Motion is necessarily what this horse did in 1878:No, it doesn't, but a difference is not necessarily a change. Existing at both times precludes changing from one time to another. — Luke
The change in time is from t=1 to t=2. O moves from (1,1) to (2,1). The answer still won't change if you ask again.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?) — Luke
I think you overlooked the word "is". If you're speaking at t=3, both t=1 and t=2 are in the past. You're making the claim that the past changes; in particular, you're saying that O moves through time. So when you're speaking at t=3, according to you, O is neither at t=1 nor is it at t=2 (just as that horse is nowhere on that track in 2022). The word "was" doesn't help; "was" is just the word normal people use to talk about something in the past. You are claiming the past changes; and the manner of change is such that there's nothing there any more. Everything moved to the present. So what then is the truth bearer of facts about the past, if there isn't anything in the past? What is the thing that "was" at (1,1) at t=1, at the time you're speaking being t=3, if nothing is at t=1?I think you overlooked the word "was". — Luke
...whether the horse "exists at both times" (whatever "both" means) or not. — InPitzotl
The change in time is from t=1 to t=2. — InPitzotl
You're making the claim that the past changes — InPitzotl
The word "was" doesn't help; "was" is just the word normal people use to talk about something in the past. — InPitzotl
So what then is the truth bearer of facts about the past, if there isn't anything in the past? — InPitzotl
You're picking out the wrong thing. And yes, what does "both" mean here? We have a horse moving in 1878. We can pick out pairs of frames, but that horse isn't "here" in 2022 according to you. 1878 was a long time ago.You don't know what "both" means? — Luke
The present is the year 2022, at the time of this writing. All frames in this video are in 1878. That horse is long gone in 2022.No, the present changes. — Luke
Not necessarily eternalist. I'm advocating past facts don't change. You're by contrast advocating that they both do and do not: "O was at (1,1) at t=1" but "O is not at t=1". O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1.Let's be clear: are you advocating a four-dimensionalist, eternalist view of time where time is a space=like dimension, and where all past, present and future times exist, or not? — Luke
No. t=1 to t=2 being a change in time is not describing O's being; t=1 to t=2 is a change in time per se. We could have O's that don't exist at t=1 and exist at t=2; that's creation. If an O exists at t=1 and not at t=2, that's destruction. But t=1 to t=2 is still a change in time. It's over that change in time that a moving object changes position. You're injecting O's being being dragged along through time into your reading of the phrase, but that's not what the phrase means.I don't see how you reconcile this with your assertion that "O's being at (1,1,1)" and "O's being at (2,1,2)" are both true. If the change in time is from t=1 to t=2, then is the statement of "O's being at (1,1,1)" true when O is at t=1 but false by the time O changes to t=2? — Luke
It's not just that Luke. You're not just talking about time changing. You're talking about O's being at a particular time changing... you're specifically arguing about O "changing time", presumably changing into the present.No, the present changes. — Luke
That's not enough. How can an object move if it can't be in some place at all in the past, and how can it be in some place in the past if all objects are only in the present? And that's just the starters... wait a blink, and that very question gets re-asked about the past.I believe that our present evidence, theories and statements are the truth bearers of facts. — Luke
And yes, what does "both" mean here? We have a horse moving in 1878. We can pick out pairs of frames, but that horse isn't "here" in 2022 according to you. 1878 was a long time ago. — InPitzotl
There are different ways to oppose presentism—that is, to defend the view that at least some non-present objects exist. One version of non-presentism is eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist. According to eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.
It might be objected that there is something odd about attributing to a non-presentist the claim that Socrates exists now, since there is a sense in which that claim is clearly false. In order to forestall this objection, let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”. In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”. The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now. But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers. Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location. When we attribute to non-presentists the claim that non-present objects like Socrates exist right now, we commit non-presentists only to the claim that these non-present objects exist now in the ontological sense (the one involving the most unrestricted quantifiers).
The present is the year 2022, at the time of this writing. All frames in this video are in 1878. That horse is long gone in 2022. — InPitzotl
I'm advocating past facts don't change. You're by contrast advocating that they both do and do not: "O was at (1,1) at t=1" but "O is not at t=1". O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1. — InPitzotl
O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1. — InPitzotl
But t=1 to t=2 is still a change in time. It's over that change in time that a moving object changes position. — InPitzotl
You're injecting O's being being dragged along through time into your reading of the phrase, but that's not what the phrase means. — InPitzotl
No, the present changes.
— Luke
It's not just that Luke. You're not just talking about time changing. You're talking about O's being at a particular time changing... you're specifically arguing about O "changing time", presumably changing into the present. — InPitzotl
I believe that our present evidence, theories and statements are the truth bearers of facts.
— Luke
That's not enough. How can an object move if it can't be in some place at all in the past, and how can it be in some place in the past if all objects are only in the present? And that's just the starters... wait a blink, and that very question gets re-asked about the past. — InPitzotl
Regarding time without direction (pre-Big Bang), can you elaborate some behavioral details? For example, do past-present-future evolve simultaneously? — ucarr
Physical matter exists in a perpetual physical present so for matter alone time might not be a fundamental component.
Perception of time requires consciousness and understanding information first is required. Information exists as brain state and brain state is the physical brain AND its mental content. Mental content, being emergent from the physical brain, is where time perception exists, as you were explaining. — Mark Nyquist
You might be referring to what physicists term physical information and you should not mix definitions — Mark Nyquist
Physical information has gotten into general usage as something unintended by physicists. It's not a property of the physical matter itself but associated with the matter in the mind of the observer. This might not be your fault at all since many physics articles are written by non physicists who don't understand the issue. — Mark Nyquist
Ok, you have wand, you aim at things, magic sparklers fly out and your name is Tinker Bell from my perspective — Mark Nyquist
I am just pointing out a human tendency to bestow "information" on physical objects. — Mark Nyquist
Why can't both be true? — Watchmaker
It definitely appears to be a duality of sorts. Does this relate in any way to dualism, the idea that the physical and mental are distinct substances? — Watchmaker
Change — Gnomon
In truth, the discussion should have finished at @jgill's δxδy — Banno
Can you elaborate further on, how shall I put it?, the relationship betwixt time and change. — Agent Smith
Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done.
Change exerts change on everything around it but itself because the only way change could change itself is to become "unchange" .Change acts from a timeless state (speed of light). Here in the timeless state change is constant in its quality to change things around it. — Benj96
Kant attributed to Newton the notion that space and time are absolute qualities of the world , and to Leibnitz the idea that space and time are only relational qualities of matter — Joshs
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.