Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: 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.

This derives when God is timeless and He create all state of universe at the same eternal point. Of course you can believe on different God.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: 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?

Yes. Motionless change is possible as it is illustrated.

bahman wrote:Yes. Motionless change is possible as it is illustrated.

Right. The problem is this: how can a change occur with no motion?

If our perspective changes, for example, isn't it necessary for our perspective to be at x but not y, but then y and not x? That, however, is the definition of motion you'd use.

So how could we have a change with no motion?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Yes. Motionless change is possible as it is illustrated.

Right. The problem is this: how can a change occur with no motion?

If our perspective changes, for example, isn't it necessary for our perspective to be at x but not y, but then y and not x? That, however, is the definition of motion you'd use.

So how could we have a change with no motion?

I think I define motion clearly and explained how change is possible in block universe when our perspective changes or in another word we move along time axis.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Yes. Motionless change is possible as it is illustrated.

Right. The problem is this: how can a change occur with no motion?

If our perspective changes, for example, isn't it necessary for our perspective to be at x but not y, but then y and not x? That, however, is the definition of motion you'd use.

So how could we have a change with no motion?

I think I define motion clearly and explained how change is possible in block universe when our perspective changes or in another word we move along time axis.

Wait, if we move, we move, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: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.

I've read parts of the thread, but not all of it. I did not see anything being expressed as an illusion in the post to which I responded. I just saw the same motion being framed in block terms, which seems to be compatible with your definition. If a block better describes the universe, then the only illusion is the idealistic presumption that the state from any given moment of observation is the one that exists, and if the opposite is true, the illusion is the realistic presumption that the unexperienced other moments also exist.

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.

OK, I did not get motion being an illusion. Motion exists in a block view. It is a difference over time in both views.
The only illusion in block view is the existence of a moving present, but if you define movement in terms of said moving present, then movement (thus defined) indeed becomes an illusion as well.

However, at the end of his explanation, he still admits that something changes--namely, our perspective.

I did note bahman's assertion (in several posts) of a changing perspective in a block view. That's heavy dualism, that there is some nonphysical travelling self coasting through the block, and hence his worries about epiphenomenalism from the inability to alter the block, which is also a dualistic concept. Very few dualists entertain a block view of the physical since it leads to such problems.

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.

Inconsistent, yes. There is no flowing present, but yet there is due to the moving perspective. An attempt to have the cake and eat it too.

My protest causing me to jump into this thread is the denial that there is change or motion in a block view. There very much is, but it involves a little mental interference. I let go of a ball, and it falls to the floor. There is the ball as I let go of it, and the equally existing ball at the floor. It requires human/mental designation of those two objects to be the same object for it to qualify as motion. If not, the world is no different, but there is just two different states. Differences turn into 'change' and 'motion' (a difference in language only) if the two states being compared are designated to be the same thing. The physical universe cares not if that designation is made. So while I tend to describe myself as an over-exuberant realist (e.g. I think unicorns are real, not just imaginary or mythological), I am idealistic about change and motion. Without mental designation, there is no change or motion, only different states at different times.

I was forced into that statement by being run into contradiction without it. In a realist view of change, a table can change into a potted plant in under a second, which seemed absurd.

bahman wrote:This derives when God is timeless and He create all state of universe at the same eternal point. Of course you can believe on different God.

I'm just saying it is not necessary for the god to create an eternal universe. He could utilize the time in which he exists and build and initial state and propel it along from one moment to the next. That does not preclude the omniscient god from knowing what has not yet happened.

For the record, I favor the block view, and I think god can be defined any way you want. He's frequently omniscient because few want one that isn't. There's no god in my view because the existence of one solves none of the problems for which he might be postulated.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Right. The problem is this: how can a change occur with no motion?

If our perspective changes, for example, isn't it necessary for our perspective to be at x but not y, but then y and not x? That, however, is the definition of motion you'd use.

