What does this mean?.

It just means that part of the space moves to a different part. Suppose part A moves to part B of the space, now part A of that space is in part B of the space.

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.

If something changing means it becoming non-existent, then we should be dead by now. And are somebody else who thinks that they were somebody else in the past and have done those things.

Change the stupid circle into a triangle or something. The circle ceases to be a circle, because it was cahnged into a triangle.

Once this circle becomes a triangle, what is that circle at this moment?

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?

Even if that is true, we cannot put history aside. History of something is its property. Two things, even if the same size, color, weight, shape and in the same location, are not the same things if they have different history.

Is this a square and a triangle in the same place?

The shape of the red dot cumulatively is a square and the blue ones is a triangle, but I would not say that a squared shaped thing is occupying the same space that the triangular one is.

If two shapes were to perfectly occupy all the same spaces, they'd necessarily have the same shape.

You are right. That still does not mean that two objects occupying the same space share all their properties with each other. By that, I mean that it does not mean the objects have the same history.

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.

Two things being in the same place at the same time does not mean that all their properties are the same. It does not mean that those two things had the same history.

↪elucid Present a scenario that shows they can.

I am not trying to argue that they can and I do not know of a scenario which shows that 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.

I am referring to physical objects.

The Bible, "God's word in human language": the text were written by fallible human beings.

I do not think that the original poster is trying to prove that the Bible is true. I think the original poster is just wondering if condemning someone to hell forever over somethings is a just punishment.

I meant two things occupying the same space at the same time.

the answer to your question depends on how you define "the same space."

When saying why can't object A and B occupy the same space at the same time, I meant why can't object A occupy the space occupied by B at the same time.

Can god be just if he exceeds the good justice standard that the bible, god’s WORD, claims is just?

Even if the God of the Bible condemning someone to hell forever is just, it is still not necessary for the God of the Bible to do such a thing. The reason is that the Bible claims that God is all powerful, therefore the God of the Bible can resolve any matter without causing any suffering.

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.

I am guessing that when moving, we are not traversing infinite points because of how impossible that is. I am guessing that, just like movement that we see in a computer screen, we disappear and appear in a different point.

I would appreciate comments on the following as well.

A circle is always a circle. To disagree is to say a circle is always not a circle, or sometimes a circle is not a circle.

When someone disagrees with the statement, "A circle and a square are always different." That person is saying that "A circle and a square are sometimes the same." It is hard to make some comments on what that person is saying because it is very hard to understand what that means.

If a circle must be a circle and cannot be something else, time is irrelevant. I mean, you could omit all time-related words and say, — Shed

The reason I created this thread is about that eternal property of things.

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"?

Suppose, you are something that exists at time 12 pm. Once it is 12:01 pm, the guy (you), which existed at 12 pm is non-existent now.

but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?

Yes, but that square is not that circle, they are two different things.

"Post Deleted by Original Poster"

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?

It is hard to say if you cannot rule out the possibility of things disappearing and appearing to make it seem like things are changing.

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.

I will try to explain what I am saying in a different way. Suppose a circle exists. The statement "That circle is a circle." Is a true statement and cannot be false. Just like saying, "1 = 1" cannot be a false statement. If someone claims that circle will become a square in the future, then the statement, "That circle is a circle" is a false statement at that time and that statement cannot be false, therefore that circle cannot become a square. Saying "That circle is a circle" is a false statement is just like saying "1 = 1" is a false statement.

Is there a hidden conclusion using the two statements? I can't see it. Kindly clarify it. Thanks.

It's about change in property of things.

What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one?

Doesn't that mean that a circle can be a square?

↪elucid S accused you of trolling because you are avoiding the actual points people raise, and you are just repeating the same things

My point for creating the thread is to help people understand those statements, not prove that change is possible or not possible.

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.

You clearly did not understand me if you think I am trolling. If something cannot be anything that is not a circle, it is always something that is circle.

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.

If change is impossible, you cannot add any elements to A.

elucid What's that supposed to do with change?

Basically, it is saying that something cannot ever be anything that is not what it is, so it has to with change.

No, you pillock.

Then, I presume that you agree that a circle is never the same as something not a circle which means a circle is never anything not a circle.

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?

Are you saying that you agree that a circle is sometimes the same as a square?

I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.

I will use a circle in the following example. Basically, I am saying that a circle is never the same as something that is not a circle. Saying that I am wrong is saying that a circle is sometimes the same as a square or something else that is not a circle, is that something you agree with?

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?

I did not make that comment.

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

I am very sorry that you did not understand. My statements are extremely easy to understand, and, at the moment, I do not know how to get more clear with you.

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

Again, I feel that you did not understand my statements.

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.

I do not think that defining change is important because my statements are saying that things remain the same all the time, which I believe no one needs help understanding.

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.

I believe that you did not understand correctly my statements.

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.

I find defining change extremely difficult, so I will not do it. The statements, ultimately, are saying that a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, etc.