Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Is motion like the following?
December 31, 2015 at 4:18 pm
(December 31, 2015 at 9:29 am)bennyboy Wrote: (December 31, 2015 at 6:22 am)Nestor Wrote: But even the mind applying the idea is a change to and/or from some other, alternate mental activity, no? And change is... motion.
Motion is specifically a change in space. If space is an idea, then you have at best the idea of motion.
How can motion not also be a change in time?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 1, 2016 at 11:14 am
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2016 at 11:16 am by bennyboy.)
(December 31, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Exian Wrote: (December 31, 2015 at 9:29 am)bennyboy Wrote: Motion is specifically a change in space. If space is an idea, then you have at best the idea of motion.
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.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 3:21 am
(December 31, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: (December 31, 2015 at 6:14 am)Nestor Wrote: Yes, that is close to what I'm saying, though I would include intentions/ends under that of a mover moved by a determinate motion, whereas self-motion is movement of self by self, and hence, can only be random motion. Why do I insist on this? Because if of itself and by itself something can determine to move in such a way that is truly free of necessity, it can have no predilection for one outcome over another, or to move at this time and at none other. Such a bent would preclude a prior motion which necessitated that particular state of affairs, otherwise, it occurred spontaneously.
To put it another way: All change by definition follows upon a preceding state of affairs which is ever so slightly different in one of two respects, temporal succession or spatial location. That change must either result as a necessary consequence of the preceding state (the car in Benny's dream was imagined to be here, passing by, but now that it has changed its position, it's there, up the imaginary road), in which motion is acted upon by something prior (whatever put the car in motion, on that particular road, in that instant of thought, etc.), or it acts from something of an internal impulse, but one that can truly be said to free in the sense that it is indeterminate - the only other option involving some causes and/or ends.
Again we bump up against the free will debate, agreed? I see some room between random and determined motion. From the point of view of an external witness, the movement of a self-mover can seem random. But from the point of view of the self-mover, movements can be elective and coherent with values and dispositions which are more or less settled. But some of our actions can seem more spontaneous/random than others, and some of us would always want to make room for them. But I don't think any self-mover -assuming we're talking about human beings here- would ever agree that every one of their actions is random. Yes, and I find it interesting that we could just as fittingly be talking about free will and causal determinism, in the context of humans beings, as we could be talking about the beginning of the material universe, or at least as it exists according to our best information about its laws... specifically, whether it just randomly popped into existence on its own, or was caused by something else that was caused by something that was---
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
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: (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. 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?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 10:00 am
(January 9, 2016 at 3:24 am)Nestor 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?
That's not what movement means.
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 10:03 am
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 10:08 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Why not. Space and time are, more accurately, spacetime. Why is it motion with regards to the space bit, but not the time bit?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 3:58 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 10:00 am)bennyboy Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 3:24 am)Nestor 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?
That's not what movement means. Are you insisting that movement must occur in space? Then you also would not consider thought to be a kind of motion?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Is motion like the following?
January 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm
(December 29, 2015 at 4:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think you're saying that, muck like time is how the Universe keeps everything from happening at once, motions is how the Universe keeps everything from happening in the same place. I think.
Boru
Once has no meaning without time, but motion is not required for the things to happen at different place.
|
