Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: So in your view, the projected frames don't change? They don't move in the projector? The light projected onto the screen doesn't change/move?

We simply move along time axis. We are agent which our perspective changes.

If we move, there is motion.

We are simply are temporal beings: moving along time axis.

bahman wrote:Yes, timeless God cannot know our perspective because our perspective is temporal. There is nothing wrong with that.

I thought in another post you agreed with God being omniscient?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Yes, timeless God cannot know our perspective because our perspective is temporal. There is nothing wrong with that.

I thought in another post you agreed with God being omniscient?

Yes, God is omniscient and that doesn't mean that He could know everything, for example the current time.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Yes, timeless God cannot know our perspective because our perspective is temporal. There is nothing wrong with that.

I thought in another post you agreed with God being omniscient?

Yes, God is omniscient and that doesn't mean that He could know everything, for example the current time.

"He can only know what he can know" doesn't seem like any sort of omniscience.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: I thought in another post you agreed with God being omniscient?

Yes, God is omniscient and that doesn't mean that He could know everything, for example the current time.

"He can only know what he can know" doesn't seem like any sort of omniscience.

God cannot know or do things which is logically impossible. That does not have any conflict with omniscience and omnipotent.

bahman wrote: God cannot know or do things which is logically impossible. That does not have any conflict with omniscience and omnipotent.

Well, there's not just one species of logic, though. People usually say "God cannot know or do things which are logically impossible per a particular take on traditional bivalent relevance logic"--without realizing that they only mean that particular sort of logic, and not non-relevance logic (because under that, contradictory premises are not impossible, they rather guarantee a valid argument), and not paraconsistent logic (because under that, contradictions with more semantic consideration can be not only valid but sound) etc. They usually say that sort of thing without realizing that logics are really just erector-set-like formal constructions that we create.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: God cannot know or do things which is logically impossible. That does not have any conflict with omniscience and omnipotent.

Well, there's not just one species of logic, though. People usually say "God cannot know or do things which are logically impossible per a particular take on traditional bivalent relevance logic"--without realizing that they only mean that particular sort of logic, and not non-relevance logic (because under that, contradictory premises are not impossible, they rather guarantee a valid argument), and not paraconsistent logic (because under that, contradictions with more semantic consideration can be not only valid but sound) etc. They usually say that sort of thing without realizing that logics are really just erector-set-like formal constructions that we create.

Well, I think we deviate from OP. Do you like to return to OP and discuss things from there?

I'd just reiterate that motion can't be an illusion.

Terrapin Station wrote: I'd just reiterate that motion can't be an illusion.

I think we need to define motion then. 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. The situation is completely different in block universe: The particle exists in position X and exists in position Y, at initial time and latter time. It is only our perspective that cause the change namely we see particle in position X at earlier time and then in position Y at later time.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: I'd just reiterate that motion can't be an illusion.

I think we need to define motion then. 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. The situation is completely different in block universe: The particle exists in position X and exists in position Y, at initial time and latter time. It is only our perspective that cause the change namely we see particle in position X at earlier time and then in position Y at later time.

In your ontology, you can have motionless changes?

bahman wrote:I think we need to define motion then. 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. The situation is completely different in block universe: The particle exists in position X and exists in position Y, at initial time and latter time.

This sounds like a fair definition to me. They both break down to the same thing, but with ontological differences.

As to the OP, I disagree with the necessity of a block universe. God can just very well know what's going to happen, even though it hasn't yet. Hey, I'm no presentist, but I've never seen a good argument against it. I just find it to add needless complication to a realist view that doesn't require it.

Terrapin Station wrote:In your ontology, you can have motionless changes?

I don't see how you get motionless change out of that when motion is what's being described there.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Yes, God is omniscient and that doesn't mean that He could know everything, for example the current time.

"He can only know what he can know" doesn't seem like any sort of omniscience.

God cannot know or do things which is logically impossible. That does not have any conflict with omniscience and omnipotent.

God can transcend time and space which is logically impossible too. So he should know the current time too even if it is logically impossible.

Noax wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In your ontology, you can have motionless changes?

I don't see how you get motionless change out of that when motion is what's being described there.

I don't know how much you've followed the conversation, and not necessarily just in this thread, about this and related issues between bahman and me. First, it might be important to know that in my view, time is identical to motion/(processual) change. Bahman is aware of this. Secondly, bahman is saying that in a block universe, motion is an illusion. My view is that motion can not be an illusion--the idea of that is incoherent given phenomenal data.

In the post you're quoting, bahman is responding to my comment that motion can not be an illusion. He's explaining how it can be under his view. However, at the end of his explanation, he still admits that something changes--namely, our perspective. So since (a) motion is an illusion on his view, and (b) our perspective changes, it would follow that he believes that changes can obtain while motion does not obtain. So I'm confirming that he'd say that.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: I'd just reiterate that motion can't be an illusion.

I think we need to define motion then. 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. The situation is completely different in block universe: The particle exists in position X and exists in position Y, at initial time and latter time. It is only our perspective that cause the change namely we see particle in position X at earlier time and then in position Y at later time.

In your ontology, you can have motionless changes?

In my ontology no. We are however discussing block universe.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
I think we need to define motion then. 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. The situation is completely different in block universe: The particle exists in position X and exists in position Y, at initial time and latter time. It is only our perspective that cause the change namely we see particle in position X at earlier time and then in position Y at later time.

In your ontology, you can have motionless changes?

In my ontology no. We are however discussing block universe.

Okay, so you're not giving your personal views. (You hadn't made that explicit before.) So, would you say that in the block universe view, there is motionless change?