How Does Change Occur in the Universe?

[Willowz]

IN https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=525749" thread a question was asked.

“Why is there Something rather than Nothing”

For there something to come out from nothing - or whatever the case may be - is required the concept of change.

You may have heard in philosophy, panta rei or 'You can't step into the same river twice.".

Everything flows and nothing stays.
Everything flows and nothing abides.
Everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.
Everything flows; nothing remains.
All is flux, nothing is stationary.
All is flux, nothing stays still.
All flows, nothing stays.

So, how is change possible? And, if this isn't the ultimate question, then what is?

 

[wuliheron]

So, how is change possible? And, if this isn't the ultimate question, then what is?

Both change and the lack of change are relative to the observer like so many other properties. As for the ultimate question, "What is the gift of a question?" works for me.

 

[Willowz]

Yes, but we digress from here. Such as, "If 'change' is observer-dependant then what counts as an observer?" or more trivially, "If change is observer-dependant, then what is change?". It's cheating.

 

[wuliheron]

Yes, but we digress from here. Such as, "If 'change' is observer-dependant then what counts as an observer?" or more trivially, "If change is observer-dependant, then what is change?". It's cheating.

What counts as an observer or change depends on the context like any other word.

 

[apeiron]

So, how is change possible? And, if this isn't the ultimate question, then what is?

How is stasis possible? Why does anything persist?

 

[MarcoD]

And, if this isn't the ultimate question, then what is?

Half joking, my ultimate question: Who are you?

 

[Willowz]

What counts as an observer or change depends on the context like any other word.

I'm talking about change not things being changed.

 

[Willowz]

How is stasis possible? Why does anything persist?

Not fair. First answer my question.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm talking about change not things being changed.

Change
noun
verb (used with object)
1. to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.
2. to transform or convert (usually followed by into ): The witch changed the prince into a toad.
3. to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind: She changed her shoes when she got home from the office.
4. to give and take reciprocally; interchange: to change places with someone.
5. to transfer from one (conveyance) to another: You'll have to change planes in Chicago.

Show me a single definition of change that doesn't involve things.

 

[MarcoD]

Show me a single definition of change that doesn't involve things.

The original question posted a poem which can be understood to be a definition of change.

 

[wuliheron]

The original question posted a poem which can be understood to be a definition of change.

Even the poem describes change in terms of things.

 

[apeiron]

Not fair. First answer my question.

It is the same question. The water flows but the river persists. If you mean to draw attention to this standard Greek metaphysical question, then you have to consider the whole of it like they did.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#UniOpp ...

we call a body of water a river precisely because it consists of changing waters; if the waters should cease to flow it would not be a river, but a lake or a dry streambed. There is a sense, then, in which a river is a remarkable kind of existent, one that remains what it is by changing what it contains (cf. Hume Treatise 1.4.6, p. 258 Selby-Bigge).

Heraclitus' flux doctrine is a special case of the unity of opposites, pointing to ways things are both the same and not the same over time. He depicts two key opposites that are interconnected, but not identical.

In general, what we see in Heraclitus is not a conflation of opposites into an identity, but a series of subtle analyses revealing the interconnectedness of contrary states in life and in the world. There is no need to impute to him a logical fallacy. Opposites are a reality, and their interconnections are real, but the correlative opposites are not identical to each other.

Although Heraclitus is not known to have had students, his writings seem to have been influential from an early time. He may have provoked Parmenides to develop a contrasting philosophy (Patin 1899; Graham 2002), although their views have much more in common than is generally recognized (Nehamas 2002).

 

[Willowz]

Show me a single definition of change that doesn't involve things.

See but it doesn't make sense if everything changes.

 

[Willowz]

It is the same question.

How so?

The water flows but the river persists. If you mean to draw attention to this standard Greek metaphysical question, then you have to consider the whole of it like they did.

Ok. So, how do opposites exist if they cannot be identified?

 

[apeiron]

How so?

How do things change if things persist? How do things persist if there is change?

Ok. So, how do opposites exist if they cannot be identified?

What do you mean? Your question identified them - stasis and flux, stability and change.

 

[Willowz]

]What do you mean? Your question identified them - stasis and flux, stability and change.

