Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:10 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:01 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:53 am
The other alternative is that X and Y exist at the same point. This is however absurd since a system cannot be in two different states of affair at the same point in time. This means that there can be only one state of affair at any given point. To have change, you need to go from one state of affair to another one though. Both states cannot exist at the same point as it is argued. Then the first state of affair has to vanishes in order to leave room for another state of affair.

First, what I wrote above was "Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a."

And sure, state 1 of x exists at T1, while state 1 doesn't exist at T2, but x is the system, not state 1 of the system. X doesn't cease to exist when state 1 changes to state 2.

By X and Y I mean different states of affair for the system x, like a particle in two different position x1 and x2. I am talking about the particle which vanishes and created. I am not talking about its position that vanishes and then created.

This is a very granular way of viewing change, like the universe is an old fashioned cartoon or flip book with frames. I don’t think that is the reality of the fine grained structure of the universe, especially when you take into account the fuzzy nature of the world at those scales.

Your problem is, you are assigning different identity of the same particle between the two states t1 and t2, such that you falsely infer different identity where there is none.

Ultimately, there is no actual identity, but we assign them such so that we can talk about and describe these systems.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:16 am Ultimately, there is no actual identity, but we assign them such so that we can talk about and describe these systems.

Why would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:17 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:10 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:01 am

First, what I wrote above was "Time T1 to time T2 is comprised of b changing position relative to a."

And sure, state 1 of x exists at T1, while state 1 doesn't exist at T2, but x is the system, not state 1 of the system. X doesn't cease to exist when state 1 changes to state 2.

By X and Y I mean different states of affair for the system x, like a particle in two different position x1 and x2. I am talking about the particle which vanishes and created. I am not talking about its position that vanishes and then created.

You need to argue for why a particle "vanishes and then is created." If you're claiming that a can't be distance D1 from b, and then change to distance D2 from b without "b" actually vanishing and then something else appearing in its place at D2, you'd need to actually present that argument.

C'mon, we can't just have post after post of me explaining what you'd need to argue for without you ever arguing for any of it. That gets old quick.

The two states of affair are separated from each other by some small non-zero interval otherwise there is no change, things are simultaneous otherwise.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:33 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:17 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:10 am
By X and Y I mean different states of affair for the system x, like a particle in two different position x1 and x2. I am talking about the particle which vanishes and created. I am not talking about its position that vanishes and then created.

You need to argue for why a particle "vanishes and then is created." If you're claiming that a can't be distance D1 from b, and then change to distance D2 from b without "b" actually vanishing and then something else appearing in its place at D2, you'd need to actually present that argument.

C'mon, we can't just have post after post of me explaining what you'd need to argue for without you ever arguing for any of it. That gets old quick.

The two states of affair are separated from each other by some small non-zero interval otherwise there is no change, things are simultaneous otherwise.

Time is simply change or motion, by the way. They're identical. Time isn't something different than change or motion (motion being a subset of change, really).

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:26 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:12 am

That’s right. X & Y can exist at the same point whenever X undergoes a metamorphosis into Y.

But you cannot have a change since X and Y exist at the same point.

How dare you say that metamorphosis isn’t a change!

Events are simultaneous or not. Pick it up?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:33 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:17 am
You need to argue for why a particle "vanishes and then is created." If you're claiming that a can't be distance D1 from b, and then change to distance D2 from b without "b" actually vanishing and then something else appearing in its place at D2, you'd need to actually present that argument.

C'mon, we can't just have post after post of me explaining what you'd need to argue for without you ever arguing for any of it. That gets old quick.

The two states of affair are separated from each other by some small non-zero interval otherwise there is no change, things are simultaneous otherwise.

Time is simply change or motion, by the way. They're identical. Time isn't something different than change or motion (motion being a subset of change, really).

No. Time is a substance that allows motion. It changes too. The motion however is the change in an object over time.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:33 pm
The two states of affair are separated from each other by some small non-zero interval otherwise there is no change, things are simultaneous otherwise.

Time is simply change or motion, by the way. They're identical. Time isn't something different than change or motion (motion being a subset of change, really).

No. Time is a substance that allows motion. It changes too. The motion however is the change in an object over time.

No to your no. Time isn't a substance. Why would you believe that?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm

Time is simply change or motion, by the way. They're identical. Time isn't something different than change or motion (motion being a subset of change, really).

No. Time is a substance that allows motion. It changes too. The motion however is the change in an object over time.

No to your no. Time isn't a substance. Why would you believe that?

Well, scientifically, it curves and carry information within the curvature. There is a metaphysical reason for this too.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:52 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:40 pm
No. Time is a substance that allows motion. It changes too. The motion however is the change in an object over time.

No to your no. Time isn't a substance. Why would you believe that?

Well, scientifically, it curves and carry information within the curvature. There is a metaphysical reason for this too.

Don't just allude. Give the reasons. Give the arguments.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:26 am
But you cannot have a change since X and Y exist at the same point.

How dare you say that metamorphosis isn’t a change!

Events are simultaneous or not. Pick it up?

Events are happening now.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:52 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:41 pm No to your no. Time isn't a substance. Why would you believe that?

Well, scientifically, it curves and carry information within the curvature. There is a metaphysical reason for this too.

Don't just allude. Give the reasons. Give the arguments.

Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y do not coexist since there is a change, they are not simultaneous in another world. Therefore Y comes after X. This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable. There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place. This variable we call time.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:29 am

How dare you say that metamorphosis isn’t a change!

Events are simultaneous or not. Pick it up?

Events are happening now.

And there are events that happen after now.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:51 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:36 pm
Events are simultaneous or not. Pick it up?

Events are happening now.

And there are events that happen after now.

What will actually happen after now will be happening at what will be now then.

Time is always now. Time is only now.

Now, the future is only a prediction, not a time or event.

Now, the past is only a memory, not a time or event.

Even though you hold passionate beliefs that imply all this cannot be true, if you’re sharp enough you can work this out for yourself.

Give it an honest try!

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:51 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:41 pm

Events are happening now.

And there are events that happen after now.

What will actually happen after now will be happening at what will be now then.

Time is always now. Time is only now.

Now, the future is only a prediction, not a time or event.

Now, the past is only a memory, not a time or event.

Even though you hold passionate beliefs that imply all this cannot be true, if you’re sharp enough you can work this out for yourself.

Give it an honest try!

I didn't say that there is a past or future. I said that there was a past and there will be a future.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:47 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:51 pm
And there are events that happen after now.

What will actually happen after now will be happening at what will be now then.

Time is always now. Time is only now.

Now, the future is only a prediction, not a time or event.

Now, the past is only a memory, not a time or event.

Even though you hold passionate beliefs that imply all this cannot be true, if you’re sharp enough you can work this out for yourself.

Give it an honest try!

I didn't say that there is a past or future. I said that there was a past and there will be a future.

Let it go. You’re thinking like a layperson. Give it another try, thinking like a philosopher.