Surely the first statement of yours quoted above (in bold) can be read as saying that nothing moves, or that there is no such thing as a thing that moves from one position at time t1 to another position at time t2? Do you also assert that there is something that moves from one position at t1 to another position at t2? Maintaining both statements is a contradiction. — Luke

This was explained already. You're confusing a change in place over time with a change in place-and-time over time, the latter of which makes motion incoherent. I'm not claiming this isn't motion; I'm claiming it's not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). The change here is from O's being at (1,1) to O's being at (2,1); not from O's being at (1,1,1) to O's being at (2,1,2). Think about it; (1,1,1) and (2,1,2) are different points-in-time, sure, but so are (1,1,1) and (1,1,2), and the latter is just called staying still. But it gets worse than this...

If O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then by what means do you think you get to say O was at (1,1)? When would it have even been there... at t=1? Nope; that's no good... that's the very thing you'd be claiming changed... that O was at (1,1) at t=1. So if you can't say that O is at (1,1) at t=1, given you're going to claim that its being there changes, then how can you claim it was ever not at (2,1)?

That is the contradiction, and it's on your end. If you're going to claim that facts about where an object is in place-and-time change, then you cannot get motion off the ground in the first place.

Or to rephrase it, see the "right" and "wrong" column again:

Do you agree that D1 and E1 do not animate? — InPitzotl
Yes, I agree. — Luke

Okay, then you're wasting my time.

What "road narrows" usually indicates is that the road gets narrower as you travel down the road. — Luke

Nope. That's B2, C2, and D2. The sign is just telling you the road is shaped like D1.

What causes change over distance?

In the case of everyday physics, change over time via motion is caused by a change in the inertial state of a material object.

A real-world, specific example goes thus: a boulder sits at the base of a hill. Its inertial state is rest. Another boulder, rolling down said hill strikes the first boulder, setting it in motion. It rolls for a distance of 20 feet over a time interval of 29 seconds.

This change over time via motion was caused by a change in the inertial state of the resting boulder to the inertial state of a rolling boulder.

Can you give a real-world, specific example of a cause that effects a change over distance, with elapsed time equal to zero?

Can you give a real-world, specific example of a cause that effects a change over distance, with elapsed time equal to zero? — ucarr

They can't! Every change in space, dx, is accompanied by a dt. You're absolutely right!

There are no spacelike worldlines.

Everyone knows what time is. — Raymond

Maybe you mean "Everyone talks about time". Because, if you really mean "Everyone knows what time is" then I guess you also mean or can expect that everyone can give a workable definition of description of "time". Have you asked any of them what time really is? Can you answer that yourself? It would be interesting to do that and hear hundreds of different answers, which in fact, will not explain what time really is.

You have talked abput Einstein and clocks and that time can't go backwards and so on. Do any of that explain what time really is?

Then, if as you say "time is an old subject that can be traced back to the antiquity (much before Plato, before 1,500 BC, and philosphers and scientists still speak about and disagree on it, doesn't this make it a "mystery"?

Iit is the same mystery as with "consciousness", "reality" and other concepts, the nature of which is a subject very common in the agendas of philosphers and scientists since a long time ago and yet unresolved!

Do any of that explain what time really is? — Alkis Piskas

Can't we say that time is an irreversible collective motion of particles, which started near time zero?

You have still not answered the question of what an increase in the x-coordinate represents with respect to Banno's image or the hill.

I'm claiming it's not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). The change here is from O's being at (1,1) to O's being at (2,1); not from O's being at (1,1,1) to O's being at (2,1,2). — InPitzotl

Of course it is motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). Why is it not? It denotes a change in position over a change in time, which is the definition of motion that you provided earlier.

Think about it; (1,1,1) and (2,1,2) are different points-in-time, sure, but so are (1,1,1) and (1,1,2), and the latter is just called staying still. But it gets worse than this... — InPitzotl

If the latter is called staying still, then the former must be called moving. So are you saying that the object does move from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2)? But you have just said "I'm claiming it's not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2)". It can't be both motion and not motion.

