Of course, because the movement of something that changes does have both attributes, time and velocity, relative to something else. But if time and change are, "IDENTICAL," without bringing in any relationship to anything else, where is the time for entities that do not move (change their position)?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 pmThis is very easy to understand.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 3:27 pm The simplest illustration of the fact that time and change are not identical is the fact that the concept time applies to duration (that which does not change) as well as things that change. "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour." If time were identical to change, if there is, "no change," there would be, "no time." But, of course there is.
So first, if there's no change period, then there's no time.
But when we say, "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour" (and ignoring the abstraction there--there actually would be all sorts of changes in whatever we're watching over the course of an hour; it's just that there's no change of the specific sort that we might be looking for), all we're saying is, "There was no change in A while B changed in x way." In other words, there were most certainly changes a la a clock ticking away, or the sun changing position or whatever we're using for "an hour passing."
"An hour passing" is simply identical to whatever changes we're using as a basis for keeping time, so to speak.
[As an aside, and because I'm curious, why would you not say "velocity is identical to change?" Except that velocity compares a one aspect of change (distance to time), just as time compares the other aspect of change (distance to velocity), they can both be described in exactly the same way. There can be no velocity without change and every change has a velocity. Of course, if you did say velocity is identical change you would have the obvious contradiction that velocity was identical time. (v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v.)]
It's worth pointing out that change isn't a concept, it's an ontological phenomenon.[/quote]Now consider change. If there were only one entity, there could be no change. Before there can be a concept of change
Acceleration is an ontological phenomenon, as well. I did not say time does not exist ontologically, I said it only exists as an attribute of ontological entities with no independent existence of its own. There is no acceleration without entities that accelerate. There is no time without entities that move, and time is just one of the attributes by which motion is described. The other is velocity.
That's right. The concept designated by the word, "time," identifies the attribute of change, "time."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 pm The concept is developed in response to the phenomenon.
I think I can simplify this discussion by asking you, if you believe the words, "change," and, "time," identify the same thing, since velocity equals the change in distance over the change in time (v = ds / dt), if change is identical to time, would it be correct to say, velocity equals the time in distance over the change in time (v = ts / dt)? If not, why not? I think it is obvious change and time are not equal or they would be interchangeable. Time is simply one of the two metrics by which any specific change (motion) can be measured. Time is just an attribute, like distance, velocity, weight, volume, temperature, or angle (direction).
I agree you cannot have time without change and all change entails time, but they are not the same thing. If you are determined to hold that they are the same thing, it probably doesn't matter that much, and not at all to me. It will ultimate confuse some other concepts in both ontology and epistemology, but that's not my problem.
It has been an interesting discussion, at least to me; so thanks for that.
Feel free to have the last word.