I'm not a physicist. There are a few around though ...

I'm not a physicist. There are a few around though ... — 180 Proof

:ok:

As I noted in my first post and have re-stated a couple more times since:

Time is required to get "from place to place" or to perceive (and compare) one place and then another.
— Luke

You still haven't addressed this point as yet. I won't hold my breath. — Luke

:grin:

That'd be because you restrict yourself to change over time, and the image changes over distance. I showed that your point was erroneous.

I could suggest a better question... "how can you explain the change without a metaphorical walk"? The question you asked, though, is simply invalid. — InPitzotl

It's a different example, so I don't see how my question is invalid.

Why must something move? — InPitzotl

Because you said there was metaphorical motion.

The claim is that change can occur place to place as well as time to time. The height of the hill changes (change) as a function of where you are on the road (place to place) without involving any movement. — InPitzotl

Unless you can actually move "place to place" and change "where you are on the road", then it makes no sense to say that "the height of the hill changes (change) as a function of where you are on the road (place to place)". And I don't see how any motion is possible without time.

IF I move left to right, THEN I will go lower. But I don't have to move left to right for that function to be lower at higher values of x. The motion is entirely unnecessary; it can be discarded. It's a factual matter that the curve on the right has lower values than the curve on the left. — InPitzotl

What does that have to do with change? The height of the hill does not change (at any given time). It has different heights at different parts. I still don't see support for your stronger claim that the height of the hill not only has different parts with different heights, but that its height changes (at any give time); especially that we can speak of any sort of change here without involving time.

There are instants of time embedded in infinitesimal intervals.

Nothing about it has changed. — Luke

Certainly in some sense the white changes to yellow. That much we can comfortably assume all of us understand. So the question must be: in what way is 'change' being used in Banno's rebuttal? And then: Is 'change' being used in the same way 'change' has been used in the description of its relationship to time?

If I thought this was an important question, I would want to hear an answer.

Time is required[.....]to perceive (and compare) one place and then another. — Luke

Time is required to perceive the change from white to yellow. That's not in question.

Time is required to perceive the change from white to yellow. That's not in question. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Hell yeah it's in question.

@Banno's original claim was that:

Time and change have no special relation.

Change occurs from place to place as well as from time to time. — Banno

That is, Banno has claimed that change can occur "from place to place" without time (because he draws a distinction here between change-over-place and change-over-time).

The only support for his claim that time is not required for change-over-place is the image he presented. This image, he claims, "changes from white on the left to yellow on the right." So it is very much in question whether time is required to perceive any change from white to yellow (or for the static image itself to somehow "change" from white on the left to yellow on the right).

It's a different example, so I don't see how my question is invalid. — Luke

Because it has nothing to do with the claim you're objecting to.

Why must something move? — InPitzotl
Because you said there was metaphorical motion. — Luke

Metaphorical motion is not motion; literal motion is motion. I repeat the question... why must things move?

Unless you actually move "place to place" and change "where you are on the road", then it makes no sense to say that "the height of the hill changes (change) as a function of where you are on the road (place to place)". — Luke

Nonsense (see below).

It has different heights at different parts. — Luke

Yes. And if it has different heights at different parts, then it must have different heights in different places. Therefore a change in place can correspond to a change in height. So what's the problem?

I still don't see support for your stronger claim that the height of the hill not only has different parts with different heights, but that its height changes (at any give time) — Luke

Then you're either insane or you're lost. Let's zoom in.

A and B are different points, right? Well, this curve "has different heights at different parts". But more specifically, A to B represents a change in place of dx1 (along the x coordinate), and a change in color of dy1. I remind you the claim is that there can be a change from place to place. Well, there's a change in place with a change in color. Likewise, B to C represents a change in place of dx2, and a change in color of dy2. So there's another change (dy2) with respect to a change in place (dx2).

Nothing has to actually move from A to B for that change to be a change of dx1 in x coordinates or a change of dy1 in color. And nothing has to move from B to C for that change to be a change of dx2 in x coordinates or a change of dy2 in color.

Incidentally, in this post I mentioned the color at x=615 and another color at x=984. Here, we can clearly see the change in x is 984-615=369; and here the change in color using this metric is 152.44. This was calculated without "going from x=615 to 984" even in any metaphorical sense. So, what I'm talking about is definitely not restricted by what you claim it has to be restricted by (I have described the precise amount of change of color in terms of change in place here without relying on any well defined movement, even metaphorical).

The problem here isn't in what I'm saying. The problem here is only that you're insisting what I mean by change isn't what you think change means.

