Luke

Are you denying that we "get from an event at time t to one at time t'"? Or are you saying that "history is laid out there and real" somehow provides ...

So it's the same cup from t to t', but not the same you? I'll come back to the rest later.

I'll have to take your word for it. I never meant to imply that it was irrelevant. They are different parts. If you want to refer to them as the same ...

Momentum requires only space? Those co-ordinates might define everything for a 3D part. What about the rest of the 4D object? Eternalism logically ent...

Wait... Are you saying you are satisfied that Eternalism logically precludes motion (according to our agreed upon definition of motion)?

I'm not arguing against anything. I'm trying to demonstrate the logical implications of the concept of Eternalism. I think that some do, actually. I'm...

I know. I was wondering whether you wanted to follow that problematic route. Sorry, but this has all been covered previously. I don't wish to rehash i...

Parts of the same 4D object, certainly. Are you wanting to argue that the 4D object moves? Edit: Or are you implying that these different parts (e.g. ...

To anticipate a possible objection, it may be argued that, given the above equivalence, my argument against motion in Eternalism will allow for the sa...

This underlies my whole view of the matter (although somewhat vaguely): that Eternalism is all position and Presentism is all momentum. Motion implies...

Sorry Jacob, but the discussion is focused on Eternalism, not Presentism. But Presentism has its share of problems, I agree.

No, it doesn't. It says time is really static (inside spacetime).

What's to disagree with? The 4D object is the entire spatiotemporal existence of the mug. Or, as I said earlier: The 4D object can be broken into its ...

Couldn't sleep. Here goes: Let's say there's a mug sitting on my desk (x, y, z) at time t, and I pick it up, walk over and put it in the dishwasher (x...

Sorry, need sleep. I'll revisit this in the morning.

What difference will continuity make?

Sorry but I find your analogy confusing. You've got latitude, longitude, altitude, cardinal directions and a (3D?) pipe all happening in 2D?

Hold on. You said the atom was "part of a 4D object", not a 4D object. It depends on Presentism or Eternalism whether this remains the same object at ...

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. I didn't claim that it wasn't the same mountain.

I get the sense this could be a trick question, but yes, I think so. A body at (x,y,z) at t or at (x', y', z') at t' is not a 4D object; it is part of...

Just as I am not happy that a 3D object exists at more than one space (the object fills the space), I am equally not happy that a 4D object exists at ...

Is this different for Presentism? I've answered this, but perhaps it depends on what you mean by "exist in more than one position". The position of th...

What comes before and after the "i.e" is not equivalent. Motion is not defined as merely having a spatiotemporal position. Did you have questions? I t...

What does "depends on time" mean? I've taken great pains to explain myself and present my argument, which you continue to ignore.

What does "the time-dependence of an object's position" have to do with either of the definitions that we previously agreed to? The feeling is mutual.

I've actually presented an argument. Where's yours?

My argument is based on these definitions. Are you using something different?

Show me where I've used a different definition of motion.

Oh my god. Your argument is little more than motion is possible in Eternalism by definition. The least you could do is address my argument if I'm so o...

I'm not sure why you're using scare quotes on "change", or asserting that I'm "using "change" with some unobvious meaning". I'm using our agreed upon ...

Are you trying to "change" the subject? I thought the subject of our disagreement was whether there is motion in Eternalism. I've given my argument fo...

What object has changed its spatial location? Please tell me.

The gradient of the mountainside is not a change in the spatial position of the mountain, as you implied earlier. The mountain hasn't moved. You're ju...

By your argument, a 3D object changes spatial position by being a 3D object. How is that a change of the object's position?

Irrelevant. For which object are you measuring the motion? The mountain. So you need to measure the change in its temporal position. This will require...

In Eternalism? Nothing. That's what I'm arguing. Nothing moves; nothing changes. This appears to be little more than an assumption. I've provided an a...

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by 3D object/part. It is the whole mountain at a time. The 3D object (the mountain) irrespective of the tempo...

Apologies. I thought you might have seen my earlier post (from which I am quoting all these comments):

Edit:

A presentist would disagree.

Why would I? I agree to your definition.

To repeat @"Kenosha Kid"'s definition, to change temporal location means "is defined for more than one time". As I've repeatedly asked: what is it tha...

To borrow @"Kenosha Kid"'s definition, to change temporal location means "is defined for more than one time". This makes sense in Presentism where the...

...so cannot change temporal position. Edit: It's not the same 3D part or "object" at both t1 and t2, so it is not defined for more than one time and ...

It's not the spatial position which is at issue but the object itself. The same temporal part of a 4d object cannot be "defined for more than one time...

That's not quite right. I like it, but it's not really what I'm getting at. This is what I mean: We define motion as change in spatial position over c...

Rght, but aren't you talking about the motion of some thing; an object? You've established that "change in temporal position" means "is defined for mo...

Does this imply that the 4D Earth moves? But that would reintroduce the problem that a second temporal dimension is required. Does it also imply that ...

In Gallilean motion, a body does not move from one time to another? I can't say that motion is impossible by definition, but you can say that motion i...