RJG wrote:I think it is more accurate to say - "There can be no motion (or change) in a timeless universe."
P1. Motion is determined by an object's 'before and after' states of existence (spatial positions).
P2. Without Time, there can be no 'before and after'.
P3. Without 'before and after', there can be no Motion (of an object throughout space).
C1. Therefore, without Time (i.e. a "timeless" universe), there can be no motion/movement/change.
Terrapin Station wrote:If A is identical to B, then without A, there can be no B.
Agreed. But this is not the case here. Time and Motion are not identical. Your starting premise is false.
Time (a 'before and after' condition) is a pre-condition of Motion. You can't logically define/determine Motion without it!
Not only is Time a pre-condition of Motion, but so are Space, and Matter. Without some-thing happening ("occurring") some-where, there can be no Motion.
Therefore, Motion is just an Event
that requires Matter-Time-Space.
Terrapin Station" wrote:You want to argue that the reason it's correct is that motion is ontologically dependent on time.
Yes, correct. For it is logically impossible to define/determine Motion without Time (i.e. without a 'before and after' change of states).
Terrapin Station wrote:We could say that motion is logically dependent on time. And we could say that time is logically dependent on motion. Because time and motion are identical.
Not so. A does not equal B. Time and Motion are different animals. Therefore, Motion is dependent on Time, and Time is independent of Motion.