Because it has nothing to do with the claim you're objecting to. — InPitzotl

I'm objecting to Banno's claim that there can be change-over-place irrespective of time. The question I asked you was:

there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right
— InPitzotl

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke

My question has everything to do with the claim I'm objecting to and is completely valid.

Metaphorical motion is not motion; literal motion is motion. I repeat the question... why must things move? — InPitzotl

You said "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right". You subsequently clarified this as "metaphorical motion". I don't understand why you are now asking me why things must move. I guess because you said that there is change "as you move from left to right".

Yes. And if it has different heights at different parts, then it must have different heights in different places. Therefore a change in place can correspond to a change in height. So what's the problem? — InPitzotl

I imagine there must be something that actually changes place. Wouldn't that take some time to move?

Then you're either insane or you're lost. — InPitzotl

Nice.

Nothing has to actually move from A to B for that change to be a change of dx1 in x coordinates or a change of dy1 in color. And nothing has to move from B to C for that change to be a change of dx2 in x coordinates or a change of dy2 in color. — InPitzotl

Nothing needs to move for something to change its spatial coordinates (or for what is at a spatial coordinate to change)? And exactly what is changing coordinates here? The hill? Part(s) of the hill? The part of the hill you are looking at?

I'm objecting to Banno's claim that there can be change-over-place irrespective of time. — Luke

Yes. Contrast change-over-place now with change-over-time. Forget the concept for a moment and look at those those two phrases. In the phrases, what's different?

Let's talk about a change over time. I jog on the road... in 10 seconds I cover 150 feet. So I am moving 150 feet (unit-of-distance) over ten seconds (unit-of-time). My average speed then is 15 feet per second. I change my location by 150 feet in 10 seconds.

Contrast this with a hill. In 150 feet (unit-of-distance), the hill rises 50 feet (unit-of-distance). So the hill has a gradient of 50 feet over 150 feet. The units cancel and we're left with a gradient of 1/3. The hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet.

My question has everything to do with the claim I'm objecting to and is completely valid. — Luke

Wrong... and I'll repeat this:

The problem here isn't in what I'm saying. The problem here is only that you're insisting what I mean by change isn't what you think change means. — InPitzotl

...so here is your question again:

How can you “move from left to right” irrespective of time? — Luke

You are asking how something ("you") moves irrespective of time. That question presumes something is moving in the first place. But nothing moves when a hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. You're the one insisting it's a valid question... you're the one insisting something must move for a hill to change its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet, so you tell me what it is that is moving.

The claim you're objecting to:

I'm objecting to Banno's claim that there can be change-over-place irrespective of time. — Luke

...doesn't say anything at all about anything moving. Luke is the only one insisting something must be moving. Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. Change in height over change in position (the hill) is not motion. Change in color over change in position (the image) is not motion.

Then you're either insane or you're lost. — InPitzotl
Nice. — Luke

Hint: You're just lost.

Nothing needs to move for something to change its spatial coordinates (or for what is at a spatial coordinate to change)? — Luke

The graph is just a representation. It's spatial because graphs are spatial things. The x coordinate on the graph corresponds to an x coordinate in Banno's image, but the y coordinate on the graph corresponds to a difference in color. We could talk about the RGB space as "spatial", but it's obviously just an abstraction. On this graph, only one coordinate is spatial (in the sense of physical space; and even this requires us to "play the game" of talking about the image the way we're supposed to).

And exactly what is changing coordinates here? — Luke

More "moving" questions? Banno's claim is not about something moving (change-in-place over change-in-time; speed; feet per second). Banno's claim is about something changing over place (change in color over change in x coordinate; color gradient; color-distance per pixel). Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time).

There are instants of time embedded in infinitesimal intervals. — jgill

That's an enlightening approach! Can time, an instant, have a real existence? Do we move through time as we move through space? Do we "pass" all values on a clock, like we pass points in space while moving? Or is the hand of the clock just passing different positions on the dial?

With great interest I follow this hot rational discourse. The problem seems to be the question if change can exist without time. Can change exist without time? Why not? If the difference between particles varies then it can do so without comparing it with a clock. The distances don't vary in time. Only when the variation in distances is compared with the linear motion of the hands on a clock, it seems the physical states flows in the river of time.

You're conflating change and the perception of change. Banno isn't.

You're conflating change and the perception of change — ZzzoneiroCosm

Can you explain the difference in a mathematically justified picture? Can change be mathematically described without reference to time?

