Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:20 pm**

bahman wrote:I think you need to read my post in second page to understand what motion is. You then can understand how motion is an illusion in block universe.

I don't think you understand block universe then.

It is a deep fault of this site that the posts are not numbered and you must say 'on the second page', but at least the posts-per-page doesn't seem variable like it was on the other site, so I indeed found this posted there:

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.

That at least I agree with, and this definition works great for block universe as well. You example however completely violates this for both block and non-block view.

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.

No, it does exist at Y at the later time. Or am I reading this wrong? What do you mean by "at initial time and latter time."?

The particle does not exist in initial time, position X,

You just said it does. This seems to be a self conflicting example.

and exists only at final time, position Y. This is what we call motion in my opinion.

I call that an inconsistent story. I think you're trying to describe a particle that is at position X at time initial time, and moving to position Y at final time. But the story then conflicts itself to say there is no particle at X at initial time, or there is none at Y at final time. Please be consistent.

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.

No, the block universe says it exists at X at initial time, and at Y at final time. It does not exist at both positions at each of those times.

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.

The change of perspective is no different than the change of the particle. The perspective is of the initial time at the initial time, and of the final time at the final time. The only difference between the two models is the lack of a special moment in time that is preferred over the others, in the block model. In other respects, they're the same model.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:52 pm**

bahman wrote:I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Sorry for my poor English.

You gave a definition of "motion" as follows:

A change in state from an initial time to a later time. Namely, where the thing in question exits in position x but not y at time T1, and then where it exists in position y but not x at time T2 (and where x does not equal y).

That was your definition.

Now you seem to be saying that your definition only applies to some sorts of things, like (isolated) particles, but not other sorts of things, like perspectives.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:00 pm**

Noax wrote: No, that definition does not apply to block universe. That is why I provide further gave explanation.

Of course it doesn't apply to block universe. It simply provide a definition for normal universe.

Noax wrote: No, it does exist at Y at the later time. Or am I reading this wrong? What do you mean by "at initial time and latter time."?

You are reading it wrong. Again, the definition I provided just give provide a definition for normal universe.

Noax wrote: You just said it does. This seems to be a self conflicting example.

I have to say the same thing as previous comment.

Noax wrote: I call that an inconsistent story. I think you're trying to describe a particle that is at position X at time initial time, and moving to position Y at final time. But the story then conflicts itself to say there is no particle at X at initial time, or there is none at Y at final time. Please be consistent.

There is noting wrong in my definition. Again, I am just providing a definition for normal universe.

Noax wrote: No, the block universe says it exists at X at initial time, and at Y at final time. It does not exist at both positions at each of those times.

That is not correct. The particle exist in all position in block universe hence it doesn't move. It is just changing of perspective which produce changes. Change is similar to motion but it is not a motion given the definition.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:03 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote:
bahman wrote: I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Sorry for my poor English.
You gave a definition of "motion" as follows:

A change in state from an initial time to a later time. Namely, where the thing in question exits in position x but not y at time T1, and then where it exists in position y but not x at time T2 (and where x does not equal y).

That was your definition.

Now you seem to be saying that your definition only applies to some sorts of things, like (isolated) particles, but not other sorts of things, like perspectives.

No, my definition does not apply to only a particle. I just used the example of a particle to clarify what I mean with the motion.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:27 pm**

bahman wrote: No, my definition does not apply to only a particle. I just used the example of a particle to clarify what I mean with the motion.

Well, your last objection was "I hesitate to use the word motion for changing perspective since we define motion for another thing."

So you don't define motion for just one thing (like an isolated particle). Maybe if you explain what you had in mind with "another thing." What's "another thing (than perspective(s))"--what class of things does that denote?

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:34 am**

Terrapin Station wrote:
bahman wrote: No, my definition does not apply to only a particle. I just used the example of a particle to clarify what I mean with the motion.
Well, your last objection was "I hesitate to use the word motion for changing perspective since we define motion for another thing."

So you don't define motion for just one thing (like an isolated particle). Maybe if you explain what you had in mind with "another thing." What's "another thing (than perspective(s))"--what class of things does that denote?

Consider human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move.

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:10 pm**

Bahman originally wrote:

God is omniscient and timeless. This means that we are dealing with a block universe since all states of universe are known to God. This means that motion is an illusion since nothing changes in a block universe. We are however experience changes. This means that changes can only be described in term of changing the perspective of agents (simply moving along time axis). This however problematic since it requires that all agents are synchronised in what they experience.

