If there's one thing and then something else replaces it, that's not a change? — Terrapin Station

Sure , but "then" in this context is referring to a temporal succession, so you have still assumed the passing of time. You have only replaced "succession" with "then". You only have "change" by referring to this other thing, the passing of time. Remove that temporal reference, and you have one thing, 9:31, and you have another thing, 9:32, but you have no change.

And clearly time is not the same thing as change in your example, because "then" is implying after, or later, it is not implying that 9:31 is changing into 9:32. "Then" refers to something other than the change, it refers to later.

That wasn't the question, MU. Try again. — Harry Hindu

The question was "How do you learn anything, MU?". The answer was "The act of thinking is how I learn things". Where's the problem?

Yes, thinking about the consequences, or the outcome, of your actions tends to have an effect on the kind of decision you make. In order to think, you have to be thinking about something, MU. Your obtuseness is getting old, MU. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I'm thinking about things when I think. But all these thoughts, and things which I am thinking, are inside my mind, and just part of my act of thinking. Why would you think that something outside my mind, such as "consequences", has any causal power over my act of thinking? That makes no sense to me, because only thoughts enter into my act of thinking. So thoughts about consequences may enter into my act of thinking, as part of the act of thinking, but the consequences themselves don't enter into the act of thinking and therefore do not have any causal power within the act of thinking.

There's no time aside from the succession of numbers described. — Terrapin Station

What did "instantaneously" mean in you thought experiment then? Let's just remove it, because it's redundant according to what you are now asserting. We need to remove "succession" as well, because it has the temporal referent of before and after. So, we have two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31. I don't see any change here, just two distinct numbers. Do you agree?

You're thinking of time so that in your view, it's something other than particular changes. — Terrapin Station

I'm only thinking of time because you used the word "instantaneously" two times in your short post. And clearly "instantaneously" refers to an extremely short period of time. So I am only thinking of time because you mentioned time. Now you use "succession", so you again refer to time. If you don't want me to think of time, then don't refer to time.

That it's instantaneous is just stressing that no other changes occur in between the two events. — Terrapin Station

Of course no other changes occurred, because it's already been stipulated that these two numbers are all that exist. Let's just remove "instantaneous", and "succession", so that I am not tempted to think that it refers to time, when you are asserting that these terms really are redundant, they refer to nothing other than what you've already said.

You keep wanting to add stuff to our universe(s)--you're making the universe something other than the number in question, you're making time something other than the change in question, etc. In this thought experiment, at least, nothing exists except for one number, which disappears, and then a different number, which appears acausally. — Terrapin Station

I'm not the one adding stuff, you clearly used the word "instantaneously" twice in that post. now you've replaced it with "succession". Since the conventional use of these words imply a temporal referent, it is you who adds "time" to your thought experiment, not I. How was I to know that what you really mean is something totally unconventional?

So, are we now in agreement? We remove "instantaneously" because it is redundant. The impossibility of any other change has already been stipulated. We remove "succession" because it implies before and after, time. All we have is two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31. Do you agree with me, that all we have is two distinct numbers, 9:32 and 9:31? There is no change being described here.

Aside from 9:31, which disappears,then 9:32 instantaneously appears in its place instead. "Where it comes from" is irrelevant in this thought experiment. It instantaneously appears in place of 9:31, which disappeared. There's no causal etc. connection between them. — Terrapin Station

Now you are describing a temporal continuity with the word "instantaneously". With the use of that word, you have referenced the passing of time, and the passing of time is now that thing which bridges the gap between 9:31 and 9:32. The passing of time is the same for 9:31 and for 9:32.

We only have a "change" described here because you are relating 9:31 and 9:32 to the passing of time. If you remove your reference to the passing of time, the word "instantaneously", then we have two distinct states, 9:31 and 9:32, and there is no change described.

No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation. — Agustino

We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed.

No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. — Agustino

The ability to communicate is learned isn't it? Haven't you opposed learned with natural? Why do you now contradict yourself claiming it's ridiculous to think of communication as unnatural? Surely languages are artificial. Don't you believe that language is artificial?