If we consider change as the difference, can't we make the change independent of the hands on a clock? How can things move through time, if there is nothing to move through except from space?

Can you explain the difference in a mathematically justified picture? Can change be mathematically described without reference to time? — HKpinsky

Sorry, I don't have the background to understand your question.

Can change be mathematically described without reference to time? — HKpinsky

Sure. A derivative can describe a rate of change with regard to a non-time variable: dy/dx

:up:

Sure. A derivative can describe a rate of change with regard to a non-time variable: dy/dx — jgill

But it takes time to go from x to x+dx and from y to y+dy. How would you describe the path of Earth around the Sun without the use of time? A line integral over the orbit?

:down:

Why a thumb down?

dy/dx is not dy/dt.

It does not involve time.

A function f(x)=y is stationary though. Only if you move on it you see it changing from point to point.

Contrast change-over-place now with change-over-time. Forget the concept for a moment and look at those those two phrases. In the phrases, what's different? — InPitzotl

One says "place" and one says "time". I invite you to also consider the idea of change-over-place (without time). In such a scenario, there is no change at any spatial location; nothing changes or moves at (or from) any spatial coordinate.

Contrast this with a hill. In 150 feet (unit-of-distance), the hill rises 50 feet (unit-of-distance). So the hill has a gradient of 50 feet over 150 feet. The units cancel and we're left with a gradient of 1/3. The hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. — InPitzotl

How does the hill "change" its height? I understand that you can calculate all this, and that a change of distance or spatial location or x-coordinate is required for your calculations, but the hill doesn't actually change at all (without time). All you are doing is comparing one part of the hill to another in order to obtain a mathematical result.

Wrong... and I'll repeat this:

The problem here isn't in what I'm saying. The problem here is only that you're insisting what I mean by change isn't what you think change means. — InPitzotl

Begging the question. That's what is in dispute here. You are also insisting that what I mean by change isn't what you think change means.

You are asking how something ("you") moves irrespective of time. — InPitzotl

I asked this question in response to your statement that "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right". You have since backpedalled, at first claiming this motion is only "metaphorical", and now pretending as though you never said anything at all about motion.

That question presumes something is moving in the first place. But nothing moves when a hill changes its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet. You're the one insisting it's a valid question... you're the one insisting something must move for a hill to change its height by 50 feet over a run of 150 feet, so you tell me what it is that is moving. — InPitzotl

Why don't you tell me what is moving, given that it appears to be part of your calculation. The two main examples that have been offered are change-in-colour and change-in-height over change-in-distance. If something changes distance, then doesn't it move? I'll ask again: what changes distance in these examples? If nothing changes distance, then why is it part of your calculation?

Luke is the only one insisting something must be moving. Motion by the way is change in position over change in time. Change in height over change in position (the hill) is not motion. Change in color over change in position (the image) is not motion. — InPitzotl

Change in position...is motion. If nothing changes position, then why measure change in position? I take it that when you measure change in position, you are measuring the change in position of something?

Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time). — InPitzotl

Yes, a change in position requires time. That's my point.

I'm inclined to agree with Luke. In fact, I would go so far as to say change is analytic to time. For there to be time, there would have to be a change of some kind, and that change has to be measurable in some way. This is why it makes no sense to talk of persons outside of time, timelessness is completely static, because there is no measurable change. I don't think we could make any sense of a universe outside of time or change.

Although change is analytic to time, I'm not sure time is analytic to change. Maybe there is an abstract use of change that isn't measurable, but this would seem not to be a real event.

For their to be time, there would have to be a change of some kind, and that change has to be measurable in some way. — Sam26

This makes "change" dependent on measurability. But measurability is dependent on the human capacity to measure. If you remove this requirement, measurability, you can allow for the reality of change which is imperceptible to the human being, therefore unassailable to the human capacity of measurement.

This is why it makes no sense to talk of persons outside of time, timelessness is completely static, because there is no measurable change. I don't think we could make any sense of a universe outside of time or change. — Sam26

Actually the opposite of what you say is what is really the case. If we tie time to measurability, then all the changes which we are unable to measure, appear as if they are outside of time. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to talk about things outside of time. This could be the case with some of the issues in quantum physics. And not only does it make sense to talk about things "outside of time", to account for all those aspects of the universe which are completely outside the realm of our understanding, when understanding is derived from our empirically based capacities, it actually becomes necessary to assume something outside of time.