The change here is from O's being at (1,1) to O's being at (2,1); not from O's being at (1,1,1) to O's being at (2,1,2). — InPitzotl

I think what you are trying to say is that the object does not move from t1 to t2 (per the definition of motion), or that a change in time (only) is insufficient for motion, but that's not what you have said. Obviously, the object does change from being at t1 to being at t2. Moreover, it is also obvious that the object cannot change position (i.e. move) unless it also changes time.

If O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then by what means do you think you get to say O was at (1,1)? — InPitzotl

Because it was at (1,1) before it changed. Right? That's what change is.

When would it have even been there... at t=1? — InPitzotl

Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1).

[As an aside, you were earlier using notation of (x,y,z,t), but in this post you have changed to (x,y,t). I am just trying to follow your notation.]

Nope; that's no good... that's the very thing you'd be claiming changed... that O was at (1,1) at t=1. — InPitzotl

O was at (1,1) at t=1 and then it changed (e.g. to being at (2,1) at t=2). I don't see the issue.

So if you can't say that O is at (1,1) at t=1, given you're going to claim that its being there changes, then how can you claim it was ever not at (2,1)? — InPitzotl

It is at (2,1) at t=2. At least, I presume that's what you've been saying. I don't see why I can't say that O was at (1,1) at t=1 and then it changes/moves to (2,1) at t=2. You may need to spell out further what the problem is here.

That is the contradiction, and it's on your end. — InPitzotl

What is the contradiction on my end? That objects can change position and time?

If you're going to claim that facts about where an object is in place-and-time change, then you cannot get motion off the ground in the first place. — InPitzotl

I never said anything about changes in facts. I have only spoken about the changes in the positions and times of an object.

You have switched from talking about changes in positions and times of an object to talking about changes in facts about the positions and times of an object. Are you implying that changeless facts about the positions and times of an object implies changeless positions and changeless times for that object? Then motion is impossible.

To repeat, if changeless facts (about the positions and times of an object) implies changeless positions and changeless times (for that object), then motion is impossible. But I have not said anything about changeless facts. However, you have said that O does change position, and you said this as recently as your latest post:

The change here is from O's being at (1,1) to O's being at (2,1) — InPitzotl

Then again, you have also said:

O does not move from A to D; O is always at A and always at D. — InPitzotl

These contradictions are your own.

Can't we say that time is an irreversible collective motion of particles, which started near time zero? — Dijkgraf

We could say that time is irreversible, based on common sense and experience. (And Physics laws, I guess, but check https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6501215 about time reversal. Im' not good in Physics though!)

We can't say "(collective) motion of particles" since, as far as I know, it has not ben proven that time consists of particles.

And we certainly can't say either that "it started at time zero", since this is a circular statement: time started at time zero! :)

And we certainly can't say either that "it started at time sero", since this is a circular statement: time started at time zero! — Alkis Piskas

Consider the possibility of "time zero". This would mean that there is a future without any past. Why would there suddenly be a past? "Time zero" itself makes sense, but it requires a cause from outside of time, something which causes there to suddenly be a past. It's the "cause from outside of time" which is difficult to make sense of.

Of course it is motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). Why is it not? — Luke

Because it's still at (1,1,1). That didn't change.

It denotes a change in position over a change in time, which is the definition of motion that you provided earlier. — Luke

Sure. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1). That is a change.

So are you saying that the object does move from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2)? — Luke

No, I'm saying it moved from (1,1) to (2,1).

But you have just said "I'm claiming it's not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2)". — Luke

Right. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1); not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). The former is a change; when it's at (2,1), it's not at (1,1) any more. That's a change over time; it's at (2,1) at time t=2; it's at (1,1) at time t=1. The latter is not a change; when O is at (2,1,2), it's still at (1,1,1). That's what that underlined phrase represents, right?:

Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1). — Luke

Now again:

If O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then by what means do you think you get to say O was at (1,1)? — InPitzotl

Because it was at (1,1) before it changed. Right? — Luke

When would it have even been there... at t=1? — InPitzotl

Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1). — Luke

What is the contradiction on my end? — Luke

There. Underlined. You're saying that if O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then you can still say O was at (1,1) at t=1, because O's at (1,1,1). At once, O's being at (1,1,1) changes, and it doesn't change?

