Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The inference from 'knowing what time it is at multiple times' to 'undergoing change' only applies to beings whose mode of presence is itself temporal.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Even atemporal beings can instantiate incompatible properties at different times relative to temporal observers, constituting genuine change.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes a non-standard metaphysics where temporal presence is necessary for change, but change might be fundamental to all properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Knowing different facts about X at different times does entail X has changed, regardless of X's mode of presence—change is relational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Change requires temporal succession: knowing different facts at different times only constitutes change if one actually exists through those moments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Atemporal beings (like abstract objects) don't experience temporal passage, so multiple temporal coordinates don't entail change for them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The inference conflates epistemic access (knowing facts at times) with ontological change (actually undergoing transformation).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.