I’d like input from others on this forum about that, because I just asked the other people around me in person and they all think it’s a perfectly normal way of speaking.

It might be a normal way of speaking, so long as the meaning is understood. And the meaning is that the circumference of the cone is smaller at one end than the other. So let's transpose this to the mountain analogy, the circumference of the mountain is bigger at the bottom than it is at the top. The mountain itself is not bigger at the bottom than it is at the top, because "mountain" refers to the entire thing, just like "cone" refers to the entire thing.

Hence the mountain that gets smaller with altitude even though it stays the same size with time; the pipe along its side that gains altitude as it moves westward, even though it’s not moving with respect to time; the abstract line that moves in a y-ward direction over the x-ward direction, even though it too doesn’t move with respect to time. — Pfhorrest

The abstract line does not move at all. How does the pipe gain altitude as it "moves" westward? If it's not moving with respect to time, then what is it moving with respect to? How does the mountain "get" smaller with altitude? Why do you assume altitude moves upwards rather than down? You are comparing one width/radius of the mountain with another width/radius. The mountain doesn't change at all. Your comparison of one part of the mountain to another assumes a change in altitude. What is actually changing?

Sure, it doesn’t matter if one of us thinks it’s weird so long as we understand each other.

I was shorter as a child than I am now. That child and the adult I am now are the same person. How can one person possibly be shorter or taller than themselves? The same way a mountain can be smaller at the top: we’re talking about an n-1 dimensional section of an n-dimensional whole. Some measure in the first n-1 dimensions changes over the last dimension. In the case of the mountain it’s diameter over altitude. In the case of me it’s height over time.

You may think it’s a weird way of talking, but understanding that way of talking is necessary to understand what eternalists mean, and if you don’t, then you’re not talking about the same thing as them at all.

Allow me to fix the ambiguity:

Motion in (3D + time) = geometry in 4D. — Kenosha Kid

Some measure in the first n-1 dimensions changes over the last dimension. In the case of the mountain it’s diameter over altitude. — Pfhorrest

How is change possible in 3D? Looks like the analogy is breaking down...

In the case of the mountain it’s diameter over altitude. In the case of me it’s height over time. — Pfhorrest

You're saying that if you change altitude then diameter changes, and if you change time then height changes. But this is based on the assumption that something can or does change in time (in 4D) or in altitude (in 3D). You can't just assume this when it's what's in question here. I've provided arguments for why Eternalism precludes change/motion. What justifies your assumption that Eternalism includes change/motion?

I am saying that if you think eternalism precludes change or motion, you are misunderstanding eternalism, because I am an eternalist, I've read the views of other eternalists plenty, and none of us deny that change or motion happen. The only claim is that change in n dimensions over an extra dimension is equivalent to a static figure in n+1 dimensions.

How can you give the diameter of a mountain without specifying at which altitude you mean? The mountain has different diameters at different altitudes.

How can you specify the height of a person without specifying at what age you mean? Or perhaps even more illustratively: how can you specify the position of the hands of a clock, without specifying at what time you mean?

In both the case of the mountain and the case of my height or the position of the clock hands, we assume we mean the indexical value of the dimension across which it varies: the one that we're at. When we ask the diameter of a mountain, by default we mean at the altitude that we're at, unless there's some context where it's been established that we're talking about another altitude. When we ask the height of a person, we mean at their current age; when we ask the positions of the hands of a clock, we mean at the present time. Unless there's some context where it's been established that we're talking about another time. But in any case, if something about a given thing changes across some dimension that is spans -- a dimension of space, or a dimension of time -- you have to specify at which point in that dimension you want the measure to be taken.

Let me try another analogy. There is a highway that runs from the nearest big city to my little mountain town. It runs north-south, going uphill in the northward direction. It has four lanes each direction as it leaves the big city, and only one lane in my little town. There's a sign where the lanes decrease that warns that the road narrows, like this:



You (and MU) seem to think that that sign is lying. "The road doesn't actually get narrower. The road is the same width it's always been, unless a construction crew has just been through to remove some lanes. The road is the same width always, unless it changes over time. There is no sense in which the road 'gets' narrower as it 'goes' north up into the mountains. The road has fewer lanes in the north up in the mountain town than it does down south by the coastal city, but it's not 'changing' its width with latitude or altitude!"

That sounds like willfully misinterpreted nonsense thinking to me, trying to prove a philosophical point against a view that nobody actually holds.

I am an eternalist, I've read the views of other eternalists plenty, and none of us deny that change or motion happen. — Pfhorrest

And I'm asking what justifies your assumption that such change/motion does happen?

