're trying to illustrate a problem with the notion of a change-over-place as opposed to a change-over-time. Your questions can so far be classified into one of three types, which I'll just label here. Type A questions can be trivially addressed by a proper analog from place to time. Type B questions assert something that is ridiculous when applying the analog from place to time. Type C questions are non-analogous only in the sense that they apply particularly to change-over-time.It seems to me that you have ignored some of the more difficult questions I put to you, — Luke
This is a Type A question. A time analog would be a video comprised of 1110 frames of 1x662 images. If we were to take the Euclidean distance of colors to the color at 1106 (0-based frame indexing) as they change-over-time in such a video and map the progression over-time, the graph would look like this:such as how a colour in Banno's image can "approach" the rightmost x-coordinate, — Luke
This is a Type B question. Single points do not change, even in a change-over-time sense. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're demanding that a single point change and then turning around and demanding there be multiple points in time.or how an x-coordinate can increase. — Luke
Position here refers to the x,y,z coordinates. P1=(1,1,1) is an x,y,z coordinate. P2=(2,1,1) is an x,y,z coordinate. Statements like R1="O is at P1" are time-relative statements; we consider the truth value of such statements to change depending on the time of consideration. R1 is true at t=1; R1 is false at t=2."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? — Luke
Sure. It changes position over time in the exact same fashion that Banno's image changes color over x coordinate.Perhaps you allow for an object to change in position — Luke
But it is changing in time, just as Banno's image is changing in space. You're just misconceiving what a change is. The "thing" you're asking me to show moves from the left to the right is the "thing" you're assuming moves from the O at (1,1,1) at t=1 to the O at (2,1,1) at t=2, and that is the reified erroneous object you presume to exist that there is no such thing as. There is no such thing as that moving thing; there is only the O at (1,1,1) at t=1 and the O at (2,1,1) at t=2, and it is that thing that meets the criteria requisite to say O moved from (1,1,1) to (2,1,1).It seems logical to me that if nothing is changing in time then nothing is changing in place, either. — Luke
No, there's no such thing as Lukeian motion. It suffices for InPizotlean motion that the O-at-P1-at-t1 and the O-at-P2-at-t2 are in different places at different times; it's just the Lukeian concept of motion that requires this reified O-ghost to move through the O-at-P1-at-t1 into the O-at-P2-at-t2 for there to have been a motion of O. My definition makes no reference to this reified O-ghost.Then nothing moves or changes (according to your definition of motion). — Luke
such as how a colour in Banno's image can "approach" the rightmost x-coordinate,
— Luke
This is a Type A question. A time analog would be a video — InPitzotl
or how an x-coordinate can increase.
— Luke
This is a Type B question. Single points do not change — 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're demanding that a single point change — InPitzotl
It seems logical to me that if nothing is changing in time then nothing is changing in place, either.
— Luke
But it is changing in time — InPitzotl
When O moves from A=(1,1,1,1) to D=(2,1,1,2), nothing is changing time. — InPitzotl
Not sure what you're looking for; if it's analogous, it's the same property. But okay.I’m asking you to explain this “approach” to the x-coordinate absent of time, so your analogy that includes time doesn’t help. — Luke
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
"or how an x-coordinate can increase." — Luke
This is a Type B question. Single points do not change, — InPitzotl
You said earlier:
"...The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. ..." — InPitzotl — Luke
Consider three points: B1=(900,10), B2=(850,1), B3=(850,17); their colors are C1=(253,204,155), C2=(253,216,218) and C3=(253,216,218) respectively.I’m looking for you to explain this “increase” in the x-coordinate. You said it, not me. I asked you what this change in the x-coordinate represents and how it increases. — Luke
Those look like different phrases to me. Refer to your quote here:"But it is changing in time" — InPitzotl
You said in your previous post that I was responding to:
"When O moves from A=(1,1,1,1) to D=(2,1,1,2), nothing is changing time." — InPitzotl
Now you are saying that something is changing in time? Well, which is it? — Luke
"Change time" without the "in" is used as an exact analog to "change place" in this quote. B2 doesn't change places to B1; B2 and B1 are merely different places on the same image. The "change" presumably involves a time at which something is at B1, followed by a time when it is at neither B1 nor B2 but traveling, followed by another time at which it is at B2 and not B1. O doesn't do that either. There's no such thing as a time when O is not at A.You are simultaneously asserting that nothing changes place while relying on a change of place (change of x-coordinate) in your calculation. — Luke
Describe Now. — theRiddler
Given an ordered sequence of values v1, v2, v3, ..., vn, and a distance metric D; if the sequence has the property that i<j⇒D(vj,vn)<D(vi,vn), then we say that the sequence approaches vn. — InPitzotl
Consider three points: B1=(900,10), B2=(850,1), B3=(850,17); their colors are C1=(253,204,155), C2=(253,216,218) and C3=(253,216,218) respectively.
