Part of the change isn't the change. You'd need to specify some other change.

You seem to be thinking of time as something other than specific, particular changes, but that's all that time is.

You seem to be thinking of time as something other than specific, particular changes, but that's all that time is. — Terrapin Station

I'm not thinking of time in any particular way, I'm trying to understand how you're thinking of time, trying to make sense of it. I understand before and after, future and past. I also understand the present as a division between future and past. What I don't understand is how a change can occur at the present because the present is a simple division between future and past.

Part of the change isn't the change. You'd need to specify some other change. — Terrapin Station

Are you saying that a change is indivisible? If a change is divisible, then part of the change will always be before the other part which will be after. If a change is divisible, it cannot be all at the present. Is this what you're trying to say, that a change is indivisible?

the present is a simple division between future and past. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present is changes that are happening. If there's no change, there's no present.

The past is changes that happened.

The future is changes that will happen.

Are you saying that a change is indivisible? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Relative to the change in question, any change is indivisible. It can be divisible relative to other changes. It's always relative to some specific change.

Think of it this way: How would a change be temporally divisible?

Think of it this way: How would a change be temporally divisible? — Terrapin Station

Don't you think that a change can be divided into parts, just like an object? Have you ever seen slow motion films of what appears without the slow motion, as a rapid change? When I see such slow motion films, like a drop of water landing in a pool of water, creating waves, it makes me think that what appeared to me as one change is really numerous changes.

So I think that just like we can divide an object into molecules, we can divide a change in the same way. Suppose an object hits a pane of glass, breaking it. That change takes a period of time, maybe a half a second. If we break that down into milliseconds, we might be able to observe the interaction of the molecules of the object, and the molecules of the glass. Each of these is itself "a change", but it requires a whole lot of these changes (molecular interactions) to produce the change which is the glass breaking.

Physicists commonly work with the interaction between photons and electrons. Each of these is a change. These interactions take place in a period of time much shorter than a millisecond, so it takes many of these changes to create a change which is visible to the human eye.

Don't you think that a change can be divided into parts, just like an object? Have you ever seen slow motion films of what appears without the slow motion, as a rapid change? When I see such slow motion films, like a drop of water landing in a pool of water, creating waves, it makes me think that what appeared to me as one change is really numerous changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the answer to how a change would be temporally divisible is relative to some other change, right?

A change is temporally divisible into other changes, just like an object is divisible into other objects. And of course there is a matter of the changes being relative, because in order for parts to make up a whole, they must exist in specific relationships.

A change is temporally divisible into other changes, j — Metaphysician Undercover

You can't temporally divide 9:31 to 9:32 where you're talking about the same change. So 9:31 to 9:32, relative to itself, is not temporally divisible. It's only temporally divisible relative to other changes.

Likewise with objects. They're only divisible relative to other objects.

You can't temporally divide 9:31 to 9:32 where you're talking about the same change. So 9:31 to 9:32, relative to itself, is not temporally divisible. It's only temporally divisible relative to other changes. — Terrapin Station

Of course it's divisible relative to itself. There's sixty seconds in a minute. Therefore it takes sixty seconds for 9:31: to change to 9:32. So we have 9:31:01, 9:31:02, 9:31:03, etc.. Each of these is a smaller change which occurs within the bigger change of 9:31 changing to 9:32. We could go to even smaller changes, by dividing the seconds, or we could go to an even bigger change, and say that the change from 9:31 to 9:32 is just one change within the bigger change between 9:00 and 10:00.

So we have 9:31:01, 9:31:02 — Metaphysician Undercover

But thats not the change of 9:31 to 9:32. It's a different change.

No, that is the change between 9:31 and 9:32. There must be something between these two which is not evident in either one, which qualifies as "the change". You just claim it is "different", because it is neither 9:31 nor 9:32. Of course it is neither of these, and something completely different, because it is "the change" between them.

If that's how you interpret this, then there is no change of 9:31 to 9:32. This is not an example of a "change". They are distinct numbers One does not "change" into two, they are distinct. "Change" refers to the act which makes something different from what it was before. All we have here is two distinct numbers, not an act of change.

I was referring to the change of 9:31 to 9:32. Clearly there must be something between these two which qualifies as the "change" between them. This "change" is necessarily other than 9:31, and other than 9:32. You seem to be just talking about two distinct numbers, 9:31 and 9:32, which is not a change at all, it is just two different things

No, that is the change between 9:31 and 9:32. — Metaphysician Undercover

This sentence makes no sense to me as a response to my comment.

There must be something between these two which is not evident in either one, which qualifies as "the change" — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a view I share, and I have no reason why anyone should believe it. That the clock face says 9:31 and then 9:32 is sufficient.

You just claim it is "different", because it is neither 9:31 nor 9:32. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's either different or it's the same (as in identical). if it's the same, but just another name for the same change, then we're not subdividing it. If it's different, then it's not subdividing that specific change with respect to itself. It's naming another, different change.