How can you give the diameter of a mountain without specifying at which altitude you mean? The mountain has different diameters at different altitudes. — Pfhorrest

You've been talking about a change in altitude/diameter. That's part of your 3D to 4D analogy.

You (and MU) seem to think that that sign is lying. "The road doesn't actually get narrower. — Pfhorrest

I don't deny that it "gets" narrower over time, assuming change. I just don't find such change to be consistent with an Eternalist universe.

And I'm asking what justifies your assumption that such change/motion does happen? — Luke

That I see it happen, and nobody's presented a good reason to doubt that. I remember things being different at earlier times than they are now. That's what change over time is.

I also remember things that span a distance of space being different in one place than in another, like the road to my hometown. Actually I can look at one in its entirety right now: my forearm is narrower at the wrist than at the elbow. It gets thicker the further away from my hand you look. That's not a change over time, that's a change over space. My arm isn't thicker now than it was when I started writing this paragraph. It's just thicker closer to my hand than it is farther from my hand. "Oh no, the same arm is thicker than itself, how can this possibly be!" Because it's thicker in one place than it is at another place. And I'm taller at this time than I was at an earlier time.

You've been talking about a change in altitude/diameter. — Luke

A change in diameter over altitude. The mountain isn't changing its altitude. Over the dimension of altitude, the mountain changes its diameter. At higher altitudes (near the top), the mountain is narrower than at lower altitudes (near the bottom). "Oh no, the same mountain is thicker than itself, how can this possibly be!" Because it's thicker in one place than it is at another place. It's also probably shorter at this time than it was at an earlier time (because mountains tend to shrink over time).

I don't deny that it "gets" narrower over time — Luke

The point of the "road narrows" sign is not to warn you that if you wait around a while, the road will be narrower. It warns you that further down the road, it is narrower than the part you're on right now. The road gets narrower over space. That is the point of this analogy. Even common government signs like this use language that implies change over space is an ordinary way of talking.

That I see it happen, and nobody's presented a good reason to doubt that. I remember things being different at earlier times than they are now. That's what change over time is. — Pfhorrest

You believe that temporal passage is real? Perhaps you are a Moving Spotlight Theorist instead of an Eternalist.

A change in diameter over altitude. — Pfhorrest

The virgule was intended to signify "or", not division.

The mountain isn't changing its altitude. Over the dimension of altitude, the mountain changes its diameter. — Pfhorrest

So nothing actually changes? It's merely comparative? Then your analogy has no implications for actual change in Eternalism.

You believe that temporal passage is real? Perhaps you are a Moving Spotlight Theorist instead of an Eternalist. — Luke

I gave an account of the perception of time earlier in this thread, with a building. I suggest you go back and read that. Moving Spotlight is nonsense; if something "moved" to give the perception of time, it would have to be over time, and so would appear static from a perspective outside of time.

This entire question is confused. Nothing moves through time, and time itself doesn't move past anything. Saying that either of those things happens is nonsense. Things move through space over time. They can also move through one dimension of space over another dimension of space, without bring time into anything at all.

The virgule was intended to signify "or", not division. — Luke

Yes, and that "or" was an incorrect statement, that I corrected.

So nothing actually changes? It's merely comparative? — Luke

All change is comparative. Something changes in one dimension with respect to another dimension. The road to my house changes its altitude in respect to its latitude (it gets higher the further north it goes). It also changes its number of lanes with respect to either its latitude or its altitude (it gets narrower the further north or up into the mountains -- same thing -- it goes). It generally doesn't change in any of those aspects over time: it's no further north or south, higher or lower, narrower or wider, than it was when I was a kid. But it's higher in the north, and narrower in the north, and narrower up high; and it gets lower the further south it goes, and wider too, as it goes south and lower. All in the same moment, without any time passing.

Moving Spotlight is nonsense; if something "moved" to give the perception of time, it would have to be over time, and so would appear static from a perspective outside of time — Pfhorrest

Sorry, I can't make sense of this.

Nothing moves through time, and time itself doesn't move past anything. Saying that either of those things happens is nonsense. Things move through space over time. — Pfhorrest

What's the difference between moving "through time" and moving "over time"?

They can also move through one dimension of space over another dimension of space, without bring time into anything at all. — Pfhorrest

How?

All change is comparative. Something changes in one dimension with respect to another dimension. The road to my house changes its altitude in respect to its latitude (it gets higher the further north it goes). — Pfhorrest

How does it "get higher" or "go further north" irrespective of time? All change requires time.