To repeat, if changeless facts (about the positions and times of an object) implies changeless positions and changeless times (for that object), then motion is impossible. — Luke

What are you talking about? O's always being at (1,1,1) and always at (2,1,2) does not imply O is at (1,1) at time t=2, nor at (2,1) at time t=1. Nor does it imply that (2,1) is the same at (1,1). Nor does it imply that O is not at (1,1) at time t=1; nor that O is not at (2,1) at time t=2; nay, it actually asserts both. Why would you think it implies any of those things? That implication that motion is impossible if facts about time don't change came only from Luke's own confusion.

This would mean that there is a future without any past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This reminds me the way two couples use to repair a broken relation: "OK, let's forget about the past. Let's start a new life from now!" :smile: And similar funny cases ...

It's the "cause from outside of time" which is difficult to make sense of. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. Like a new bing bang, for example! :grin:

Let's start a new life from now!" — Alkis Piskas

I assume this means let's make a baby.

Of course it is motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). Why is it not?
— Luke

Because it's still at (1,1,1). That didn't change. — InPitzotl

Then what has changed?

Sure. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1). That is a change. — InPitzotl

The object being at t=1 and then at t=2 is also a change. How can you allow for the object to change position if you do not allow for the object to change time?

Right. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1); not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). The former is a change; when it's at (2,1), it's not at (1,1) any more. That's a change over time; it's at (2,1) at time t=2; it's at (1,1) at time t=1. The latter is not a change; when O is at (2,1,2), it's still at (1,1,1). That's what that underlined phrase represents, right?: — InPitzotl

You seem to be saying that the object does not change time. But isn't that a requirement of motion, per the definition?

You're saying that if O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then you can still say O was at (1,1) at t=1, because O's at (1,1,1). At once, O's being at (1,1,1) changes, and it doesn't change? — InPitzotl

I'm not the one saying that O's being at (1,1,1) doesn't change. It does change. What you are accusing me of with respect to time is what you are guilty of with respect to position. You are saying that the object both changes and does not change position. You say that the object is always at (1,1,1) but you also allow for it to change from (1,1) to (2,1). You are the only one of us saying that O doesn't change in some respect. I'm saying that it changes with respect to both position and time. Therefore, the contradiction is yours.

You introduced changeless facts into the discussion. If, according to your logic, changeless facts imply that change of any sort is a contradiction, then that's on you.

I assume this means let's make a baby. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that case, it would rather be "Let's create a new life" :grin:

Can you give a real-world, specific example of a cause that effects a change over distance, with elapsed time equal to zero? — ucarr

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance.

Note that you have changed the topic from change over time to cause over time.

CAUSE, like CHANGE, refers to an alteration in the state of things, over time. The deformation of the cushion, involving motion, consumes time.

The deformed cushion, a rest state, doesn't exemplify change.

Exercise leads to (causes) big muscles. This is, clearly, change in the state of a physical body over time.

As long as you use CHANGE in your proposition, you will need to demonstrate a change of state of one thing that consumes zero time.

Twaddle.

Change refers to an alteration in the state of a thing. Often over time, but as has been shown, not always.

But that you have now introduced cause we may begin to gain an understanding of why this triviality is of such import to you.

I'm guessing causation is fundamental to some notion you hold dear - perhaps arguments for a god, or some such.

Change refers to an alteration in the state of a thing. — Banno

The “state” of a thing is its condition at a given time.

Banno, I think you're saying causation is trivial. Please elaborate by giving us a trivial, mundane cause of
change in the state of a material object with time equal to zero for the change.

It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1); not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). The former is a change; when it's at (2,1), it's not at (1,1) any more. That's a change over time; it's at (2,1) at time t=2; it's at (1,1) at time t=1. — InPitzotl

To emphasise my point:

You say that there is motion from (1,1) at t=1 to (2,1) at t=2; and
You say that there is not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2).

Please explain:

How is (1,1) at t=1 different from (1,1,1)?
How is (2,1) at t=2 different from (2,1,2)?

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

The object being at t=1 and then at t=2 is also a change. — Luke

In what sense? The object is at (1,1) at t=1; therefore the object is at t=1. The object is at (2,1) at t=2; therefore the object is at t=2. So O is both at t=1 and at t=2. Where's the change?

You seem to be saying that the object does not change time. But isn't that a requirement of motion, per the definition? — Luke

Nope. The object's position changes over time; that's exactly what the definition requires.