That the clock face says 9:31 and then 9:32 is sufficient. — Terrapin Station

This is not at all sufficient. You don't seem to have any understanding of what a change is. You have described two distinct states; the clock says 9:31, and , the clock says 9:32. Do you not recognize that "change" refers to the process whereby the clock "changes" from saying 9:31 to saying 9:32?

Suppose I describe two distinct states. The moon is high in the sky. The sun is high in the sky. Naming these two distinct states is not a description of a change. A description of a change would be to describe how the sun replaces the moon, in the sky. So in your example, a description of a change would be to describe how 9:32 replaces 9:31 on the face of the clock. That would be the description of a change. Naming two distinct states is not a description of a change.

It's either different or it's the same (as in identical). if it's the same, but just another name for the same change, then we're not subdividing it. If it's different, then it's not subdividing that specific change with respect to itself. It's naming another, different change. — Terrapin Station

As soon as you actually describe a change, and not just two distinct states, then we can discuss whether that change is divisible or not.

This is not at all sufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure it is. When the clock face reads 9:31 and then 9:32 we don't say it stayed the same. It changed.

Logically, changes can obtain if there are only two states and nothing else.

And changes are processes.

Now, a change that we describe via noting two states can sometimes be compromised of a set of smaller changes, often from another reference point. That's not always the case, but it sometimes is.

So let's say that our change from 9:31 to 9:32 has a change to 9:31:30 in between. So we have a change from 9:31 to 9:31:30, and then a change from 9:31:30 to 9:32. That has no impact on whether 9:31 is in the past with respect to 9:32 relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32. Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, 9:31 is not in the past. Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, we only have the present--the occurring change of 9:31 to 9:32.

Now relative to the change of 9:31:30 to 9:32, 9:31 is in the past. But that is a different change. The change of of 9:31:30 to 9:32 is not identical to the change from 9:31 to 9:32. Only the change from 9:31 to 9:31:30 to 9:32 is identical to the change from 9:31 to 9:32. And relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:31:30 to 9:32, 9:31 is not in the past.

Logically, changes can obtain if there are only two states and nothing else. — Terrapin Station

That's not true, two distinct states are two distinct states. There is no change unless there is also continuity. Continuity is provided for by the thing which is changing. In this case, the clock. The two distinct states must be attributed to the changing thing, then we can say that there is change to that thing. Without this thing, the source of continuity, there is simply two distinct states. So change only occurs relative to something which stays the same. The thing which is changing remains the same thing, "the clock", despite changing

When the clock face reads 9:31 and then 9:32 we don't say it stayed the same. It changed. — Terrapin Station

In your example here, the clock is the thing which is changing. At one time it has the property of reading 9:31, at another time it has the property of reading 9:32. Taken by themselves, the two readings are distinct states, but as a property of the clock, we can say that the clock has changed. It no longer has the one property, it has the other. The clock, as "the clock" remains the same, being "the clock". It has lost one property, and gained another, so it has changed, despite maintaining its identity as the clock.

So let's say that our change from 9:31 to 9:32 has a change to 9:31:30 in between. So we have a change from 9:31 to 9:31:30, and then a change from 9:31:30 to 9:32. — Terrapin Station

I suggest we agree that the clock has changed. It has changed from reading 9:31 to reading 9:32. If this particular clock does not have the capacity to read 9:31:30, then that is not a possible property of the clock. Therefore we do not need to consider 9:31:30.

That has no impact on whether 9:31 is in the past with respect to 9:32 relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32. Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, 9:31 is not in the past. — Terrapin Station

How can you say this? When the clock has the property of reading 9:32, clearly the property which it had, of reading 9:31, is in the past. If this property (reading 9:31) is not in the past, how can you claim that there was a change to the clock?

Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, we only have the present--the occurring change of 9:31 to 9:32. — Terrapin Station

You seem to be focused on the particular time, when the clock is changing from having a reading of 9:31, to having a reading of 9:32. I agree that this is when the change to the clock is actually occurring. Do you agree with me, that what this change consists of, is the mechanism within the clock causing the reading of 9:31 to be replaced by a reading of 9:32? That is what the named change consists of, and if we were to describe this change, that's what we would need to describe. So if we want to describe this change, we must describe the mechanism within the clock which is causing this to occur.

That's not true, two distinct states are two distinct states. There is no change unless there is also continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover

When the clock face reads 9:31 then 9:32, is it the same?

(We're not getting anywhere, so baby step time)

When the clock face reads 9:31 then 9:32, is it the same? — Terrapin Station

Yes it continues to be the same clock no matter what time it says. That's what a change is, the thing continues to be the same thing, but some property, or properties are lost to be replaced by others. You continue to be the same person all your life, despite many significant changes

We're not getting anywhere... — Terrapin Station

I could foresee this, you're very quick to use the word "change", but as I said, you don't seem to have an understanding of what a change is.