Ok, identify a state of stasis as opposed to flux and I'll concede.

 

[wuliheron]

See but it doesn't make sense if everything changes.

It is again a question of context. The broader and more vague the context the less meaning and sense it conveys. Everything is "energy" or whatever makes no sense whatsoever because the context is simply too vague. You might as well say everything is spiffy or shiny.

 

[Willowz]

There seems to be no context in this case, since everything changes.

 

[apeiron]

Ok, identify a state of stasis as opposed to flux and I'll concede.

What does that mean? Any state of stasis would be opposed to one of flux.

 

[apeiron]

There seems to be no context in this case, since everything changes.

But not everything changes at the same rate - again the river vs its waters.

 

[MarcoD]

Even the poem describes change in terms of things.

Hmm, that's not how I interpret it. But, another argument, in an ontological debate the general (Greek) rule is to drop all assumptions and study that what is left.

Panta rei, all/everything flows or moves, to me means that he means the sensory (what else is there) observation that all perceived seems to be in a state of flux. And the question is, how can that be?

Is the question whether there are things relevant for answering the original question?

 

[Willowz]

But not everything changes at the same rate - again the river vs its waters.

Ok ok. Your telling me how to spot change when it happens. But, why does it happen? What enables its happening?

 

[wuliheron]

There seems to be no context in this case, since everything changes.

The context is "everything" and it patently defies human observation. As far as anyone can tell things like the laws of physics don't change so without a more specific definition it amounts to nothing more then mystical mumbo jumbo. That's not to say such things as mystical mumbo jumbo aren't valuable, but that they have no demonstrable value outside specific contexts.

 

[Astronuc]

df/dx or df/dt,

∂f/∂x or ∂f/∂t,

or

Δf/Δx or Δf/Δt

or simply dx, dt, ∂x, ∂t, Δx, Δt

There is a difference, and change usually involves time.

Coins and smaller denominations of paper currency are another possibility.

 

[wuliheron]

Hmm, that's not how I interpret it. But, another argument, in an ontological debate the general (Greek) rule is to drop all assumptions and study that what is left.

Panta rei, all/everything flows or moves, to me means that he means the sensory (what else is there) observation that all perceived seems to be in a state of flux. And the question is, how can that be?

Is the question whether there are things relevant for answering the original question?

Heraclitus closely resembles what is sometimes called "Energetic Taoism" and their motto is "change is the only constant". In specific contexts it can be a valuable approach to problems, but taken outside of any clear context it is so much obvious mystical mumbo jumbo that contradicts itself.

 

[MarcoD]

Heraclitus closely resembles what is sometimes called "Energetic Taoism" and their motto is "change is the only constant". In specific contexts it can be a valuable approach to problems, but taken outside of any clear context it is so much obvious mystical mumbo jumbo that contradicts itself.

That's really nice that you said that, but that doesn't mean a lot in an ontological debate. 'Why change?' is just a fundamental question from ontology. (IMO, without an answer.) 'Is there a more fundamental question than change?' is another fundamental question, with the answer, IMO: no (at least if you restrict yourself to questions about the physical universe).

BTW: Calling this mumbo jumbo is somewhat disrespectful to those who started with some silly, but first, ontological question the whole scientific enterprise which a few thousand years later gave you your iPhone.

 

[apeiron]

Ok ok. Your telling me how to spot change when it happens. But, why does it happen? What enables its happening?

Why do presume that something must make it happen? The issue surely is how do you prevent it happening...so that there is any stasis.

If you presume all is flux, then the question is what creates stasis?

If you presume all is stasis, then you have your OP of how is change possible?

So you have complementary paradoxes and find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. Unless you go down to a more fundamental level of questioning. LOL.

 

[Willowz]

The context is "everything" and it patently defies human observation. As far as anyone can tell things like the laws of physics don't change so without a more specific definition it amounts to nothing more then mystical mumbo jumbo. That's not to say such things as mystical mumbo jumbo aren't valuable, but that they have no demonstrable value outside specific contexts.

Well, yes the equations on paper don't change but mostly everything else does.

 

[Willowz]

df/dx or df/dt,

∂f/∂x or ∂f/∂t,

or

Δf/Δx or Δf/Δt

or simply dx, dt, ∂x, ∂t, Δx, Δt

There is a difference, and change usually involves time.

