Luke

Asking about it causes it to change? Elevation might change wrt latitude, but nothing about the (3D) road changes at a time, including the position of...

Sorry, I can't leave this alone. Motion or change along the time axis is required by the definition of motion (v=dx/dt). If there is no change in temp...

I still think you're just reading motion into that graph that isn't necessarily there. However, I don't think there's much more to say on the subject....

I'll take that as a "pretty much". I understand now why you and @"Pfhorrest" have been attributing a second dimension of time or "hyper-time" to my vi...

As I understand it then, according to 4D geometry, a 3D body changes spatial position with respect to temporal position only, but it does not actually...

Let's compare what you said and how I read it: You: "If the 3D position of the object varies, it is moving." Me: "If the 3D position of the object cha...

Here's how I read what you're saying: There is a time duration/interval with start and end points at t and t'. If the 3D position of the object change...

I'm not asking for this. I'm just asking you to explain the difference between {change in temporal position from t to t'} and {the object has moved fr...

Yes, you still don't say. I guess you're not going to address this question then:

You don't say...

Again, only if you assume motion in the first place. Otherwise there is no change. Which is what you keep saying.

When I say an object moves "through time" I mean the same thing as you mean when you say an object moves "over time". Clear?

I had assumed that "through" and "over" just meant the same thing for travelling in a dimension. I didn't realise this convention existed. If you want...

The 4D car is at all temporal points between A and B, just as the strange 3D car is at all spatial points between A and B. It cannot change position o...

How is "a change in location in time" NOT "a change in temporal position"? It's the same thing.

So much truth to this statement. That's all that ever moves in any of the 3D examples and 4D examples that have been given.

You still haven't explained the difference.

Yes. I agree. But if they don't really change then they don't really move. Most people think of motion as something like a car travelling from point A...

Only if you assume it is. Otherwise, what are we discussing here? As I've said before, Eternalism without motion is equally conceivable. This is where...

If time is like a ruler, as per Eternalism, then there is no motion.

If time is continuous, what else could change in temporal position of the object mean except that the object moves from one time to the next , i.e., t...

Either the object moves from t to t' and there is temporal passage (not B-theory). Or the object does not move from t to t' and there is no motion.

How can a change in the temporal position of the object from t to t' not mean that the object has moved from t to t'? And if the object has not moved ...

And you've agreed that the object has moved from t to t'.

Yes, representing a change in temporal position of the object. That is, the object has changed its temporal position.

No. I've only ever been talking about the motion of 3D objects in the 4th dimension; that is, 3D parts of the 4D object. This is what you consider wit...

To reiterate what's at stake here: Motion has been defined as change in spatial position over change in temporal position (or dx/dt) @"Kenosha Kid" st...

Again, if you're arguing that time passes "inside" of time but not "outside", then you're saying that temporal passage is real. You only imply it abov...

As I've said a few times, I don't doubt that you can obtain a value for motion, but that doesn't mean that anything really moves. Motion is a Presenti...

"dt" (and with it "dx") is or isn't something an object does? Which is it?

My bad. You said: Well, either "dt" represents a length/duration for comparison purposes only (is "not something an object does"), or else it represen...

I see. So you concede that, in terms of classical kinematics at least, objects do not move?

I'm trying to understand. You said that "change in temporal position" is only a length and "not something an object does." So is an object's change in...

It can, can't it? I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you think I should have asked instead: doesn't the temporal distance represent a change in ...

I'm a little confused by this. Doesn't the interval of time represent some change of temporal location? Doesn't an object occasionally move during thi...

What does it mean, then?

I hope so, then I will have demonstrated that Eternalism logically precludes motion.

It forms part of the definition of motion that @"Kenosha Kid" and I have agreed upon, for starters.

Okay, but I am asking how temporal change is conceived, and whether a change in time is possible, in Eternalism, not in kinematics. My counterargument...

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to try and clarify this matter for me. I understand that the relationships or functions of position and time ar...

You didn't answer the question: do you believe that temporal passage is real? If so, then I don't consider you to be an Eternalist (or, more specifica...

Sorry, I can't make sense of this. What's the difference between moving "through time" and moving "over time"? How? How does it "get higher" or "go fu...

You believe that temporal passage is real? Perhaps you are a Moving Spotlight Theorist instead of an Eternalist. The virgule was intended to signify "...

And I'm asking what justifies your assumption that such change/motion does happen? You've been talking about a change in altitude/diameter. That's par...

How is change possible in 3D? Looks like the analogy is breaking down... You're saying that if you change altitude then diameter changes, and if you c...

The abstract line does not move at all. How does the pipe gain altitude as it "moves" westward? If it's not moving with respect to time, then what is ...

What does a gradient have to do with motion? It's just an assumption that there is motion in the gradient. A universe without change or motion is equa...

How is continuity sufficient? What does change/motion mean without temporal passage? Isn't such a "propagator" being implicitly assumed when you talk ...

I'm attempting to argue that motion is a Presentist notion. I don't doubt that you can calculate a value for motion for a given section of a 4D object...

Why is it sufficient?