What is the base state, the natural state, call it however you want to call it - of mankind? — Agustino

I think the idea of a "base state", or "natural state" of the human being is a very strange idea. What could it possibly be referring to? Are you referring to a baby, a foetus, the ovum at conception? Any designation of such a "base state" would be completely arbitrary. What could you possibly be trying to get at here, with your assumption of a "state" at the base? I know, such an arbitrary base state would only be assumed to support your division between natural and learned. Below the base is natural, above the base is learned. Give it up, learned vs. natural is an untenable division.

Clearly you've dismissed the proverbial tabula rasa in favour of a "base state", but why ask me what it consists of? I am not the one who is assuming such a "base state". I think of living beings in terms of actualizing potential, so I am more inclined towards the tabula rasa perspective. I assume an active base of life, not a state.

But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world. — Agustino

What's the point with the garbage ad hominem? One can hole oneself up on the arm chair for many years, reading vast amounts of material. If reading is not "experience with the world", then what is "experience with the world", and what advantage is it supposed to give the philosopher? You know that reading gives one access to many other peoples' "experience with the world", don't you?

The universe doesn't exist aside from which number, 9:31 or 9:32? If the universe disappears when 9:31 disappears, then there is nothing. Where does 9:32 come from if there is nothing? If the universe exists for both 9:31 and 9:32, then it is that thing which stays the same, which I've been trying to explain to you, is a necessary aspect of the concept of change. Without the universe in the thought experiment, there is no change, only two distinct numbers, 9:31 and 9:32.

Oath or no oath makes no difference to the practised liar.

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) — Terrapin Station

Now you've assume a universe. That universe is the principle of continuity, the thing that remains the same throughout the change. First it was "the clock" that provided the continuity. Then you replaced "the clock" with "the clock face". Now you've replaced "the clock face" with "a universe". Why don't you just face the facts, and accept the reality that the concept of "change" requires that there is something which stays the same, a principle of continuity? Change only occurs relative to something which stays the same. Without that something which stays the same you simply have two distinct states, and not change.

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. — Terrapin Station

Causal relationship is irrelevant, although cause/effect, implying a temporal continuity may sometimes be cited as the continuity which the change is relative to.

Look what you've done here though. 9:31 disappears, then 9:32 appears. You have divided the change into two changes. Wasn't the point you were arguing that a change is indivisible? But let's assume that a change is like this, the prior thing disappears, and is replaced by the later thing. Wouldn't this imply that there is a time when there is nothing, when the 9:31 disappears? Surely a change is not really like this. At the point when 9:31 disappears, there must be something going on, and that something must be producing the 9:32.

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.

What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare. — Agustino

So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? Your argument is ridiculous, it's like pointing to the murderers in jail and saying "here's proof that human beings are murderers". You have no basis for any inductive conclusion here. Your skills of inductive reasoning are sorely lacking.

Take a stroll down a city street and compare how many people are acting morally with how many are acting immorally. Even in a war torn country you'll fid that morality far out weighs immorality.

This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually. — Agustino

As I said, this argument is also ridiculous. You have already opposed natural tendencies with learnt ones, this was your division not mine. Therefore it is not natural for human beings to speak and communicate with one another, yet we find all human beings engaged in this unnatural activity. So, if you would not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in lying, because lying is unnatural, you would also not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in communication, because communication is unnatural. See how this claim of yours, that if lying was unnatural it would be a rarity, is utterly ridiculous?

The point is, that human beings engage in learnt (unnatural) activities quite frequently, all the time in fact. So to say that you would expect such unnatural activities, like communicating, and lying, to be a rarity simply because they are unnatural, is a farce.

Yeah, because they disagree with you. — Agustino

The statistics are irrelevant, because even if the statisticians claim that one hundred percent of the people lie, this does not prove that lying is natural. One hundred percent of grown adults communicate in some way, they do some form of mathematics, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether these things are learnt or natural.

The problem here, is as I pointed out at first, you have a very distorted concept of "natural".

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.

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.

Then how do you learn anything, MU? What is it that makes you learn to do things and not others? — Harry Hindu

The act of thinking is how I learn things.

