that’s what you mean but you don’t understand the difference between an empirical and non-empirical claim, it seems.

The difference in your view is?

that is, an empirical claim like “between here and there is 20 meters,” and a non-empirical claim like “this hamburger tastes really good” or “existence cannot come from non-existence.” your claim that change itself isn’t changing is not an empirical claim, but a claim which cannot be proven by means of empirical evidence; it is therefore a claim that can be proven or disproven using a priori reasoning only and not empirical evidence. this is philosophy 101.

So you can't do a definition, just ambiguous examples?

Empirical claims can not be proven period. Again, you'd learn this in Science Methodology 101 should you ever take it. So all empirical claims can not be proven by means of empirical evidence.

I didn't claim that change itself is doing anything. I said that change itself isn't a thing to do anything or not.

Is change real or not?

I think you miss the point terrapin is making. Do you then ask if ‘yellow’ or ‘numbers’ are real because they don’t do anything? It’s the same principle.

you only need the continuation of your own memory set, imagination, and will, to intuit the existence of the concept of unity. all of those things are non-spatial, so one can thinking non-spatially. however, the concepts that one an thinking about are primitive, at least, in the beginning. in imagination there can exist imaginary space, just the same as in the absolute sense.

Your still talking in spatial-temporal-substance terms. As you must. Simply saying they are not doesn’t make it so. Unity exists as a concept due to plurality. All you’re doing here is reiterating Kant’s categories and he NEVER made a positive claim for noumenon - his argument was against noumenon in a positive sense. ‘Hamburgers’ phenomenon not noumenon btw

Even the term ‘abstract’ should be enough to make this clear. What is ‘abstract’ is abstracted from experience.

Surely you’ve heard this before: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant”

You may be better served elucidating your thoughts by offering a refutation of this quote from Kant. I assume you’ve read The Critique of Pure Reason. If not I am sure there is a lot in there you’d find useful - positively and/or negatively.

I think you miss the point terrapin is making. Do you then ask if ‘yellow’ or ‘numbers’ are real because they don’t do anything? It’s the same principle. — I like sushi

I don't see why it's the same principle at all. I mean you might want to say, as the transcendental idealist does, that yellow, numbers and change have no reality beyond the human mind, but what does that mean exactly? That these things are not sensible objects? Well, of course that is trivially true, and the appropriate response would be 'So what?'.

And as to whether these things are real independently of human (or animal?) experience, well, that's a matter of how you want to define them and what exactly you mean by "real".

Your still talking in spatial-temporal-substance terms. As you must. Simply saying they are not doesn’t make it so. Unity exists as a concept due to plurality. All you’re doing here is reiterating Kant’s categories and he NEVER made a positive claim for noumenon - his argument was against noumenon in a positive sense. ‘Hamburgers’ phenomenon not noumenon btw

Even the term ‘abstract’ should be enough to make this clear. What is ‘abstract’ is abstracted from experience.

Surely you’ve heard this before: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant”

You may be better served elucidating your thoughts by offering a refutation of this quote from Kant. I assume you’ve read The Critique of Pure Reason. If not I am sure there is a lot in there you’d find useful - positively and/or negatively. — I like sushi

I'm saying that there are concepts which don't necessitate space at all, and therefore do not necessitate objects either, like, for example, the concepts of identity (unity) and difference and also number, and therefore all the laws of logic and mathematics, as well, which are, the fundamental languages by which all languages necessarily abide. The only thing necessary for these concepts to be intuited and therefore known is, as Kant would say, the 'unity of apperception' or rather, the awareness of the continuation in existence of ones own being; through the ability to create sub-center's of self-awareness within imagination, that is, 'imaginary space,' and will from them simultaneously or alternatively, and the existence of absolute memory, the dialectical process of consciousness was made possible. what is abstract, except for the eternal laws of logic which contain all abstract thoughts, minds, and things, are products of abstraction and therefore experience, but experience, that is, awareness and conceptual objects of awareness, are not predicated of material things.

So, what do you mean by ‘real’ in reference to ‘change’?

And all I am saying is that a ‘point’ is only known in reference to other ‘point/s’. Whether the space is imagined or not it is still abstracted from empirical space (meaning experience of space). And memory is necessarily temporal; because that is what memory is embedded in.

Hopefully all this will at least make you see how much you haven’t said in your document.

And all I am saying is that a ‘point’ is only known in reference to other ‘point/s’. Whether the space is imagined or not it is still abstracted from empirical space (meaning experience of space). And memory is necessarily temporal; because that is what memory is embedded in.

Hopefully all this will at least make you see how much you haven’t said in your document. — I like sushi

memory is the solution to Russell's Paradox, memory formulates the ground of being itself. It is not in space. Memory is temporal but not spatial.

Firstly, I establish the nature of the absolute context and then use that context to give meaning to relative facts; while philosophers today, and you, who seem to think that they're rational, don't even try to establish the essence of the absolute context in which we live, and therefore fail to compare empirical facts to it to make sure that the meaning that they give to them doesn't contradict the absolute truth which concerns the essence of the absolute context. My philosophy involves, first and foremost, establishing the nature of the absolute context. In doing so, I am able to give proper meaning to empirical truths.

Memory is temporal but not spatial.

You don’t, and haven’t, explained why. What does this mean? Point being you should perhaps listen to the comments of those that read what you write and tell you it is not clear enough. For what it’s worth ‘memory’ is spatial because it has to operate with some spatial reference ... this I’ve already stated loud and clear by saying that space-time-matter/substance are what constitutes ‘intuition’. Meaning NONE of these are meaningful without the others (refer back to Kant’s quote above). Saying “but it’s not!” isn’t a refutation of Kant’s point and/or my point. Maybe you don’t refute this? That would still beg the question how you could consolidate what you’re saying to it though.

I don’t know what you’re saying and when I ask you seem to act like the reader is to blame all the time. Consider for a second that you may not have have used the best terms available and/or that you’ve not given definitions for items you deem explicit but others don’t.

Not imaginary.

This has holes too — I like sushi

The whole thing has holes.

Is change real or not? — Janus

Of course it's real. It's just not a "thing itself" that can then change or not.

I suspect something is deeply amiss in this thread. (It sounds like a conversation that isn't entirely in good faith.)

Most threads aren’t. I’ve tried my best and have pointed out clearly - without resorting to insults - the problems of the OP.

Understand that the person who posted the OP is declaring themselves some kind of genius. If they are they lack basic courtesy and presume idiocy and/or argumentation whenever question or asked for clarification.

The lack of “good faith” begins with the person who made the OP playing the victim, refusing to listen to genuine critique as anything other than an attempt to defame, and setting themselves up for a fall by declaring how they’ve solved some logical problem (via mysticism).