So how could we have a change with no motion?

I think I define motion clearly and explained how change is possible in block universe when our perspective changes or in another word we move along time axis.

Wait, if we move, we move, right?

We only change our perspectives in block universe, or move along time axis. Motion as we know and I defined is an illusion.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
I think I define motion clearly and explained how change is possible in block universe when our perspective changes or in another word we move along time axis.

Wait, if we move, we move, right?

We only change our perspectives in block universe, or move along time axis. Motion as we know and I defined is an illusion.

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?

Noax wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: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.

I've read parts of the thread, but not all of it. I did not see anything being expressed as an illusion in the post to which I responded.

Right. Bahman had just sad something about going back to the start of the discussion. In his initial, thread-starting post he had written, "This means that motion is an illusion since nothing changes in a block universe." My first post in the thread was, "Motion can't be an illusion, because at the very least, the illusion moves. It would make no sense to say that the motion of the illusion is itself an illusion, and that would be an infinite regress. Thus, there is motion." That's why after he wrote, "Do you like to return to OP and discuss things from there?" I responded with, "I'd just reiterate that motion can't be an illusion."

I just saw the same motion being framed in block terms, which seems to be compatible with your definition.

Well, it doesn't make any sense per my definition to say that time is static or anything like that. Time can't be static if time IS (identical to) motion/(processual) change.

Motion exists in a block view.

bahman is disagreeing with this.

I let go of a ball, and it falls to the floor. There is the ball as I let go of it, and the equally existing ball at the floor. It requires human/mental designation of those two objects to be the same object for it to qualify as motion.

I don't agree with that. That would be the case to say that "ball x is moving", but it would still work if we were to assume that some astronomical number of different balls kept popping into and out of existence. There's still motion of processual change in terms of different relations of ball'/floor' ball''/floor'' ball'''/floor''' (probably hard to notice the "prime" signs with this font).

If not, the world is no different,

There are different relations between successive balls and floors (in this scenario).

Differences turn into 'change' and 'motion' (a difference in language only) if the two states being compared are designated to be the same thing.

I'm having a difficult time parsing that sentence.

The physical universe cares not if that designation is made. So while I tend to describe myself as an over-exuberant realist (e.g. I think unicorns are real, not just imaginary or mythological),

???

I am idealistic about change and motion. Without mental designation, there is no change or motion, only different states at different times.

I haven't the faintest idea what the difference is in your mind between "different states at different times" and change/motion. There's no apparent difference to me.

In a realist view of change, a table can change into a potted plant in under a second, which seemed absurd.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about that. It would just be unusual relative to our experience.

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

Agree, but there are different interpretations of what that motion is. Mixing interpretations is where things seem inconsistent.

Well, it doesn't make any sense per my definition to say that time is static or anything like that. Time can't be static if time IS (identical to) motion/(processual) change.

Your interpretation (of 'static') does not apply to the block interpretation, so you run into this conflict. Don't mix interpretations. Doing so just demonstrates that one interpretation is not the same as the other. It doesn't prove or disprove either of them.

Motion exists in a block view.

bahman is disagreeing with this.

In some posts. The one to which I first responded defined motion, so it exists. The story is not consistent, I agree. I am a block person, and motion exists to me in it, but as I said, it is kind of an idealistic definition of motion. It exists without observation, but it seems to just be a 'difference' then.

I don't agree with that. That would be the case to say that "ball x is moving", but it would still work if we were to assume that some astronomical number of different balls kept popping into and out of existence.

If there were lots of balls, each existing for a moment, then how can they be labeled 'ball x'? The label is the designation. Without the designation, there is ball at position X and time T1, and a ball at position Y at time T2. How can we claim movement in distinction from there just being a different ball that is at position Y? I've not stated that there is no other-ball at Y at T1, so how do I demonstrate movement? Anyway, most don't agree with me on this, but it seemed the only stance that stood up to scrutiny.

