Paradox of block universe

[bahman]

You used the word "move" before, and you did again just now ("or MOVE along time axis"). Are you saying that you're using the word "move" but you do not mean "move" in the sense of "motion" somehow?

Changing our perspective and experiencing changes in block universe is different from motion.

So you'd say that moving is different than motion?

Moving along time axis (changing perspective) is different than motion. I already defined motion.

[Terrapin Station]

Moving along time axis (changing perspective) is different than motion. I already defined motion.

That's a very strange way to use language, by the way. The definition of "moving" is "in motion," and etymologically, they both come from the Latin "motionem," from the past participle stem of "movere."

At any rate, okay, so when perspective moves along the time axis, it's not the case that perspective exists at position y, then at x?

[bahman]

That's a very strange way to use language, by the way. The definition of "moving" is "in motion," and etymologically, they both come from the Latin "motionem," from the past participle stem of "movere."

I am not very good with language. English is my second language and I don't have any degree in philosophy.

At any rate, okay, so when perspective moves along the time axis, it's not the case that perspective exists at position y, then at x?

Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

[Terrapin Station]

Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

[bahman]

Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

[Terrapin Station]

Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

[bahman]

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

[bahman]

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

[Terrapin Station]

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

[bahman]

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

Yes, it is a movement (motion, but lets call it movement for sake of clarity) along time axis which is different from motion (as I already defined it).

[Terrapin Station]

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

Yes, it is a movement (motion, but lets call it movement for sake of clarity) along time axis which is different from motion (as I already defined it).

but it fits your definition or motion. So how are you saying that it doesn't fit?

[bahman]

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

Yes, it is a movement (motion, but lets call it movement for sake of clarity) along time axis which is different from motion (as I already defined it).

but it fits your definition or motion. So how are you saying that it doesn't fit?

I don't understand you. We have a change in perspective, movement along time axis, which causes a change in position of things. This is however different from what I call motion.

[Terrapin Station]

Here was your definition again:

"Motion to me is the change in state of matter from an initial time to a latter time. Think of a point particle for simplicity. The particle exists in position X and does not exist in position Y, at initial time and latter time. The particle does not exist in initial time, position X, and exists only at final time, position Y. This is what we call motion in my opinion."

With that in mind, here's what we have:

"Motion to me is the change in state of matter"

--In this case the change in state of our perspective--

"from an initial time to a latter time."

--So a change in state of our perspective from an initial time to a later time--

"Think of a point particle for simplicity."

--Here we're talking about our perspective rather than just a point particle obviously--

"The particle exists in position X and does not exist in position Y, at initial time"

--Our perspective exists in position X and does not exist in position Y at the initial time--

"and latter time. The particle does not exist in initial time, position X, and exists only at final time, position Y. "

--At the later time (or the latter time), our perspective does not exist in the initial time at position X, but only at the final time at position Y--

"This is what we call motion in my opinion."

--Yes. So then you should call this change or movement in our perception "motion," and thus the proposed block universe has motion after all; it's not motion-free.


And I'll repeat once again that motion can't be an illusion. The idea of that is incoherent given our phenomenal experience.

[bahman]

Here was your definition again:

"Motion to me is the change in state of matter from an initial time to a latter time. Think of a point particle for simplicity. The particle exists in position X and does not exist in position Y, at initial time and latter time. The particle does not exist in initial time, position X, and exists only at final time, position Y. This is what we call motion in my opinion."

With that in mind, here's what we have:

"Motion to me is the change in state of matter"

--In this case the change in state of our perspective--

"from an initial time to a latter time."

--So a change in state of our perspective from an initial time to a later time--

"Think of a point particle for simplicity."

--Here we're talking about our perspective rather than just a point particle obviously--

"The particle exists in position X and does not exist in position Y, at initial time"

--Our perspective exists in position X and does not exist in position Y at the initial time--

"and latter time. The particle does not exist in initial time, position X, and exists only at final time, position Y. "

--At the later time (or the latter time), our perspective does not exist in the initial time at position X, but only at the final time at position Y--

"This is what we call motion in my opinion."

--Yes. So then you should call this change or movement in our perception "motion," and thus the proposed block universe has motion after all; it's not motion-free.


And I'll repeat once again that motion can't be an illusion. The idea of that is incoherent given our phenomenal experience.

But the particle exists in both positions, X and Y. So there is not really any motion of particle when our perspective changes. Hence the motion is an illusion in block universe.