You didn't answer the question: do you believe that temporal passage is real?

If so, then I don't consider you to be an Eternalist (or, more specifically, a B-theory Eternalist or block theorist). It would be pointless to argue with you if your view allows for temporal passage, because I believe that there is change and motion if there is temporal passage. That's just a hybrid view with Presentism.

The Soul in its purity is an allowable moment of time that is perfectly centered in the now..
As an Anchor..that is the world soul..and only asks you be present in your current experience..

Everything else is subject to to change? Except the observation and observer.. which are eternal in a non changing way? Yoke? Yes that's of course the knowledge of the soul..

The Ain of attainment!

Moving pictures of frames of awareness..

Perceptual depths..and acceptable presents..presence omnipresence..

Things are different based on how we allow them to be available to us..

So...the light is measured as a point from here to there..and that line is the extension of the very thing that is noteworthy and summation.

The distance of the light...is from the perceiver

Each segment of the length of the light...is a different color..and a different thing//

What does a gradient have to do with motion? It's just an assumption that there is motion in the gradient. — Luke

It is the definition of velocity in kinematics. If position depends on time, position has a gradient with respect to time in the exact same way altitude has a gradient with respect to radius (and angle, for non-isotropic mountains :) ). In eternalism, position does depend on time, et voila: motion.

I was shorter as a child than I am now. That child and the adult I am now are the same person. How can one person possibly be shorter or taller than themselves? The same way a mountain can be smaller at the top: we’re talking about an n-1 dimensional section of an n-dimensional whole. Some measure in the first n-1 dimensions changes over the last dimension. In the case of the mountain it’s diameter over altitude. In the case of me it’s height over time. — Pfhorrest

No, clearly that's not "the same way". You, as a growing human being, have grown taller over time. The mountain's circumference has not grown larger at the bottom. The fact that you call this "the same" baffles me.

You may think it’s a weird way of talking, but understanding that way of talking is necessary to understand what eternalists mean, and if you don’t, then you’re not talking about the same thing as them at all. — Pfhorrest

If understanding what eternalists mean requires accepting that two very different things are the same, then count me out. I can already see clearly that eternalists are wrong, by this statement.

It is the definition of velocity in kinematics. If position depends on time, position has a gradient with respect to time in the exact same way altitude has a gradient with respect to radius (and angle, for non-isotropic mountains :) ). In eternalism, position does depend on time, et voila: motion. — Kenosha Kid

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to try and clarify this matter for me.

I understand that the relationships or functions of position and time are present in the gradient. I think that my argument is really more to do with the change in time that underpins motion. I don't understand what difference there is between the change in time found in Eternalism and the temporal passage of Presentism. More precisely, I don't understand what a change in time (or time itself) could mean in the absence of temporal passage. Does anything change temporal location in Eternalism, and, if so, how?

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to try and clarify this matter for me. — Luke

No worries Luke. I'm glad we persevered even when our tempers strained.

I think that my argument is really more to do with the change in time that underpins motion. I don't understand what difference there is between the change in time found in Eternalism and the temporal passage of Presentism. — Luke

Kinematics holds in eternalism and presentism. That is, it doesn't care how you conceive of a change in time, whether it's a length or an evolving 'now'. Eternalism is more general and complete insofar as it both allows for and does not require motion forward in time to have motion in space. Presentism has a more tenuous position because it does need such a thing, be it a spotlight or whatever.

I find presentism rather contradictory. Motion by definition requires at least the possibility of past and future times to make sense. I also think that the intuitive underpinnings of presentism are an illusion. Processing data takes time. We may well feel like 'now' is a state of the universe, but right 'now' we are dealing with data over intervals of time regarding subjects' states over much larger intervals of time.

You didn't answer the question: do you believe that temporal passage is real? — Luke

I believe the question is confused.

Kinematics holds in eternalism and presentism. That is, it doesn't care how you conceive of a change in time, whether it's a length or an evolving 'now'. Eternalism is more general and complete insofar as it both allows for and does not require motion forward in time to have motion in space. Presentism has a more tenuous position because it does need such a thing, be it a spotlight or whatever. — Kenosha Kid

Okay, but I am asking how temporal change is conceived, and whether a change in time is possible, in Eternalism, not in kinematics.