There's still motion of processual change in terms of different relations of ball'/floor' ball''/floor'' ball'''/floor'''

That's why the designation is natural and instinctual. We all do it, and it need not be stated. I'm just stating that when pressed, I'm in recognition of this unstated designation. I'm fine with it being left unstated, and the different states qualifies as motion. The block universe model has motion.

There are different relations between successive balls and floors (in this scenario).

Different from what? Those relations are identical whether those are all separate states or they're a changing relation between two things (ball, floor) in various states at different times.

Differences turn into 'change' and 'motion' (a difference in language only) if the two states being compared are designated to be the same thing.

I'm having a difficult time parsing that sentence.

Two states: tall candle, and a short one. Comparison of those two states is considered change only if they're the same candle. Maybe the 2nd one was always short. I don't think there is anything in physics that carries a designation of two states in different places as being in fact states of the 'same thing'. Physics just seems to say that one of those states is (or is not) in causal relation to the other.

So while I tend to describe myself as an over-exuberant realist (e.g. I think unicorns are real, not just imaginary or mythological),

???

I've defended that. Comes from my wild assertion that we're not the center of a universe which goes no further than the event horizon that limits existence. Existence of a star 20 billion light years away is more natural in a block view, since said place doesn't exist in what is typically defined as 'now'.

I haven't the faintest idea what the difference is in your mind between "different states at different times" and change/motion. There's no apparent difference to me.

I can work with that.

In a realist view of change, a table can change into a potted plant in under a second, which seemed absurd.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about that. It would just be unusual relative to our experience.

Commonplace actually, but unusual to assign the designation to such a difference, and I said I can work with that. No tables into plants.

Noax wrote:Your interpretation (of 'static') does not apply to the block interpretation, so you run into this conflict. Don't mix interpretations. Doing so just demonstrates that one interpretation is not the same as the other. It doesn't prove or disprove either of them.

If my interpretation of "static" doesn't apply, I frankly haven't the faintest idea what the block universe idea is, or rather, it would make zero sense to me as a theory/model.

The one to which I first responded defined motion, so it exists.

He was defining it because I was mentioning. He was defining it in a "this is what we'd be talking about" manner.

I am a block person, and motion exists to me in it, but as I said, it is kind of an idealistic definition of motion. It exists without observation, but it seems to just be a 'difference' then.

I'm not sure what you're saying there.

If there were lots of balls, each existing for a moment, then how can they be labeled 'ball x'?

You're misunderstanding my comment. There are two scenarios. One where there's a "ball x" throughout the whole scenario, and one where there are a bunch of different balls which we're calling ball-prime, ball-prime prime, etc. just as a labelling convenience.

The label is the designation.

Well, that's what labels are, yeah. "Designation" would be another name for "label."

Without the designation, there is ball at position X and time T1, and a ball at position Y at time T2. How can we claim movement in distinction from there just being a different ball that is at position Y?

I have no idea what the phrase "movement in distinction" would mean. But the way we can claim movement is because there's a ball at x at T1 and a ball at y at T2, where x doesn't equal y. That's movement or processual change.

I've not stated that there is no other-ball at Y at T1, so how do I demonstrate movement?

By the fact that the relations are different (since x doesn't equal y).

That's why the designation is natural and instinctual.

Again, I have no idea what that would mean. What is a "natural and instinctual designation"? I have no idea.

We all do it, and it need not be stated. I'm just stating that when pressed, I'm in recognition of this unstated designation. I'm fine with it being left unstated, and the different states qualifies as motion. The block universe model has motion.

No idea what you're talking about in that section. I was describing the second scenario, the one in which we have a lot of different balls.

There are different relations between successive balls and floors (in this scenario).

Different from what?

From each other.

Those relations are identical whether those are all separate states or they're a changing relation between two things (ball, floor) in various states at different times.