Yes it continues to be the same clock no matter what time it says. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the clock reading 9:31 is the same as the clock reading 9:32?

No! Of course not! You have described a different reading, how could that ever be construed as "the same"? Did not you read what I said? The clock is the same clock.

Have you no idea what a change is? Without "the clock", there is no change. There is 9:31, and 9:32. These are two distinct numbers, not a change. It is the clock which changes, not the numbers, 9:31 is always distinct from 9:32, one does not change into the other. But the clock changes from reading 9:31 to reading 9:32, despite maintaining its identity as the same clock.

Here's what I asked you again:

When the clock face reads 9:31 then 9:32, is it the same? — Terrapin Station

The clock face, which is what reads 9:31 and then 9:32, is it the same when it reads 9:32 rather than 9:31?

Is your answer to that yes, it's the same, or no, it's not the same?

Ok, the "clock face" has changed, but it is still the same clock face. You have just identified a slightly different continuity, "the clock face", rather than "the clock". The thing which continues to exist, "the clock face", continues to be the same clock face, despite showing different numbers. What's the difference? The clock face is still the same clock face, just like the clock is still the same clock, regardless of which numbers it shows.

Ok, the "clock face" has changed, but it is still the same clock face. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're getting off track here for a minute, but maybe it's worth pursuing. Wouldn't you say that the numbers displayed on the clock face are part of the clock face? If not, what are they part of?

Yes of course the numbers on the clock face are part of the clock face, but that's irrelevant because it doesn't alter the fact that the clock face remains the same clock face despite displaying different numbers. I can smile, frown, or make all kinds of different expressions with my face, but this doesn't contradict the fact that it is still the same face, my face. The clock face is still the same clock face, because "clock face" refers to the face of that particular clock, the numbers which are displayed is irrelevant to this fact.

If the numbers on the clock face are part of the clock face, and the numbers change, then the clock face changes. It doesn't completely change in the sense of (possibly) being completely unrelated, but it changes. It's not identical when it reads 9:31 and when it reads 9:32. It's different.

If the numbers on the clock face are part of the clock face, and the numbers change, then the clock face changes. — Terrapin Station

Yes, the clock face changes, we are in agreement there. But that "change", in order that we may call it a change, is dependent on the clock face, as "the clock face", maintaining its identity, or staying the same, and continuing to be the clock face. The clock face continues to be the same clock face, but changes.

Suppose we remove the clock face, then all we have is two distinct instances of numbers, 9:31, and 9:32. This is not a change, it is two distinct instances of numbers. But when the numbers are part of the clock face, and the clock face remains the same, as "the clock face", then we have a change, the clock face is chaging. So a change only occurs relative to something which stays the same. That is a necessary condition for the concept of "change", the two different instances must be related to each other, through something which stays the same, in order that there is a proper "change", rather than just two distinct instances.

It doesn't completely change in the sense of (possibly) being completely unrelated, but it changes. It's not identical when it reads 9:31 and when it reads 9:32. It's different. — Terrapin Station

Yes, the clock face changes. That is what we are talking about, a change to the clock face. But it is only a change to the clock face if we maintain the claim that the clock face is the same clock face. If we allow that it is a different clock face at 9:31, from the clock face at 9:32, then we are not talking about a change to the clock face, we are talking about two distinct clock faces.

then all we have is two distinct instances of numbers, 9:31, and 9:32. This is not a change, — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure it is. Say you have a universe with just one item, a number of the form x:yz (Say that it just appears in the manner of a digital display floating in a vacuum)

If 9:31 is the number, then it disappears and 9:32 appears instead, that's a change, even if the two numbers have no causal connection whatsoever.

Say you have a universe with just one item — Terrapin Station

Who would be around to count it?

How is that relevant in your view?

I was simply observing that it is impossible to conceive of a universe with just one item. 'One' depends on there being 'more than one'. Notice this passage:

The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'.

(Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271)

I'm reluctant to address more than one thing, because I don't want responses to keep expanding, but I also don't like when points are just ignored, but I'll address more than one thing this first time:

I was simply observing that it is impossible to conceive of a universe with just one item. — Wayfarer

That would be psychological projection on your part (to claim that it's impossible wholesale).

because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers.

By whose definition? What's the argument for "If x is defined D way by S, we must adhere to that when doing philosophy"?

it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another,

It is change, and it's relative, but it need not be relative to something other than itself.

When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change.

Ignoring what I consider a misconception of "meaning," that's a restatement of his premise, not an argument for it.

This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description.

The conventions of quantum cosmology are irrelevant to what I was talking about above. They're also irrelevant to arguing for why time must invole a change of one physical system relative to another.

'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time',

Again a claim without an argument.

The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'.

Why is his paucity of imagination anyone else's problem?