My counterarguments:

1a. All times exist - no part can change temporal location

A rehash of my mug/dishwasher example: Basically, if all 3D parts of an object exist at all times of a 4D object, then no part can change its temporal location. Similarly:

1b. The 3D-4D analogy - nothing changes

You and @Pfhorrest have presented a 3D-4D analogy in which:

position has a gradient with respect to time in the exact same way altitude has a gradient with respect to radius — Kenosha Kid

"altitude has a gradient with respect to radius"
This tells us only that altitude changes with respect to radius. However, the altitude of the mountain does not change (in 3D; at a given 4D location), and neither does the radius of the mountain change at any of its different cross sections. By analogy, the same holds true for time (4D):

"[spatial] position has a gradient with respect to time [temporal position]"
This tells us only that spatial position changes with respect to temporal position. However, the spatial position of the object does not change (in 4D; at a given 5D location), and neither does the temporal position of the object change at any of its different cross sections.

2a. What makes change in temporal location possible in Eternalism?

If you stare at a clock for one minute, you will have changed your temporal location by one minute. Of course, you don't need to stare at a clock in order to change your temporal location, you can do whatever you like. You only need to age and experience life as you always do. Apparently, you have no choice but to do this. Taking this (literally) everyday aspect of the experience of time's passing to be reflective of something real in the world, this is known as temporal passage (aka the passage of time, time passing, etc.).

I believe that the experience of temporal passage informs most people's (if not everyone's) understanding of what time is. If Eternalism has no such "propagator" as temporal passage, then how is change in temporal location possible? Similarly:

2b. How can I visualise change in temporal location without temporal passage?

What does a change in time look like without temporal passage? Can such a change be experienced? If time does not pass, how can I possibly get to, or find myself at, different temporal locations?

neither does the temporal position of the object change — Luke

What would a "change in temporal position" even be, unless you're invoking some kind of meta-time? (In which case exactly the same problem can be raised for the account of meta-time). Every change is with respect to something else. You seem to want to deny that "change" can be with respect to anything but time, but we can work with that for the moment here. What could "change in temporal position" possibly mean? At time t₁ object A was at time t_x, and between time t₁ and time t₂ object A moved from time t_x to time t_y? How quickly did it change its temporal position? How many seconds per second did it move through time? What the hell would that even mean?

What would a "change in temporal position" even be — Pfhorrest

It forms part of the definition of motion that @Kenosha Kid and I have agreed upon, for starters.

No I'm pretty sure @Kenosha Kid will deny as much as I do that objects change their temporal position. Objects span durations, as in, they exist for more than one instant of time, and they change their spatial positions over the course of that duration that they exist. I'll let him confirm that he agrees with that.

No I'm pretty sure Kenosha Kid will deny as much as I do that objects change their temporal position. — Pfhorrest

I hope so, then I will have demonstrated that Eternalism logically precludes motion.

Only if by "motion" you mean some nonsense that couldn't possibly happen under any theory, because it's not even a coherent thing to wonder about happening.

Eternalism features motion. You just don't understand what motion means, and think some incomprehensible magic must be happening for things to be moving.

You just don't understand what motion means — Pfhorrest

What does it mean, then?

A "change" in temporal position, as referred to by myself, meant nothing more than an interval of time over which we can consider different positions of the same object, i.e. it is a length of a section of the 4D object. It is not something the object does in classical kinematics.

However, in relativistic kinematics, an object does have a velocity in the temporal direction and so can be thought of, at any given time, as changing temporal position in a reference frame with respect to temporal position in its own rest frame. This is true at all times and requires no particular 'now'. Nor does motion completely depend on it, since photons have no temporal velocity and yet move pretty nippily.

We have been discussing the former, but happy to discuss the latter, or QM. Since both relativity and QM necessarily approach classical kinematics at low speeds/macroscopic scales, they all give the same result in the end.

A "change" in temporal position, as referred to by myself, meant nothing more than an interval of time over which we can consider different positions of the same object, i.e. it is a length of a section of the 4D object. It is not something the object does in classical kinematics. — Kenosha Kid

I'm a little confused by this. Doesn't the interval of time represent some change of temporal location? Doesn't an object occasionally move during this interval, and wouldn't that be something the object does?

However, in relativistic kinematics, an object does have a velocity in the temporal direction and so can be thought of, at any given time, as changing temporal position in a reference frame with respect to temporal position in its own rest frame. This is true at all times and requires no particular 'now'. Nor does motion completely depend on it, since photons have no temporal velocity and yet move pretty nippily.

We have been discussing the former, but happy to discuss the latter, or QM. — Kenosha Kid

I don't see what difference it would make to my arguments, but I'm happy to discuss them.