All of your actions have consequences. Isn't the consequences, the end result of your action, and how that matches your present goal, what you are choosing? If not, then what do you hope to accomplish when you make a decision? — Harry Hindu

There is something missing in your logical process Harry. You seem to think that consequences magical cause people to make the decisions which they do. But that's not the case, it's the act of thinking which produces the decisions, not the consequences of prior actions. That this is true is very obvious from observing people with mental illness, or who have different types of mental deficiencies. Clearly, it is the thinking which causes the decision, not actual consequences of past actions, nor possible consequences of future actions.

Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives? — Agustino

You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral.

Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example: — Agustino

The problem is that you were arguing carte blanche (meaning in a completely unqualified way), that morality is a matter of resisting natural urges. But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie.

Since honesty is natural for human beings, and lying is learned, and honesty is moral, while lying is immoral, this completely destroys your assertion that morality is a matter of resisting natural tendencies.

Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. — Agustino

The statistics are irrelevant. Mathematics is learned, languages are learned. Consider the number of people involved in these activities. The number of people involved in a particular activity has nothing to do with whether the activity is learned or natural.

You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself. — Agustino

The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.

So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned.

Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial. — Agustino

Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial.

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.

Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. — Agustino

Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it.

That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. — Agustino

This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly.

No, but unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, and refuse to accept things as they are. I'm just saying how things are - naturally. It's fine if you want to change things - but notice that changing things entails going against nature, and therefore it requires effort. Just like, for example, the natural tendency in terms of sexuality is towards promiscuity. That doesn't mean promiscuity is right, but to remedy it, requires to be aware that this is the natural tendency. "Be wise as serpents" as the Bible says. You have to be wise - know the truth - in order to alter and change things.

My question to you is why do you think people wouldn't behave naturally in a democracy? Or wouldn't tend towards natural behaviour? My further question is how do you plan to change this natural human behaviour? What would prevent it from happening? These are the questions you need to answer. — Agustino

You use the word "nature", and "natural" in a very odd way, as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? You speak as if you think that if we let nature take its course we would fall into some form of negative evolution, digressing backward toward some primitive form of existence. But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it?

At best IMO he represents a 'fuck you' to a corrupt and self-serving political and economic system (and of course the two are intimately intertwined) and a corresponding wake up call to the representatives of this establishment to shift their priorities towards the average people who've been neglected during the last few decades. — Erik

I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different characters, or personalities could say "fuck you" to the system. To vote for someone simply because that person says "fuck you" to the system is to completely neglect that person's character and personality in making your choice in who to vote for, and this is to shirk your democratic responsibility. It is to say "fuck you" to the system with actions.

So if we go beyond the act of saying "fuck you" to the system, to ask why does one say 'fuck you" to the system, we see that president Trump is completely phony. He said "fuck you" to the system simply because he wanted to get votes from people like you and me, who wanted to say "fuck you" to the system. Since his intent was to get himself elected president, this was the goal and motivation behind him saying "fuck you" to the system, he really holds "the system" in high esteem. He just said "fuck you" to the system to get himself into the system which he admired so much. Anyone who demonstrates such a strong desire to be president of the United States of America, going through all the effort required to get there, must actually have very high respect for "the system". So Donald Trump saying "fuck you" to the system was just an act of deception to get people who want to say "fuck you" to the system, to give him what he wanted most, to be the president of the United States of America.

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.

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.

Can you provide an example where what I said wouldn't apply? — Harry Hindu

Whenever I feel strongly about a particular act, I will proceed despite the negative consequences. So for instance, if something like moving a heavy object, which requires physical labour, and imminent pain, is required, I will proceed despite knowing about the negative consequences. It is very often that we proceed despite knowing about imminent negative consequences. This is a power of the will, it manifests as a virtue called "courage".

LOL! You didn't disappoint me at all, MU. You finally agreed with me that knowledge of a consequence causes you to behave in certain ways and not in others. It doesn't matter the way in which you came to know the consequence. — Harry Hindu

That I consider something within my thoughts, doesn't mean that this particular thing "caused" my conclusion. When I think, I consider many different things before coming to a conclusion. None of them can be said to cause my conclusion.