This is why the Christian "God", as eternal (outside of time), is fully comprehensible, and even necessary, when we limit time to our capacity to understand and measure. All those aspects of the universe which are prior to the physical reality which we perceive (this perception grounding our empirical sciences), yet are still very real, as the cause of, or the reason for, the way that physical things are, lie outside of time, when "time" is restricted in this way.

One says "place" and one says "time". I invite you to also consider the idea of change-over-place (without time). — Luke

Sure. Using x,y,z,t coordinates, A=(1,1,1,1), B=(2,1,1,1), C=(1,1,1,2), D=(2,1,1,2). A to B is a change in place. A to C is a change in time. A to D is a change in place and time.

In such a scenario, there is no change at any spatial location; nothing changes or moves at (or from) any spatial coordinate. — Luke

You're mixing change and motion here (second time you did that). But let's talk motion. Let's say an object O moves from A to D. The problem is, facts at points in time don't change. So if O moves from A to D, O is always at A and always at D. In fact, we can talk about O-at-A and O-at-D separately; change (and motion) requires us to do so. O-at-A is what is at x,y,z coordinate (1,1,1). O-at-D is what is at (2,1,1). We don't really consider O to have moved in this case unless O-at-A and O-at-D are "the same O".

So O-at-A is "the same O" as O-at-D, "just in different points in time". There is a change in O's x-coordinate from O-at-A to O-at-D for the same O.

How does the hill "change" its height? — Luke

Definitionally. You have a hill only if there is a change in height of a terrain such that some place in the terrain is higher than surrounding areas. A terrain H like this could be a hill: A1=(1,1,1), A2=(1,2,1), A3=(1,3,1), A4=(2,1,1), A5=(2,2,2), A6=(2,3,1), A7=(3,1,1), A8=(3,2,1), A9=(3,3,1). The height changes at A5 versus the surrounding specified areas from 1 to 2. A5 is "the same hill" as A1, "just in a different point in space" (cf above). There is a change in H's z coordinate from H-at-A1 to H-at-A5 for the same H.

I asked this question in response to your statement that "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right". — Luke

Sure. But:

You have since backpedalled, at first claiming this motion is only "metaphorical", and now pretending as though you never said anything at all about motion. — Luke

...this is just narrative. The problem is that there's no way to take this narrative seriously, as there's no sane reading of "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right" in a non-metaphorical sense.

Why don't you tell me what is moving, given that it appears to be part of your calculation. — Luke

Sure. Nothing is moving. The distance from my head to the wall is about four feet. The direction from my head to the wall is west. Neither of these statements require a thing to move from my head to the wall. If they "appear" to be about motion to you, that is simply because you're choosing to imagine it that way.

But there is a hill at A4, and the same hill at A5. The height change from A4 to A5 is one unit. That is a height change of the hill (nothing moved), from one place on the hill (A4) to another place on the hill (A5).

If something changes distance, then doesn't it move? — Luke

Well first let's fix your question. "Distance" here refers to horizontal distance from a peek. The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time. So you should analogously be asking if something changes height over distance, does it move? And the answer is no, it doesn't. Motion is a time relative change; a change in position over a change in time.

I'll ask again: what changes distanceheight in these examples? — Luke

Answered above, repeated here. The hill is changing height. The-same-hill is at a different height at A4 as it is at A5; i.e., 0 units from peek it is at a height of 2, 1 unit a height of 1.

Change in color over change in x coordinate is not motion (i.e., it is not change in position over change in time). — InPitzotl

Yes, a change in position requires time. That's my point. — Luke

Now you're outright conflating change with motion. If a change in color over a change in x coordinate is not motion, that does not mean it is not a change; in fact, it kind of presumes it is a change.

Why don't you tell me what is moving, given that it appears to be part of your calculation.
— Luke

Sure. Nothing is moving. The distance from my head to the wall is about four feet. The direction from my head to the wall is west. Neither of these statements require a thing to move from my head to the wall. — InPitzotl

That's great, except that (until now) you have been talking about a change in distance, not merely distance. What does it mean to say that there is a change in distance from your head to the wall? Something's gotta give. Once again, what is it that changes distance?

...this is just narrative. The problem is that there's no way to take this narrative seriously, as there's no sane reading of "there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right" in a non-metaphorical sense. — InPitzotl

Then there must also be no sane reading of "the hill changes its height" in a non-metaphorical sense. If the change in distance is metaphorical, then the change in height must also be metaphorical.

The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time. — InPitzotl

This would imply that it is the hill that changes its distance. Or is it only part of the hill? Which one does 'O' represent?

That's great, except that (until now) you have been talking about a change in distance, not merely distance. — Luke

I have not used that phrase in this thread.

