With respect to what? A moving body's position changes with respect to time: that is the very gradient that tells us it is moving. In 4D, it is not th...
This is an unrelated and rightly disputed claim. The wording of the OP was precisely to avoid the necessity of deciding whether phenomena like human i...
No. It moves from position to position. In classical kinematics, a body at rest is not said to move from t to t'. In relativistic kinematics, it is. N...
The laws underpinning or being (perhaps approximately) described by theories would not seem to me to come under the definition of unambiguously immate...
It's not a counterargument though. Any capitalism in any part of the world at any time relied on destroying first the means of self-provision: the ver...
That is true, but I included spacetime under the material category because I can do an experiment with material objects to determine e.g. the time dif...
Yes, that's why the Inquisition put heliocentrists on trial, because they liked Hell not being at the centre of the universe. I do not doubt theologia...
Because motion in 4D is not given by a time duration, it is given by the geometry of the 4D object over that time duration. If the 3D position of the ...
In translating phenomena from an eternalist viewpoint to that of subjective experience, the second is meaningful. It is meaningless in a purely eterna...
This sounds familiar, something about the distaste of having the Earth not at the centre of creation but as a planet that 'just happens to be one' of ...
No, I am assuming geometry and the kinematic definition of motion. Actually motion we get fir free. Unless you address that, I'm going to have assume ...
Yet you got from classical Greek meaning of 'substance' to the very raison d'etre of my question yourself! :) The quality in question is undefined. It...
It's a direct consequence of its kinematic definition: dx/dt. Any continuous 4D object will have this property, even if its value is zero. Motion in 4...
And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must ...
It's a good one too! I'm cool with banter, don't worry. A permanent (timeless or cyclic) thing can be a first cause. The mechanism of the effect can b...
It is used for different things, you're right. The universe is usually used to describe everything that resulted from the Big Bang, even if it is outs...
Possibly, we don't see many in my neck of the woods. They sure have lots of em in yours though. Since you are not assuming the existence of an intelli...
Sartre must have been pretty zen. "Consciousness is consciousness of something." But one consciousness is consciousness that one is conscious of somet...
Yes, another might be good old-fashioned inertia: we're sticking with the first thing that came along without empirical reason to abandon it. I suspec...
Either in favour of the very prejudice I was describing -- granting authority to those who claim to have answers instead of those who genuinely seek t...
I did not say that, don't be silly. I said I labour for others to provide for my family. I don't think it's likely to be inferred I work for goods. We...
I had in mind something like Kaluza-Klein theory, which fulfilled the first criterion (unifies known physical law) and also predicted a new field that...
It wasn't a separate argument. You used it to dismiss the notion of a universe created without fine-tuning, itself an argument against an intelligent ...
To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that c...
If <insert literally anything here>, then there is no motion. All you're proving is that you will assert the same thing no matter the course of the co...
is inconsistent with Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going ro...
Yes. Slavery did not enter into my argument. Are you setting up a ridiculous dichotomy in which everyone is either a slave or works for themselves? Do...
Ask yourself the same thing about the length of a ruler? Does it rely on the concept of a 'here' that moves from one end to another? In which case why...
Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have...
It's still a myth. No, I labour for others, as the majority of people do. It is illogical to say that if I say there has been a theft, it follows I pe...
Then your definition of motion depends on temporal passage, which kinematics does not. As I have said many times, motion in 4D is straight geometry. I...
No, they're not. The particular values allow for formations of the kinds of atoms we have, which allows for the kind of chemistry we have. They are no...
That was not the question or anything like it. At the time during which a person who could self-provide suddenly discovered they had to labour for oth...
Point to your definition of free will that is inconsistent with it. Is it still "I" doing the deciding? Yes. That I am a reasonable person who a) can ...
That rather appeals to contingent qualities of a particular communist country, doesn't it? Which is irrelevant anyway, since my stated position is on ...
And that is why secretly you're a presentist. It is not a condition in eternalism that a 4D object need move within a 4D space to have motion, since t...
But they're not fine-tuned for life. That's just arrogance. The universe doesn't care that you exist. The fact that something can exist in the univers...
This seems more an objection to terminology than the necessity of motion arising from 4D geometry. I think the point is well covered, quite circularly...
Comments