But God is usually thought to be, besides timeless, also immanent in the world of change over time and in all the varieties of ways of being in the world.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:05 am**

Belinda wrote: Bahman originally wrote:

God is omniscient and timeless. This means that we are dealing with a block universe since all states of universe are known to God. This means that motion is an illusion since nothing changes in a block universe. We are however experience changes. This means that changes can only be described in term of changing the perspective of agents (simply moving along time axis). This however problematic since it requires that all agents are synchronised in what they experience.
But God is usually thought to be, besides timeless, also immanent in the world of change over time and in all the varieties of ways of being in the world.

That is correct. God also sustain universe also.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:19 pm**

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

Yes this is true because everything is actually in a perpetual state of motion and

so not just from initial time to final time but all other points of time in between

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

What happens in between the initial time and the final time

Does any time pass there at all or is it all just instantaneous

This is what we call motion in my opinion

Cannot call it motion if it is instantaneous

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 more like quantum mechanics than the block universe where a particle exists in all places

at once before the collapse of the wave function when it only appears at the actual point being observed

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

With regard to perspective this is the same as the Copenhagen interpretation : observer effect causing the collapse of the wave function

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:57 pm**

bahman wrote:Consider human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move.

You're saying that that isn't covered by your definition of "motion"?

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:25 am**

surreptitious57 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
Yes this is true because everything is actually in a perpetual state of motion and

so not just from initial time to final time but all other points of time in between

Good.

surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote: 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
What happens in between the initial time and the final time

Does any time pass there at all or is it all just instantaneous

The particle is in a point between X and Y.

surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote: This is what we call motion in my opinion
Cannot call it motion if it is instantaneous

It is not instantaneous.

surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote: 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 more like quantum mechanics than the block universe where a particle exists in all places

at once before the collapse of the wave function when it only appears at the actual point being observed

It is different from quantum mechanics. Particle simply exists in all place.

surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote: 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
With regard to perspective this is the same as the Copenhagen interpretation : observer effect causing the collapse of the wave function

I am not talking about quantum measurement or interpretation.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:27 am**

Terrapin Station wrote:
bahman wrote: Consider human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move.
You're saying that that isn't covered by your definition of "motion"?

No I am saying that that is covered by my definition of motion.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:10 pm**

bahman wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
bahman wrote: Consider human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move.
You're saying that that isn't covered by your definition of "motion"?
No I am saying that that is covered by my definition of motion.

So why isn't perspective covered?

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:56 am**

bahman wrote:God is omniscient and timeless. This means that we are dealing with a block universe since all states of universe are known to God. This means that motion is an illusion since nothing changes in a block universe. We are however experience changes. This means that changes can only be described in term of changing the perspective of agents (simply moving along time axis). This however problematic since it requires that all agents are synchronised in what they experience.

I suppose I should not even bother posting since I fundamentally reject virtually every one of the stated premises. It should be noted that such arguments depend heavily on the premises which themselves are debatable.

I don’t think God is timeless or omniscient (in the sense of seeing history from the alpha beginning to the end omega). I think God is temporal, responsive and loving. I think God takes in the experience of the world and preserves the experience of the world (in its presentational immediacy) and is thus omniscient in that sense but not in the sense of knowing the future (which does not yet exist, making me a presentist of sorts). I also think on the subject of God the eternal changeless immutable God of Greek perfection is not (on analysis) the most useful of religious conceptions (but again assumptions just different ones from yours).

The other route to the block, iron, frozen universe is the seeming determinism inherent in the mathematical equations of the physics of general relativity. Quantum mechanics has both indeterministic and deterministic interpretations. In any event the conception of time as a spatial 4th dimension is what leads to diagrams of timelines in textbooks (this has been referred to as the spatialization of time). In general I take the minority view of the temporalization of space (a mathematically equivalent interpretation). I think the spatialization of time is a “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” mistaking a mathematical model for the more complex reality it abstracts, simplifies and about which it makes fundamental axiomatic assumptions. I think space is an activity, a process, a repetitive set of temporal events just like the rest of reality.

Now you will no doubt disagree with my assumptions (axioms) just as I disagree with yours and it is not a matter of science or fact but more of philosophical proclivities. I will say this about my assumptions; that they more closely cohere to our experience of the world as one of flux, change, flow, temporality and a future which is in many respects open, unpredictable and uncertain.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:05 am**

With reference to the title of the conversation I don't find any paradox. The so-called "block universe" is the view from eternity, and change is the view from time. The referent remains the same in both cases.

Philosophy Now Forum

Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe

Re: Paradox of block universe