Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: 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?

bahman wrote:Moving along time axis (changing perspective) is different than motion. I already defined motion.

Terrapin Station wrote: That's a very strange way to use language, by the way. The definition of "moving" is "in motion," and etymologically, they both come from the Latin "motionem," from the past participle stem of "movere."

Terrapin Station wrote: At any rate, okay, so when perspective moves along the time axis, it's not the case that perspective exists at position y, then at x?

bahman wrote:Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Perspective just change as we move from point x to point y, x and y being different time.

Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Well, your definition of motion is that something is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y), right?

Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Yes and that is not the case in block universe.

But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: But you just said that perspective is at x, and then it's at y (where x doesn't equal y). That IS motion per your definition, and it occurs with a block universe.

Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Well, I think we messed things up a little. How do you define x and y?

I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: I was just going by your definition of motion. You gave x and y as location or position variables.

Ok, I got that. So what is next?

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Ok, I got that. So what is next?

So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

Yes, it is a movement (motion, but lets call it movement for sake of clarity) along time axis which is different from motion (as I already defined it).

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: So our changing perspective is motion per your definition.

Yes, it is a movement (motion, but lets call it movement for sake of clarity) along time axis which is different from motion (as I already defined it).

but it fits your definition or motion. So how are you saying that it doesn't fit?

Terrapin Station wrote: Here was your definition again:

"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."

With that in mind, here's what we have:

"Motion to me is the change in state of matter"

--In this case the change in state of our perspective--

"from an initial time to a latter time."

--So a change in state of our perspective from an initial time to a later time--

"Think of a point particle for simplicity."

--Here we're talking about our perspective rather than just a point particle obviously--

"The particle exists in position X and does not exist in position Y, at initial time"

--Our perspective exists in position X and does not exist in position Y at the initial time--

"and latter time. The particle does not exist in initial time, position X, and exists only at final time, position Y. "

--At the later time (or the latter time), our perspective does not exist in the initial time at position X, but only at the final time at position Y--

"This is what we call motion in my opinion."

--Yes. So then you should call this change or movement in our perception "motion," and thus the proposed block universe has motion after all; it's not motion-free.


And I'll repeat once again that motion can't be an illusion. The idea of that is incoherent given our phenomenal experience.