• Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    Sure, but what does that have to do with my objection?aletheist

    What it has to do with it is that the only way that something can not be a particular, then, is by there being something that's identically instantiated in numerically distinct entities. The issue has nothing to do with anything else. Either there's something that's identically instantiated in numerically distinct entites or there isn't. If there isn't, we're talking about particulars (per this definition of what particulars are).

    everything is always - i.e., at all times - either P or not-P, where P is some particular property?aletheist

    I'm fine with that insofar as it goes.

    If something changes from P to not-P, then there is a time T1 at which it is P and a time T2 at which it is not-P, with no time in between during which it "is changing" from P to not-P.aletheist

    I don't see any difference between the supposedly two things you're proposing. You've got P, then a change or motion, and we've got not-P.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    I think you will have to think it throughRich

    Maybe you could be more patronizing. Why are you assuming that I haven't thought this through far more than you have?

    you want to distinguish a Present (a particular state) from a pastRich

    It's not a want. It's what the world is like. There are changes that are occurring versus changes that occurred.

    the Present would be used to describe an instantaneousRich

    That's your claim. In my opinion that claim is wrong. I'm not using "present" in an unusual way.
  • Rich
    484
    It's not a want. It's what the world is like. There are changes that are occurring versus changes that occurred.Terrapin Station

    I cannot find the line between the two different states, but apparently you have.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    I cannot find the line between the two different states, but apparently you have.Rich

    Said as if you didn't even read this sentence: "That doesn't imply that there's no relative fuzziness there, either, but it doesn't make the present the same as the past and/or future."
  • aletheist
    761
    I don't see any difference between the supposedly two things you're proposing. You've got P, then a change or motion, and we've got not-P.Terrapin Station

    How is that not a difference? X is P before the change, and X is not-P after the change, but there is no time in between when X is changing from P to not-P. The occurrence of the change itself is how you define time, so there is no "present" during which the change "is occurring." Of course, technically X is no longer X after the change, since it is a different particular precisely because it is then not-P rather than P. So we really have X is P before the change, and not-X is not-P after the change, but there is still no time in between when X is changing into not-X by virtue of changing from P to not-P.
  • Rich
    484


    It's that relative fuzziness that sinks the ship. Or as is often said, you can't have your cake and eat it.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    It's that relative fuzziness that sinks the ship.Rich

    It's the "it doesn't make the present the same as the past and/or future" that doesn't sink the ship. You need to read the entire sentence.
  • Rich
    484


    I read the entire sentence, and you are trying to have your cake and eat it. This is an entirely different issue which I cannot address. That is what philosophy is all about.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    The occurrence of the change itself is how you define time, so there is no "present" during which the change "is occurring."aletheist

    Look, I'm just repeating myself, because it's like you're not paying attention to or not understanding (and not caring that you're not understanding) what I'm writing. What good does it do for you to keep responding with objections that are met by the same thing I typed already?

    There's no present at which a change is occurring--as if the present is something not identical to the changes that are occurring. So it's correct that there's no present at which (time) the changes are occurring. Well, why is that correct? Because the changes that are occurring ARE the present. You can't say there's no present when the logical identity of the present IS the changes that are occurring. If there are changes that are occuring, that IS the present.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k


    I'm the one who'd be teaching you what philosophy is about.
  • Rich
    484



    As you said, there is a certain "fuzziness" in your ideas. Indeed there is.
  • aletheist
    761
    If there are changes that are occuring, that IS the present.Terrapin Station

    I am paying attention, and I am trying to understand, but you are simply dismissing my objection rather than answering it. As I see it, on your view, there can be no changes that are occurring (present tense); they always either occurred in the past (X was P, but now X is not-P), or will occur in the future (X is now P, but will be not-P). In the present, as at all other times, X must be either P or not-P; it can never be changing from P to not-P (or vice-versa).
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    In the present, as at all other times, X must be either P or not-P; it can never be changing from P to not-P (or vice-versa).aletheist

    If the present IS the changes that are occurring, where is the above claim coming from?

    And actually, this discussion has been helpful re clarifying one thing: saying that "x is F (or "P" if you like, although I prefer to save "P" for propositions) at time T1" is necessarily an abstraction where we're imagining time to be something where we can peg a specific "point" (like a mathematical point) or a static "instant." In reality, the idea is incoherent, as what time is in the first place is change or motion. So if we don't have change or motion, we don't have time at all.

    This is also a good thing to stress when folks are wondering what I'm saying different than the traditional physics notions when I say that time is identical to change or motion, or when they think that there's a problem with my ontology of time simply because it doesn't match the normal way of thinking about time in physics.
  • aletheist
    761


    For your view to be consistent, changes never are occurring; they always either have occurred (X was P, but now not-X is not-P) or will occur (X is P, but soon not-X will be not-P).
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    For your view to be consistent,aletheist

    What view, specifically, are you referring to? (I'm asking because I'm not confident that you could answer this, because what you say after this isn't at all something I agree with.)
  • aletheist
    761
    What view, specifically, are you referring to?Terrapin Station

    everything is always - i.e., at all times - either P or not-P, where P is some particular property?aletheist
    I'm fine with that insofar as it goes.Terrapin Station

    What can we say about X and P while the change is occurring?
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k
    What can we say about X and P while the change is occurring?aletheist

    That was YOUR view that you were asking for agreement on.

    I wrote this (although I added it as an edit so maybe you didn't see it) in my second to last post above:

    And actually, this discussion has been helpful re clarifying one thing: saying that "x is F (or "P" if you like, although I prefer to save "P" for propositions) at time T1" is necessarily an abstraction where we're imagining time to be something where we can peg a specific "point" (like a mathematical point) or a static "instant." In reality [or with respect to reality I should have said], the idea is incoherent, as what time is in the first place is change or motion. So if we don't have change or motion, we don't have time at all.Terrapin Station
  • Rich
    484
    This is also a good thing to stress when folks are wondering what I'm saying different than the traditional physics notions when I say that time is identical to change or motion, or when they think that there's a problem with my ontology of time simply because it doesn't match the normal way of thinking about time in physics.Terrapin Station

    For me, there is no issue in understanding this as it has been very well described by Bergson in his initial writings and has been amplified by subsequent writers on this subject. There is this ongoing debate on the nature of time, and I am quite comfortable with Bergson's Dureé, while also understanding the usefulness of scientific time when it comes to measuring and predicting simultaneity within acceptable and achievable tolerance levels.

    The issue is your attempt to carve out a Present within a flowing time. It simply cannot be done without creating an instance that stops all motion and time. This is the area of fuzziness sinks the Present ship by no means sinks the concept of time as a flow.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.4k


    So you'd say that there are no changes that are occurring?
  • Rich
    484


    Yes, changes are occurring as a process of the past (Bergson's Memory) moving and flowing into a potential future, which is unfolding as a result of this process. Again, I underscore, the one and only issue is attempting to carve out a Present within this continuous flow.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.