You refuse to acknowledge that Floyd at noon is but a 3D part of a 4D object. — Luke

I don't consider it a 'part', no. I don't see perdurantist language in the field, so I don't use it. A part of a 4D object would be a smaller 4D object. A finite number of parts make up a finite whole. The 3D cross section you describe corresponds to a state of Floyd in presentism. Floyd is in one state at noon, and a different state at 1. None of those states move since each is at but one location ever. But Floyd is still said to move in presentism. Your argument seems to be equivalant to Floyd not moving because none of his states do.

I do acknowledge that the perdurantists would say that Floyd at noon is a 3D part of a 4D object. I don't really approve of that for several reasons, all of which I've stated, but ambiguity being a big one.

I will also say that, given a frame of reference to define the hyperplane of simultaneity referred to as 'at noon', then 'Floyd at noon' defines a set of events that comprise a 3D spatially extended region, and that those events are a subset of all the events that are considered to be Floyd.
That's pretty close to the perdurantist wording, but without all the ambiguity and terms with loading meaning. Funny thing is, the statement works under presentism as well, except the specification of the frame wouldn't be necessary.

The noon-part of Floyd doesn't change its temporal or spatial location, like you assume.

There you go again, putting straw man assumptions in my mouth.

The definition of motion is a change in a 3D object's position over time.

And reiterating discriminatory definitions as well. I showed that definition to be false even in presentism (the shadow), and you didn't counter it, but rather came up with irrelevant comments about its causes.

I'm only saying there's technically no motion in an eternalist universe. This needn't imply that there's no motion in our universe, only that if there is motion in our universe, then our universe is not (purely) eternalist.

So you've proven what nobody seems to be able to do, which is to falsify eternalism. Kindly detail some empirical falsification test, Love to hear it.
So far I have: There is obviously motion. Eternalists are not allowed to use the word, therefore, by language offense, eternalism is false. It doesn't fly because it isn't an empirical falsification.


The topic has been abandoned altogether, and communication about this side track seems hopelessly mired. I think I will step out at this point.

I don't consider it a 'part', no. I don't see perdurantist language in the field, so I don't use it. A part of a 4D object would be a smaller 4D object. — noAxioms

Do you at least acknowledge that Floyd is a 4D object according to eternalism? A 4D object requires higher dimensions within which to move, but that’s not the sort of motion you describe in your Floyd example.

The 3D cross section you describe corresponds to a state of Floyd in presentism. Floyd is in one state at noon, and a different state at 1. None of those states move since each is at but one location ever. But Floyd is still said to move in presentism. — noAxioms

What exists in a presentist universe is continuously changing. 3D objects can change their location over time in a presentist universe even if presentists cannot measure that change or do not acknowledge the existence of any other times.

Your argument seems to be equivalant to Floyd not moving because none of his states do. — noAxioms

It depends what sort of object Floyd is. Are you talking about the "states" of 3D Floyd or of 4D Floyd? Your previous descriptions indicate that it is 3D Floyd who supposedly moves. For example, you are presumably not talking about changes in 4D Floyd's spatial location(s), but about changes in 3D Floyd's spatial locations at different times. If 3D Floyd is what you call a "state" of Floyd, then yes, no 3D part/state of 4D Floyd changes its location or moves. 3D Floyd is not earlier at time t₀ and then later at time t₁, because two different 3D Floyd parts co-exist at each of those times. 3D Floyd doesn't change his location between those times because there exists more than one 3D Floyd at, and between, those times.

I will also say that, given a frame of reference to define the hyperplane of simultaneity referred to as 'at noon', then 'Floyd at noon' defines a set of events that comprise a 3D spatially extended region, and that those events are a subset of all the events that are considered to be Floyd.
That's pretty close to the perdurantist wording, but without all the ambiguity and terms with loading meaning. Funny thing is, the statement works under presentism as well, except the specification of the frame wouldn't be necessary. — noAxioms

Okay, but there is still the assumption that the same 3D Floyd object changes its location over time. In order for there to be motion, an eternalist must ignore that more than one 3D Floyd object exists over that time.

The noon-part of Floyd doesn't change its temporal or spatial location, like you assume.

There you go again, putting straw man assumptions in my mouth. — noAxioms

If you don't assume that Floyd-at-noon is the same 3D Floyd object as Floyd-at-1pm, then how could you coherently refer to it (i.e. Floyd the 3D object) as having changed its spatial location (i.e. as having moved) or not? You must assume that the noon-part of Floyd changes its spatial and temporal location in order for it to move.

The definition of motion is a change in a 3D object's position over time.

And reiterating discriminatory definitions as well. I showed that definition to be false even in presentism (the shadow), and you didn't counter it, but rather came up with irrelevant comments about its causes. — noAxioms

Okay then, an object with less than four dimensions. It's still either the same shadow that can change its spatial location over time (per presentism) or else it’s many different shadows that cannot change their spatial locations over time (per eternalism).

I will continue to refer to 3D objects instead of "objects with less than four dimensions" though, only because I assume 3D objects are much more common.

So you've proven what nobody seems to be able to do, which is to falsify eternalism. Kindly detail some empirical falsification test, Love to hear it. — noAxioms

No empirical test is required. It's what eternalism logically entails.