RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 3:24 am
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 3:25 am by Mudhammam.)
(January 1, 2016 at 11:14 am)bennyboy Wrote:It was not moved with respect to location, but hasn't the duration of its static position been extended in some sense, and therefore, moved in the dimension of time?(December 31, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Exian Wrote: How can motion not also be a change in time?
Well, if a thing is in the same position in two times, it has not moved. If it is in two positions in one time, it is not one thing and you cannot sensibly ask whether it has moved. Therefore, it is implied by semantics that we are necessarily talking about 2 times, but it is the change in position which defines movement, not the change in time. The 1-time, 1-state description isn't about motion, but about thing-ness.
I'm not sure that this refinement in semantics offers much to our understanding of motion, admittedly.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
