I didn't use the term "backdrop". The concept of motion is complex. It analyses in being in different places at different times.
That seems to require time to exist in some way.
If the concept cannot be analysed into simpler concepts, that helps.
That doesn't justify claimig that any...
I think it does. Probably
That is not what I am saying. I have been saying that the "speed" questions
are not very philosophically important.
Assumptions may be objective.
That's not how Naive Realism is defined.
You claim to know what it is not, in various ways.
It is precisely because they are understood differently that we do need
to establish their meanings.
Something like that.
It conflicts with the "block universe" interpretation of relativity.
Since we reject assumptions that...
And motion isn't..?
Even in our own subjective consciousness?
If our logic is no guide to metaphysics, then we have
to give up on metaphysics entirely. Not that you have sworn off.
"It is only impossible to consciously imagine time without without also imagining time. It doesn't mean...
It is changing. It is hard to say that it is going anywhere,.
We can accept that change (or becoming, or, as you call, it motion)
is basic without adopting dualism.
OK. But that is an escape-hatch from you claim that we cannot
tell what is really real. I don't have a...
"Man made concept" does not contrast with anything else. But if all concepts are
man-made, you have no grounds for asserting that motion is primary. (not
even the grounds that physical models work that way).
You simply don't have valid argument to the effect that
all models are "equally...
You are assuming that a quantum of energy is used by each
quantum sae transition. In fact, state transisitions can both absorb
and realease eneergy, and energy is a conserved quantity. Therefore there is
no inference from a finite availability of energy to a finite
number of state...