I'm not the one saying that O's being at (1,1,1) doesn't change. It does change. — Luke

And yet it apparently doesn't:

If O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then by what means do you think you get to say O was at (1,1)? — InPitzotl

Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1). — Luke

I guess by change, you mean that "O's being at (1,1,1)" changes from true to false and back again based on when Luke thinks he needs to say O's not at (1,1,1) and when Luke thinks he needs to say O is at (1,1,1). Perhaps during the phrase "O moves from (1,1) to (2,1)", O's being at (1,1,1) starts off being false, then somewhere near the "from (1,1)" part it reverts to being true again, and as soon as you reach the "to (2,1)", it becomes false again. Something like that?

You are saying that the object both changes and does not change position. — Luke

Nope; I'm saying the object changes position over time. It's at one position at one time, and a different position at a different time. That's not a problem. Being at one position at one time doesn't preclude being at a different position at a different time. You're the one that says the object both changes and doesn't change position. It's you who says that O isn't at (1,1) at t=1 any more, and yet, O is at (1,1) at t=1.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You need for O to be at (1,1) at t=1 to say it's in a different place at t=2, when it's at (2,1). You eat that cake when you claim that O's being at (1,1,1) changes. But then you try to have it when you try to establish what it changed from and when.

You say that the object is always at (1,1,1) but you also allow for it to change from (1,1) to (2,1). — Luke

The change from (1,1) to (2,1) is a change over time. O's at (1,1) at t=1; it's at (2,1) at t=2. Those different positions are at different times.

You introduced changeless facts into the discussion. — Luke

And you appeal to them; you just compartmentalize it.

You say that there is motion from (1,1) at t=1 to (2,1) at t=2; and
You say that there is not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). — Luke

You're just parsing the English wrong. Here, it's "(from (1,1)) (at t=1)", not "(from ((1,1) at t=1))". The "at t=1" describes when it was "from (1,1)", not where it's moving from. Similarly for the other phrase: "(to (2,1)) (at t=2)", not "(to ((2,1) at t=2))".

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

But the weight has to sit down first.

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

State 1: cushion without weight = shape of cushion 1
State 2: cushion with weight sitting on it = shape of cushion 2

Question - What causes shape of cushion 1 to become shape of cushion 2?

When asking about causation, we're asking about a connection or relationship between two states of being. We're asking about the before and the after.

What's at the center of our focus here is connection, or relationship. We're not looking at State 1 and then jumping to look at State 2. Such a jump, like a cut in a motion picture from one scene to another, can be conceptualized as being timeless, but, in phenomenal reality, there are no timeless cuts.

In your head, you can visualize a motion picture like cut and imagine it to be timeless, however, in phenomenal reality, as Schootz1 points out, the weight deforms the cushion via the action of gravitation upon its mass, which causes movement across an interval of time of positive value.

You can talk about juxtaposing two points of view of a material object and say they express two different forms of the same object. You can call this a juxtaposition of different forms, but change of, or change over - outside of time - don't apply.

You have not given a single example of change of state of being outside of time. Your persistence in claiming such is based on a misuse of change over distance.

That's obviously a different example.

The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

There are a few physical formula in which time does not play a role. Each of these is an example of cause without time. The resistance of a circuit and the colour of a black body are two more examples. Trouble is, for some reason you cannot accept them as falsifying your hypothesis. A adoration of Kant or Jesus or some such. Hence your need to move the goalposts from change to causation. Whatever argument is presented against your view will be met with an ad hoc defence.

Your inability to see the flaw in your position is not my problem.

The object being at t=1 and then at t=2 is also a change.
— Luke

In what sense? The object is at (1,1) at t=1; therefore the object is at t=1. The object is at (2,1) at t=2; therefore the object is at t=2. So O is both at t=1 and at t=2. Where's the change? — InPitzotl

Ask yourself that question. You have made clear your belief that O does not change in time, presumably due to its four-dimensional existence at both t=1 and t=2. However, this change in time is required by the definition of motion: "change in position over change in time". So where is the change in time that is required in order for you to say that O moves? (Also, where does O move from/to?)