Given this particular set of points and associated colors, the statement above is describing the ordered sequence (253,216,218), (253,204,155). Each element in this sequence is "the color at an x coordinate". The sequence's order is specified by "as the x coordinate increases"; the order of said x coordinates is 850, 900. The statement is claiming that this sequence approaches the color on the right. — InPitzotl
O doesn't do that either. There's no such thing as a time when O is not at A.
"Change in time" with "in" contrasts with this; to me, this indicates a time relative view. O changes in time; as you change time coordinates, you get a change in position. Analogously, the color changes in x coordinates; as you change the x coordinate, you get a change in color. — InPitzotl
When O moves from A=(1,1,1,1) to D=(2,1,1,2), nothing is changing time. O moves because O is at A and is at D, D and A are at different times, and D and A are at different places (and more reasons which I'll ignore here for now). O never stops being at (1,1,1) at t=1. 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
To see what philosophy in modern times looks like, read some actual philosophy — SophistiCat
Are you trying to ask how the coordinates are laid out in graphics? The coordinates are labeled x and y thusly: (x,y). For any a and b, (a+1,b) is one pixel right of (a,b). (a,b+1) is one pixel down from (a,b). (0,0) is the coordinate of the leftmost topmost pixel.This doesn't tell me what the increase in the x-coordinate represents. I imagine it represents something in space? — Luke
Because that's what you asked me to do:I don't see why you've needed to introduce an ordered sequence of values, — Luke
...Banno's image consists of an array of pixels. The x coordinates form a finite ordered sequence. The colors associated with the x coordinates form a corresponding finite ordered sequence. Approaching a value is a description of what ordered sequences do.I’m asking you to explain this “approach” to the x-coordinate absent of time, so your analogy that includes time doesn’t help. — Luke
Because that's the phrase under question:or why the sequence's order had to have been specified by "as the x coordinate increases". — Luke
The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. — InPitzotl
Correct. "O is at A" no matter what time you say it. "O is at A" is a time-fixed claim. "O is at A" is true at t=1, and "O is at A" is true at t=2.So you maintain that there is no time when O is not at A — Luke
Correct. "O is at P1" is a time relative claim. "O is at P1" is true at t=1. But "O is at P1" is false at t=2. "O is at P2" is false at t=1. "O is at P2" is true at t=2. Time relative claims have truth values relative to the time under consideration. P1 to P2 is a change in position of O over the change in time of O from t=1 to t=2.However, you also hold the view that things do "change in time"? — Luke
"View" is not the right word to apply here; these are manners of speaking.I find these to be opposing views. — Luke
Almost. This phrasing is x-coordinate relative, not time relative. "as you change the x coordinate" is telling you what it's relative to.According to this latter view, "as you change the x coordinate, you get a change in color". — Luke
It's not time relative; it does not matter when you say it. And it's not time fixed; it's not talking about a particular point in time. It is x-coordinate relative.This is the view of change-over-space that you and Banno believe is possible without time? — Luke
Correct. There isn't an O-ghost that moves from O-at-A to O-at-D. There's just the O-at-A and the O-at-D. And there's no coordinate ghost that moves from 850 to 900. There's just a coordinate of 850 and a coordinate of 900.But in your view nothing "changes time"; nothing changes its x-coordinate or its t-coordinate. — Luke
They aren't views; they are manners of speaking. Our language is filled with relative and fixed references; "yesterday" is a time relative reference to a day, "Jan 27, 2022" is a time fixed reference. The fact that sometimes I use relative references and sometimes fixed references is not a conflict.So how can you hold both the time relative view where "you change the x coordinate" and the time absolute view where you don't? — Luke
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/ — SophistiCat
Are you trying to ask how the coordinates are laid out in graphics? — InPitzotl
...Banno's image consists of an array of pixels. The x coordinates form a finite ordered sequence. The colors associated with the x coordinates form a corresponding finite ordered sequence. — InPitzotl
or why the sequence's order had to have been specified by "as the x coordinate increases".
— Luke
Because that's the phrase under question:
The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. — InPitzotl
I find these to be opposing views.
