But then police won't have knowledge, either. Police uses knowledge to nab crimianls, and the justice system uses knowledge to discourage criminal activity. If the police has no knowledge, they are helpless in catching criminals. — god must be atheist
Why did you start another thread about this? You're the one who started the first thread a few days ago.
Space doesn't bend, spacetime curves around a mass. This means that a clock located within the proximity of a mass will run slower than a clock located away from the mass. It also means that any matter or energy traveling in the proximity of that mass will be influenced by this curvature and its path will bend. We call that curvature gravity.
There isn't any corner either: the corner's moved with the space. Or: the space moving is the corner moving.
What does this mean?.
This circle is not existent at the moment. It has been changed, or it changed, into a triangle.
I thought that the original topic was "change is impossible". Well, it is not. If you change a circle, a triangle, a geodesic tri-point transformation of an ancient Indian burial ground into something else, you've made the change.
I can't see any difficulty there.
Change the stupid circle into a triangle or something. The circle ceases to be a circle, because it was cahnged into a triangle.
Are you sure? Let's put history aside for a moment. Physically understood, what is weight? What is color? Aren't they both reducible to shape in space and time?
Is this a square and a triangle in the same place?
If two shapes were to perfectly occupy all the same spaces, they'd necessarily have the same shape.
If two things are in exactly the same place at the same time, aren't they then just one thing? To say that there are two things that are one thing seems a contradiction.
↪elucid Present a scenario that shows they can.
↪elucid This is just what we mean be the word "object." If some entities - real or imagined - can be at the same place at the same time, such as fields or ghosts, we don't refer to them as "objects." There is no deep metaphysics here, it's just convention.
The Bible, "God's word in human language": the text were written by fallible human beings.
the answer to your question depends on how you define "the same space."
Can god be just if he exceeds the good justice standard that the bible, god’s WORD, claims is just?
One of Zeno's most famous paradox has to do with Achilles never being able to catch a tortoise that's been given a head start in a race because of the impossibility of having to traverse an infinite number of points between the two.
Does it really? When would we be dead? I know you said we would be dead "by now", but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
This is my explanation for why change seems to exists even though things that tell us that it is not possible exist. I will use a circle and a square in this example. I will guess that a circle becoming a square is impossible, but a circle becoming non-existent and a square appearing is possible, making it seem like a circle became a square.
If I smash my computer in front of me (which is a square) into a bunch of pieces and then re-arrange those pieces into a circle, didn't a square just become a circle?
Is there a hidden conclusion using the two statements? I can't see it. Kindly clarify it. Thanks.
What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one?
↪elucid S accused you of trolling because you are avoiding the actual points people raise, and you are just repeating the same things
You're funny. Change has to do with becoming. That a circle is a circle, and not a square, is irrelevant. It can become one.
I think maybe you're trolling.
Your argument here is that change is impossible. However, if you add certain elements to A, and it becomes B, haven't you produced a change? So even if the law of identity holds, transmutation is a possibility correct? It therefore follow that your second statement is false, and that your first statement is simply the law of identity, which as ↪S pointed out, does not negate transmutation from A to B given particular conditions.
elucid What's that supposed to do with change?
No, you pillock.
I understand and agree with that. Are you going to move on to my queries and objections, or is this all that you are capable of?
I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.
Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?
What do you mean, "again"? This is the first time that you've bothered to reply to me, and you haven't bothered to explain why you think that, or to clarify your point, or properly address any of my replies. — S
You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll proceed without your answer. A shape can change from a circle to a square. There are animations of this which you can find online. Either you're saying something logically irrelevant or you're saying something false. — S
You're not being asked to determine what change is, merely to define it for present purpose to guide discussion. If the definition is a good one, then we'll find it so. If it's not-so-good, back to the drawing board, but with new insight.
So instead of defining change, you’re going with the impossibility that a thing can be other than it is, and by that, denying change.
You have to decide what you mean by "existent." And then what you mean by "change." Work within those constraints. Then if you like change your definitions and see what follows. But as it stands, without guide rails, so to speak, the conversation is already an aporia.