They're not identical if ball-prime is at x at T1 and ball-prime-prime is at y at T2 and x does not equal y. That's what I was talking about. Again, this was in the context of you claiming something like there wouldn't be movement if it weren't "the same" ball at T1 and T2 in continuous motion.

Two states: tall candle, and a short one. Comparison of those two states is considered change only if they're the same candle.

Right--that's what I'm disagreeing with. They don't have to be "the same" candle for it to be a change. That's only a requirement if we're saying that it's a change in that particular candle. It doesn't have to be a change in that particular candle to be a change in states of affairs. I don't buy that anything is identical through time anyway (hence why I put "the same" in quotation marks above.).

Maybe the 2nd one was always short.

Right, but if the second one appears where the first one was, there's a change; there's motion.

Physics just seems to say that one of those states is (or is not) in causal relation to the other.

Maybe . . . I don't know. I'm not doing physics, I'm doing ontology. Physics needs to be subservient to ontology on stuff like this in my view, not the other way around.

Existence of a star 20 billion light years away is more natural in a block view, since said place doesn't exist in what is typically defined as 'now'.

I don't really get that either. You don't have to explain all of this stuff that I don't get, but I'm just letting you know.

Commonplace actually,

Commonplace in our experience that tables change into potted plants??? You certainly have different experience than I or anyone I know does.

Terrapin Station wrote:If my interpretation of "static" doesn't apply, I frankly haven't the faintest idea what the block universe idea is, or rather, it would make zero sense to me as a theory/model.

Did you define it? Missed that. In a definition that I think works with either interpretation, 'static' means unchanging over time. A block interpretation is not a static one then. The only difference is the ontology of other moments than the one subjectively referred to as 'now'. The view postulates no special ontological status to one moment, and it is considered to be mixing interpretations if references to that postulated nonexistent thing are made. Hence the term B-series of time, which makes references to things without references to 'the present'. B-series is not an interpretation, just of mode of speaking. A-series allows such references and can be used with the block view so long as it is recognized that the reference has no more weight than the word 'here' defines a specific location in space. Both 'here' and 'now' refer to the subjective point of view of whatever utters the word.

You said 'time is static' in a block universe, which translates (my definition) to 'time is unchanged over time' which seems true if not a tautology, but you define time as identical to motion/change. So now 'motion/change is unchanging over motion/change'. The phrase seems not to substitute in, so perhaps my definition of static does not work with your definition of time. Enlighten me.

You speak of 'processural' change. How does that differ from non-processural change? Best description of what something is often involves saying what it isn't. If I understand that, the rest of your comments might be more clear.

What is a "natural and instinctual designation"? I have no idea.

Problem solved then. I can assume that a ball is one thing that moves. I said not to dwell on it if you don't know what I'm talking about. Ball moves in a block universe. Tables don't become plants. We're in agreement.

Maybe . . . I don't know. I'm not doing physics, I'm doing ontology. Physics needs to be subservient to ontology on stuff like this in my view, not the other way around.

It would if it mattered to them. If no empirical difference, science doesn't care.

Existence of a star 20 billion light years away is more natural in a block view, since said place doesn't exist in what is typically defined as 'now'.

I don't really get that either. You don't have to explain all of this stuff that I don't get, but I'm just letting you know.

You don't understand distant places? How far does the universe go in your opinion? Is that opinion based on science or just something that works for you? There's no right answer to that. Science cannot prove existence of stars whose light cannot possibly ever reach Earth. But they still offer an opinion about it, and there's the science doing the ontology that you asked for.

I said I was an exuberant realist about such unobservable things. It gets me into trouble because I can't find a place to stop. Something has to not exist for existence to have any meaning. A work in progress then.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Wait, if we move, we move, right?

We only change our perspectives in block universe, or move along time axis. Motion as we know and I defined is an illusion.

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.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
We only change our perspectives in block universe, or move along time axis. Motion as we know and I defined is an illusion.

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?