— Luke
"View" is not the right word to apply here; these are manners of speaking. — InPitzotl
According to this latter view, "as you change the x coordinate, you get a change in color".
— Luke
Almost. This phrasing is x-coordinate relative, not time relative. "as you change the x coordinate" is telling you what it's relative to. — InPitzotl
This is the view of change-over-space that you and Banno believe is possible without time?
— Luke
It's not time relative; it does not matter when you say it. And it's not time fixed; it's not talking about a particular point in time. It is x-coordinate relative. — InPitzotl
There isn't an O-ghost that moves from O-at-A to O-at-D. There's just the O-at-A and the O-at-D. And there's no coordinate ghost that moves from 850 to 900. There's just a coordinate of 850 and a coordinate of 900. — InPitzotl
And there's no coordinate ghost that moves from 850 to 900. There's just a coordinate of 850 and a coordinate of 900. — InPitzotl
This doesn't tell me what the increase in the x-coordinate represents. I imagine it represents something in space? — Luke
The coordinates are labeled x and y thusly: (x,y). For any a and b, (a+1,b) is one pixel right of (a,b). (a,b+1) is one pixel down from (a,b). (0,0) is the coordinate of the leftmost topmost pixel. — InPitzotl
What do you mean by "no"? You asked me what an increase in x coordinates means in terms of space. I gave you a full specification of the coordinate system in an image, including the spatial relation you asked for. If you're looking for something else, I'm afraid you have to rephrase your question.No. I'm asking what the increase in the x-coordinate - that you mentioned earlier - represents. — Luke
I don't see any real questions here. This is just a giant chain of leading questions based on dubious premises.Why must the ordered sequence of the colours in the picture be from left to right? More to the point, why must the sequence approach "n" at all? Who or what is calculating the ordered sequence to "n" to enable the "approach"? In other words, what initiates the ordered sequence being followed? — Luke
No, it's reference. Surely you're not trying to make an argument against staying on topic in a thread? This is the example you're asking about, right?"Because that's the phrase under question:
'The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases.'" — InPitzotl
That's circular. — Luke
Nope. I never said nothing changes or moves position; you said I said that.But you still hold these relative views and don't consider them to be problematic or incompatible with your opinion that nothing moves or changes position, right? — Luke
That does not follow.Like I said, "without time". — Luke
That's not an O-ghost (in my endorsed "view"); that's just O moving. Refer to this:But on the time-relative view that you endorse, which is analogous to the space-relative view, there is an O-ghost. The O-ghost on the space-relative view is the increasing x-coordinate. — Luke
I was chocking this up to a mistake earlier and ignoring it, but you repeated it here. The increasing x-coordinates are not approaching the color on the right; they are just increasing, as it says on the tin. The colors are approaching the color on the right; but that phrase is an underspecification. Approaching is something an ordered sequence does, and we have to specify how the colors are ordered so we can meaningfully say it's approaching the color. That is what the phrase "as the x-coordinate increases" does... it imposes the order.What about the increasing x-coordinate(s) and their associated colour(s) "approaching" the colour on the right? — Luke
I know of some prominent philosophers of physics with physics or math degrees: David Albert, David Wallace, Huw Price, Dennis Dieks. — SophistiCat
This doesn't tell me what the increase in the x-coordinate represents. I imagine it represents something in space?
