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...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
Okay, then you're wasting my time.Do you agree that D1 and E1 do not animate? — InPitzotl
Yes, I agree. — Luke
Nope. That's B2, C2, and D2. The sign is just telling you the road is shaped like D1.What "road narrows" usually indicates is that the road gets narrower as you travel down the road. — Luke
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.Everyone knows what time is. — Raymond
Do any of that explain what time really is? — Alkis Piskas
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
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
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
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
When would it have even been there... at t=1? — InPitzotl
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
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
That is the contradiction, and it's on your end. — InPitzotl
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
The change here is from O's being at (1,1) to O's being at (2,1) — InPitzotl
O does not move from A to D; O is always at A and always at D. — InPitzotl
Can't we say that time is an irreversible collective motion of particles, which started near time zero? — Dijkgraf
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
Because it's still at (1,1,1). That didn't change.Of course it is motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2). Why is it not? — Luke
Sure. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1). That is a change.It denotes a change in position over a change in time, which is the definition of motion that you provided earlier. — Luke
No, I'm saying it moved from (1,1) to (2,1).So are you saying that the object does move 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?:But you have just said "I'm claiming it's not motion from (1,1,1) to (2,1,2)". — Luke
Now again:Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1). — Luke
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
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?What is the contradiction on my end? — 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.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
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 ...This would mean that there is a future without any past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course. Like a new bing bang, for example! :grin:It's the "cause from outside of time" which is difficult to make sense of. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's start a new life from now!" — Alkis Piskas
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
Sure. It's motion from (1,1) to (2,1). That is a change. — InPitzotl
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'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
In that case, it would rather be "Let's create a new life" :grin:I assume this means let's make a baby. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you give a real-world, specific example of a cause that effects a change over distance, with elapsed time equal to zero? — ucarr
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
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?The object being at t=1 and then at t=2 is also a change. — Luke
Nope. The object's position changes over time; that's exactly what the definition requires.You seem to be saying that the object does not change time. But isn't that a requirement of motion, per the definition? — Luke
And yet it apparently doesn't:I'm not the one saying that O's being at (1,1,1) doesn't change. It does change. — Luke
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
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?Yes, it was at (1,1) at t=1. That's what is denoted by O being at (1,1,1). — 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 are saying that the object both changes and does not change position. — 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 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
And you appeal to them; you just compartmentalize it.You introduced changeless facts into the discussion. — 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))".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
A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno
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? — InPitzotl
Nope. The object's position changes over time; that's exactly what the definition requires. — InPitzotl
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 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
Being at one position at one time doesn't preclude being at a different position at a different time. — InPitzotl
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
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
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. — ucarr
When there is a cause, change occurs. When change occurs, it has a cause. — ucarr
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.