In my opinion, this is easy to answer: The change in time is that O is first at t=1 and then subsequently at t=2. However, since you hold that O exists at both t=1 and t=2, and that O therefore does not change in time from t=1 to t=2, then how do you account for a change in time?

Nope. The object's position changes over time; that's exactly what the definition requires. — InPitzotl

The object changes from being at one time to being at another; that's exactly what the definition also requires. Change in position over change in time.

I'm not the one saying that O's being at (1,1,1) doesn't change. It does change.
— Luke

And yet it apparently doesn't:

If O's being at (1,1,1) were to change, then by what means do you think you get to say O was at (1,1)?
— InPitzotl

Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1).
— Luke — InPitzotl

I think you overlooked the word "was".

I guess by change, you mean that "O's being at (1,1,1)" changes from true to false and back again based on when Luke thinks he needs to say O's not at (1,1,1) and when Luke thinks he needs to say O is at (1,1,1). — InPitzotl

"O's being at (1,1,1)" is true iff O is at (1,1,1). If "O's being at (1,1,1)" and "O's being at (2,1,2)" are both true, then how can O possibly change from being at (1,1,1) to being at (2,1,2)? What does "change" mean in that case?

Being at one position at one time doesn't preclude being at a different position at a different time. — InPitzotl

No, it doesn't, but a difference is not necessarily a change. Existing at both times precludes changing from one time to another.

The change from (1,1) to (2,1) is a change over time. O's at (1,1) at t=1; it's at (2,1) at t=2. Those different positions are at different times. — InPitzotl

How does O change from one time to another if it always exists at both t=1 and t=2?

You're just parsing the English wrong. Here, it's "(from (1,1)) (at t=1)", not "(from ((1,1) at t=1))". The "at t=1" describes when it was "from (1,1)", not where it's moving from. Similarly for the other phrase: "(to (2,1)) (at t=2)", not "(to ((2,1) at t=2))". — InPitzotl

Okay then:

You say that there is motion from [(1,1)] [at t=1] to [(2,1)] [at t=2]; and
You say that there is not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2).

How is [(1,1)] [at t=1] different from (1,1,1)?
How is [(2,1)] [at t=2] different from (2,1,2)?

There are a few physical formula in which time does not play a role. Each of these is an example of cause without time. The resistance of a circuit and the colour of a black body are two more examples. — Banno

you cannot accept them as falsifying your hypothesis. — Banno

Hence your need to move the goalposts from change to causation. — Banno

You obviously think change & cause are two very different things.

I think they're directly connected. When there is a cause, change occurs. When change occurs, it has a cause. If this direct relationship is true, and we both know it is, then your claims about change over distance imply a cause. You should therefore have neither complaint nor critical commentary in response to being asked to supply one. Elaborating how it comes to pass that some type of change over distance is caused is a basic part of your job in supporting your claim with an argument. Your examples thus far have brought forth denials supported by commonplace, definitive evidence.

When you assert that change over distance is a timeless phenomenon within our empirical reality, you're advancing a radical claim that naturally excites calls for elaboration of scientific truth unknown to most observers.

You're obviously hunting around for qualifying examples. Thus far, you haven't found any.

resistance of a circuit > drop in current flow CAUSED by resistance of a circuit is not timeless

change in color of a black body > measurement of color temperature as based upon a theoretical black body is not timeless

You obviously think change & cause are two very different things. — ucarr

That'd be because they are. It's why we have two different words, one for change, the other for cause. Thinking otherwise requires philosophy. You have for whatever reason taken on a particular philosophical stance and are engaged in ad hoc hypothesising in order to defend it.

Take a mattress with a medicine ball sitting in the centre. The depth of the mattress is constant everywhere except for the area around the ball. Near the ball the depth of the mattress changes. That change is caused by the ball.

When there is a cause, change occurs. When change occurs, it has a cause. — ucarr

Do you deny this? If so, show me a change that has no cause. In this instance, your example can be a phenomenon of change that takes time to occur.

Also, do you think the above is philosophy? I think it's common sense.

A rhetorical slide on your part.

Change and cause are not identical.

resistance of a circuit > drop in current flow CAUSED by resistance of a circuit is not timeless — ucarr

Indeed. U=IR. I is time dependent. PV=nkT. Dynamical balance.