— Luke
The coordinates are labeled x and y thusly: (x,y). For any a and b, (a+1,b) is one pixel right of (a,b). (a,b+1) is one pixel down from (a,b). (0,0) is the coordinate of the leftmost topmost pixel. — InPitzotl
The only special thing about increase in x coordinates here is that Banno posted an image and made a claim about a change of color from left to right. — InPitzotl
Nope. I never said nothing changes or moves position; you said I said that. — 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
O does not move from A to D; O is always at A and always at D. — InPitzotl
B2 doesn't change places to B1; B2 and B1 are merely different places on the same image. — InPitzotl
I was chocking this up to a mistake earlier and ignoring it, but you repeated it here. The increasing x-coordinates are not approaching the color on the right; — InPitzotl
The increasing x-coordinates are not approaching the color on the right; they are just increasing, as it says on the tin. — InPitzotl
The colors are approaching the color on the right; but that phrase is an underspecification. Approaching is something an ordered sequence does, and we have to specify how the colors are ordered so we can meaningfully say it's approaching the color. That is what the phrase "as the x-coordinate increases" does... it imposes the order. — InPitzotl
What the heck is an a-pixel? And what do you mean "replace x-coordinates"? a and b here are numbers; (a,b) expresses an x,y coordinate with x=a and y=b. 12+1=13; so (13,7) is one pixel right of (12,7), and (7,13) is one pixel down from (7,12). FYI, this is grammar school level competency.This does nothing but replace x-coordinates with a-pixels. — Luke
None of those things say "nothing moves"; none of them say "nothing changes". Incidentally, isn't this you?:You've said that nothing moves or changes position in various ways recently: — Luke
...so I would like to know, Luke, if you're going to prefer to be consistent and claim that you are saying nothing changes, or honest and admit that you are just building straw men.Nothing about it has changed — Luke
...exactly what you would expect, if the increase is mathematical. That 5 is an increase from 3 ipso facto makes it an increase in value because it is that value being described by increase.You have used mathematics to demonstrate that there is an increase, but you then explain this increase as mathematical. — Luke
This I believe is the first time in my life that I have seen a mathematical form of guilt by association fallacy. The fact that you don't see why this is wrong, I'm afraid, disqualifies you from having this conversation; it's basically a tacit admission that you don't understand what approach means. But to let you in on it, no. It doesn't work like that. We would never say given f(x)=x/2, that x approaches 5 as it approaches 10 because it is associated with a f(x) value; and that's a case where x and f(x) are both numbers in the first place. In Banno's image, x is a number and "f(x)" is a color.If the colours are approaching the colour on the right, as you say, then I don't see how each x-coordinate isn't also approaching the colour on the right. — Luke
Coordinates are grammar school material, Luke. You shouldn't be confused in the first place.It might be clearer if you could explain what the increase represents in terms of the hill. What does the increase in the x-coordinate represent there? — Luke
I think the main problem here is your own confusion.I am of the opinion that, absent of time, nothing changes in space. — Luke
...I smell an epistemic double standard. The value of your opinion is proportional to the justification. You're not only lacking that; you're apparently so allergic to opposition, you invent straw men even on points you agree with (exhibit B).Therefore, I think you need to account for the assumed change in space (absent of time) and/or what such change represents or corresponds to. — Luke
From here.Progressive lenses are different in that they offer a gradual change in power from the top of the lens to the bottom, offering a smoother progression from one correction to the next. — Eye care specialists of Colorado
From here.Gradients are used in places where you want a more natural change in color rather than using one solid color fill throughout the shape. — Amadine tutorial
From here.Here are two examples of roof pitch expressed as horizontal run and riser vertical change in height (rise) for a roof with a 38 degree slope: — Inspectapedia, Roof Slope Calculation
From here.The road changes width, offers poor sightlines, and sometimes offers no shoulder at all for pedestrians and bike riders. — Rockingham Planning Commission
What the heck is an a-pixel? And what do you mean "replace x-coordinates"? a and b here are numbers; (a,b) expresses an x,y coordinate with x=a and y=b. — InPitzotl
Exhibit B:
You've said that nothing moves or changes position in various ways recently:
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
O does not move from A to D; O is always at A and always at D.
— InPitzotl
B2 doesn't change places to B1; B2 and B1 are merely different places on the same image.
— InPitzotl
— Luke
None of those things say "nothing moves"; none of them say "nothing changes". Incidentally, isn't this you?:
Exhibit B2:
— InPitzotl
Nothing about it has changed
— Luke
...so I would like to know, Luke, if you're going to prefer to be consistent and claim that you are saying nothing changes, or honest and admit that you are just building straw men. — InPitzotl
...exactly what you would expect, if the increase is mathematical. That 5 is an increase from 3 ipso facto makes it an increase in value because it is that value being described by increase. — InPitzotl
In Banno's image, x is a number and "f(x)" is a color. — InPitzotl
It might be clearer if you could explain what the increase represents in terms of the hill. What does the increase in the x-coordinate represent there?
— Luke
Coordinates are grammar school material, Luke. You shouldn't be confused in the first place. — InPitzotl
The value of your opinion is proportional to the justification. You're not only lacking that; you're apparently so allergic to opposition, you invent straw men even on points you agree with (exhibit B). — InPitzotl
So let's talk about that word change. That is an English word; used by English speakers. Applied to change-over-place, we can examine how people in the wild use that word. Here are some samples: — InPitzotl
Do you agree that D1 and E1 do not animate? — InPitzotl
Ostensively speaking, D1 and E1, especially opposed to B1/C1 and F1/G1 and friends, are changes that are not changes over time. — 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.