Your claim that knowledge of a consequence causes me to behave in a particular way is categorically false. That is because the things I consider within my mind, are passive thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Being passive, none of them have any causal power. I move these thoughts around within my mind, they do not move me around, because they are passive and I am active.

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.

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

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 what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act? — Harry Hindu

That all depends on the situation.

If you were about to perform some practical joke on your best friend and your best friend noticed what you were going to do before you did it and said, "If you do that, I'm not going to be your friend anymore.", that wouldn't prevent you from doing what you were going to do? That information - that your best friend will no longer be your friend - is causing you to re-think performing that action. — Harry Hindu

Sorry to disappoint you, but I would have thought of that before planning the practical joke, and I would already be prepared for the likelihood that my best friend would no longer be my best friend if I carried out the action. So no, it wouldn't cause me to rethink, because it would just be a statement of what I already thought.

Give me a break, MU. You do know what the phrase, "think twice" means, no? — Harry Hindu

I don't know about you, but all of my serious thinking is thinking twice, as per the definition you referred me to. And, it's not other people who cause me to think twice, I do this of my own volition, because I think it's a good thing to do.

.

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.

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.

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?

Present changes are changes that are happening — Terrapin Station

So back to my question. If a change is happening right now, how is it possible that part of the change is not already in the past?

The change (A) would be in the past relative to some other change (B), when relative to that other change (B), change (A) happened but is no longer happening. — Terrapin Station

I don't see where you pull this notion of "a present change" from. You've described (A) as in the past relative to (B), so I assume that (B) is in the future relative to (A). I assume that the temporal existence of all changes would be described in these terms, past and future, or before and after, relative to other changes. What validates "a present change"?

ANY change is an example of a present change. — Terrapin Station

This is what you keep insisting, but you've given me no reason to believe that "a present change" even makes sense.

Right, and that whole change is in the past now. I want an example of a change which has no part in the past or in the future. Otherwise we should agree that the past and future are just as real as the present.

No, it's not the change, it's part of the change, the part that's in the past.

OK, so my clock just changed from 9:31 to 9:32. How is 9:31 not in the past?

By removing the intent from punishment, you remove causation (final cause). This is what you said before:

What we are doing in punishing someone is simply inserting a cause to change their behavior, and others, in the future. — Harry Hindu

If you remove the intent (final cause), you no longer have reason to use the words "cause" or "causation", in accordance with what andrewk was arguing.

Exactly. You value certain people's trust more than others. Losing their trust would be a dire consequence that causes you to think twice before doing something that would jeopardize losing that trust. — Harry Hindu

That's not true. The idea of losing someone's trust doesn't cause me to think, I am thinking all the time anyway. It may be one of the many things which I will consider within my thoughts, but there is no such causation. Neither does punishment cause me to think in any particular way. Your argument is nonsensical. Punishment and consequences have no such causal power.

You haven't addressed my challenge.

What is natural order? Rules and laws that govern all phenomena in the universe (every time and every place). I thought the bracketed clause was understood and needed not explicit clarification. Who in the world would think that natural order didn't implicitly include both temporal and spatial universality? Without these elements natural order would be meaningless. — TheMadFool

Do you understand the difference between descriptive laws and prescriptive laws? Descriptive laws such as the laws of physics describe the world as we know it. Prescriptive laws tell us how we must behave. To say that phenomena is "governed" by laws is to equivocate between these two uses of "laws". The laws of physics describe the physical universe, they do not govern it.

Clearly the descriptive laws of physics which are produced by human beings cannot govern the universe. Nor can the prescriptive laws of the various legal systems in the world, which are also produced by human beings, govern all the phenomena in the universe. If you are assuming that there are some prescriptive laws, laid down by God, which govern all the phenomena in the universe, how do you think that God would enforce these laws? Suppose some phenomenon refused to obey the laws, like human beings sometimes refuse to obey the laws. Do you think God would punish that phenomenon? Do you think God rewards phenomena for good behaviour (acting according to His laws)?

I think your conception of "natural order" is more than a little bit confused.

If that's really what you believe, then I challenge you to describe a change which isn't one of the following three: all in the past, all in the future, or part in the past, and part in the future.