Coins and smaller denominations of paper currency are another possibility.

Does that mean that 'change' is equivalent to time?

 

[Willowz]

Why do presume that something must make it happen? The issue surely is how do you prevent it happening...so that there is any stasis.

How are yo so sure stasis is so important to change. You have failed to give one account of it. All I see is change.

 

[wuliheron]

That's really nice that you said that, but that doesn't mean a lot in an ontological debate. 'Why change?' is just a fundamental question from ontology. (IMO, without an answer.) 'Is there a more fundamental question than change?' is another fundamental question, with the answer, IMO: no (at least if you restrict yourself to questions about the physical universe).

BTW: Calling this mumbo jumbo is somewhat disrespectful to those who started with some silly, but first, ontological question the whole scientific enterprise which a few thousand years later gave you your iPhone.

Calling it a fundamental ontological issue is like a religious person claiming it is a fundamental spiritual issue. A simple exchange of one metaphysical description for another without any clear definition of the terms or context. In other words, mumbo jumbo by definition. Not an insult, but merely a description. That some religious and metaphysically minded people take offense at such descriptions, while others don't, is therefore not surprising.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, yes the equations on paper don't change but mostly everything else does.

Whatever that means!

 

[Willowz]

Whatever that means!

In other words, we need not change the mathematics, but everything else flows.

 

[apeiron]

How are yo so sure stasis is so important to change. You have failed to give one account of it. All I see is change.

You were the one asking the question of how change is possible. Which means you must be presuming that no change is somehow more natural. Therefore you are presuming stasis as foundational. So I'm asking you to give an account of stasis.

 

[wuliheron]

In other words, we need not change the mathematics, but everything else flows.

What mathematics? What equations? What flows?

 

[Willowz]

You were the one asking the question of how change is possible. Which means you must be presuming that no change is somehow more natural.

No, I haven't made that presumption. Not to my knowledge.

 

[Willowz]

What mathematics? What equations? What flows?

This is getting absurd.

 

[apeiron]

No, I haven't made that presumption. Not to my knowledge.

You said you were concerned about the concept of change. You asked how it was possible. So I am asking you why you might think things could be otherwise. If change was in fact not possible, there would only be stasis.

So - deep breath - what motivates your concern over the concept of change here? Why do you think it an issue? What are you assuming that makes it an issue?

 

[Willowz]

Aristotle called it the uncaused cause. Something that got 'motion' started. Maybe I should rephrase the question. Why do things change? Is it because of time, QM, xyz? Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[Willowz]

Another aspect of this thread is that "ultimate" questions are pointless. They are too generalised and too broad to give any satisfiable answer.

 

[Tregg Smith]

IN https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=525749" thread a question was asked.

“Why is there Something rather than Nothing”

For there something to come out from nothing - or whatever the case may be - is required the concept of change.

You may have heard in philosophy, panta rei or 'You can't step into the same river twice.".

So, how is change possible? And, if this isn't the ultimate question, then what is?

Everything flows and nothing stays.
Everything flows and nothing abides.
Everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.
Everything flows; nothing remains.
All is flux, nothing is stationary.
All is flux, nothing stays still.
All flows, nothing stays.

From that view nothing exists except by our perception or belief. Like we call it a chair but look closer and it's all waves of energy.

 

[Aidyan]

I think the answer to these kind of questions about change, time, the existence of something or not, boil down to the ultimate question: what is consciousness? If this will not get an answer these questions won't neither.

 

[Maui]

Is this thread in any way motivated by the impossibility in the block universe of SR to determine how and why change happens?

 

[Maui]

I think the answer to these kind of questions about change, time, the existence of something or not, boil down to the ultimate question: what is consciousness? If this will not get an answer these questions won't neither.

You say this because you know what matter is? Or what time is?

I'd say a deep understanding of consciousness requires a deep understanding of matter and time, which does not currently exist(except in the minds of a few brain-washed scientists who push hard their fringe theories)

 

[Willowz]

Is this thread in any way motivated by the impossibility in the block universe of SR to determine how and why change happens?

I think the question can be directed at any eternalistic fashioned universe.