Reading through your post, the only match I get to what you might be referring to is the fact that I said this:

there is a gradual change in degree of difference as you move from left to right that approaches the color on the right — InPitzotl

...and that I plotted the difference four posts later as a Euclidean distance. Is this what you're referring to? I'll go with that for now.

I think you're confused. This statement refers to the degree of difference of the color at a given x coordinate in Banno's image to "the color on the right": RGB(252,176,65) (the color at coordinate 1106). "Euclidean distance" here is simply a metric... it just means we're going to measure a color (r,g,b)'s difference to (252,176,65) like this:
$\sqrt{(r-252)^2+(g-176)^2+(b-65)^2}$

The value here is abstract; the units AFAIK don't even have a name (not feet; not pixels; something more like "1/256 of the available value space of an RGB coordinate"). This is just a number that gets smaller as a color approaches (252,176,65) and larger as a color diverges from it. As an example, in Banno's image, at x coordinate 881, the color is (253,208,165). The color distance at this point is 105..

Now here's the plot again:

...the x coordinate of this graph correspond to an x coordinate in Banno's image. The y coordinate in this graph corresponds to a difference between the color at that x coordinate in Banno's image and the color on the right, as measured using Euclidean distance in the RGB color space, as described above.

Once again, what is it that changes distance? — Luke

The colors are changing their distance to (252,176,65). The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. That is equivalent to saying the color-distance of the color to the color at the right approaches 0. You can see exactly what I described in this graph; as x increases, the trace of color distance of that color to the color at the right approaches 0.

This would imply that it is the hill that changes its distance. — Luke

Why would it imply such a thing?

Or is it only part of the hill? — Luke

Is what only part of the hill?

Which one does 'O' represent? — Luke

O has a x-y-z coordinate of 1,1,1 at the time t=1. The same O has a x-y-z coordinate of 1,1,2 at the time t=2.

H has a height of 1 at the place x,y=2,1. The same H has a height of 2 at the place x,y=2,2.

Analogs side by side:

...so to answer your question, "O" is analogous to "H".

That's great, except that (until now) you have been talking about a change in distance, not merely distance.
— Luke

I have not used that phrase in this thread. — InPitzotl

You have variously referred to changes in the x-coordinate, distance, position and place. I have taken all these to amount to roughly the same thing. For example, you said:

A to B represents a change in place of dx1 (along the x coordinate), and a change in color of dy1. I remind you the claim is that there can be a change from place to place. Well, there's a change in place with a change in color. — InPitzotl

Please correct me if 'dx1' does not represent a change of place (or change of distance/position/x-coordinate). I'm happy to use 'change of place' or 'change of position' instead of 'change of distance'. I think it more clearly emphasises my point.

I think you're confused. This statement refers to the degree of difference of the color at a given x coordinate in Banno's image to "the color on the right" — InPitzotl

Surely the statement refers to a change in the degree of difference of the color at a given x coordinate?

You are simultaneously asserting that nothing changes place while relying on a change of place (change of x-coordinate) in your calculation.

The colors are changing their distance to (252,176,65). The claim is equivalent to saying the color at an x coordinate approaches the color at the right as the x coordinate increases. That is equivalent to saying the color-distance of the color to the color at the right approaches 0. — InPitzotl

In what sense do the colours change their distance to the colour on the right? In Banno's static image, the colour (at each x-coordinate) is a fixed distance from the colour (at the x-coordinate) on the right. Where does change enter the picture? How does any colour "approach" the colour on the right?

You can see exactly what I described in this graph; as x increases, the trace of color distance of that color to the color at the right approaches 0. — InPitzotl

What does the increase in x represent? And how does x increase? Remember, you have agreed that nothing moves.

The hill is changing height over distance analogous to how O changes position over time.
— InPitzotl

This would imply that it is the hill that changes its distance.
— Luke

Why would it imply such a thing? — InPitzotl

If there is a change in time for O, then there must be an analogous change in distance for H.

Or is it only part of the hill? — Luke

Is what only part of the hill? — InPitzotl

I meant: Is it the whole hill or only part of the hill that changes its distance? In the example of Banno's image, you seem to indicate that only part of the image changes its distance to the x-coordinate on the right.

I'm surprised to find this discussion still active.

Here's the image again:


The colour does not change over time. It does change over the distance from left to right.

Hence there is a change over distance that does not involve a change over time.

Your denying this is for me of a par with MU's denial of instant velocity; it leaves me nonplussed. There's nought queer as folk.