In reality, we define the position of the apple as the distance it has to the ground for example.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:43 amPosition is a relational property. It can't only be a property of the apple. It's a property of the apple AND something else, like the ground. If we're ONLY talking about the apple, there's no change in position, right?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:42 amIts position.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:40 am
With the falling apple, what it the change in properties, first off?
What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
All properties are relational properties. At least between the observer and the property being observed.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:43 am Position is a relational property. It can't only be a property of the apple. It's a property of the apple AND something else, like the ground. If we're ONLY talking about the apple, there's no change in position, right?
Semiotics 101.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Right, because it's a relational property, not a property of the apple itself. (Not that the apple itself doesn't hinge on relational properties, but we can ignore that for the moment.)bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:36 amIn reality, we define the position of the apple as the distance it has to the ground for example.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:43 amPosition is a relational property. It can't only be a property of the apple. It's a property of the apple AND something else, like the ground. If we're ONLY talking about the apple, there's no change in position, right?
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
So relational property changes while the object is the same.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:39 amRight, because it's a relational property, not a property of the apple itself. (Not that the apple itself doesn't hinge on relational properties, but we can ignore that for the moment.)bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:36 amIn reality, we define the position of the apple as the distance it has to the ground for example.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:43 am
Position is a relational property. It can't only be a property of the apple. It's a property of the apple AND something else, like the ground. If we're ONLY talking about the apple, there's no change in position, right?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
If we're considering "falling" or positional change to be a property, it's a property not of the apple, right, but the apple with respect to the ground. in other words, the object in this case is the apple and the ground in (dynamic) relation to each other, right?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:33 amSo relational property changes while the object is the same.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:39 amRight, because it's a relational property, not a property of the apple itself. (Not that the apple itself doesn't hinge on relational properties, but we can ignore that for the moment.)
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
So, then, there regardless of whether we can tell or not if something has had a change in properties it is not exactly the same. Nothing it the same from time point A to time point B, regardless.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:17 pm Existents (aside perhaps from elementary particles) aren't identical through time. A block of wood at time T1 isn't identical to the block of wood at time T2. Saying that it's "literally the same" block of wood at T1 and T2 is an abstraction.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Well, an elementary particle could be identical from T1 to T2, where (a) T1 and T2 are a factor of something other than the elementary particle in question (in other words, the elementary particle relative to time passing in something else) and (b) we're not talking about the particle's relations to anything else, but for anything where we're talking about an existent with parts, the existent is not going to be identical from T1 to T2, unless we're talking about it relative to very, very small time slices relative to something else (and even then it might not be feasible), smaller than any changes that would occur in the existent at hand. Existents with parts, or existents without parts relative to each other, do not seem capable of remaining static. They're always in motion/changing. And since time is just motion or change, existent with parts are not identical from any T1 to T2.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:41 pmSo, then, there regardless of whether we can tell or not if something has had a change in properties it is not exactly the same. Nothing it the same from time point A to time point B, regardless.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:17 pm Existents (aside perhaps from elementary particles) aren't identical through time. A block of wood at time T1 isn't identical to the block of wood at time T2. Saying that it's "literally the same" block of wood at T1 and T2 is an abstraction.
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
None of the above is necessarily true in quantum physics.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:56 pm Well, an elementary particle could be identical from T1 to T2, where (a) T1 and T2 are a factor of something other than the elementary particle in question (in other words, the elementary particle relative to time passing in something else) and (b) we're not talking about the particle's relations to anything else, but for anything where we're talking about an existent with parts, the existent is not going to be identical from T1 to T2, unless we're talking about it relative to very, very small time slices relative to something else (and even then it might not be feasible), smaller than any changes that would occur in the existent at hand. Existents with parts, or existents without parts relative to each other, do not seem capable of remaining static. They're always in motion/changing. And since time is just motion or change, existent with parts are not identical from any T1 to T2.
Given two observations of an electron at T1 and T2 there is absolutely no way of telling whether it's the "exact same electron".
e.g there is no way to determine whether it's AN existent; or existents
You could assert it's the same electron.
You could also assert that any electron, anywhere in spacetime is "the exact same electron".
The identity axiom is undecidable. Any nominal assertion of "sameness" is purely pragmatic.
DOI: 10.1007/BF01057649
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Yes, that relational property is respect to point of view. You can consider that point of view a person who observes the falling apple.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:54 pmIf we're considering "falling" or positional change to be a property, it's a property not of the apple, right, but the apple with respect to the ground. in other words, the object in this case is the apple and the ground in (dynamic) relation to each other, right?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:33 amSo relational property changes while the object is the same.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:39 am
Right, because it's a relational property, not a property of the apple itself. (Not that the apple itself doesn't hinge on relational properties, but we can ignore that for the moment.)
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Can you give me an example of something that does not behave?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:43 pmI am not sure behavior is the best word. Many things do not behave, certain for periods of time, in any of the usual, even non-living, senses of that word.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
It's not at all due to the point of view of a person. It's necessarily a relational property (assuming we're calling falling/change of position a property--I wouldn't, but it works fine as an example for what it is). It can't obtain just with the apple.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:22 pmYes, that relational property is respect to point of view. You can consider that point of view a person who observes the falling apple.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:54 pmIf we're considering "falling" or positional change to be a property, it's a property not of the apple, right, but the apple with respect to the ground. in other words, the object in this case is the apple and the ground in (dynamic) relation to each other, right?
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Any relational property is respect to a point of view.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:35 pmIt's not at all due to the point of view of a person. It's necessarily a relational property (assuming we're calling falling/change of position a property--I wouldn't, but it works fine as an example for what it is). It can't obtain just with the apple.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:22 pmYes, that relational property is respect to point of view. You can consider that point of view a person who observes the falling apple.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:54 pm
If we're considering "falling" or positional change to be a property, it's a property not of the apple, right, but the apple with respect to the ground. in other words, the object in this case is the apple and the ground in (dynamic) relation to each other, right?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
The point of view could be anything.