Yep, so you have said.
And yet, we can Calculate Instantaneous Velocity
So we conclude that either physics is wrong, or Meta is wrong. — Banno
That's because you confuse stopping a particle at a specific time and observing a particle at that time. Don't forget momentum. — jgill
From your referred article:
"However, this technically only gives the object's average velocity over its path."
As I said, smoke and mirrors. Neither meta nor physics is wrong, Banno's misled by deceptive word use. — Metaphysician Undercover
From your referred article: — Metaphysician Undercover
In many common situations, to find velocity, we use the equation v = s/t, where v equals velocity, s equals the total displacement from the object's starting position, and t equals the time elapsed. However, this technically only gives the object's average velocity over its path. Using calculus, it's possible to calculate an object's velocity at any moment along its path. This is called instantaneous velocity and it is defined by the equation v = (ds)/(dt), or, in other words, the derivative of the object's average velocity equation
If it takes me 10 seconds to move 10 metres then my average velocity is 1m/s. But it may be that my velocity was less than 1m/s for the first 5 seconds and greater than 1m/s for the last 5 seconds (because of acceleration). — Michael
Come on, Meta. — Banno
Right, so what does "instantaneous velocity" mean? — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, so what does "instantaneous velocity" mean?
The website says this:
" This is called instantaneous velocity and it is defined by the equation v = (ds)/(dt), or, in other words, the derivative of the object's average velocity equation."
The "derivative" is an approximation which creates the illusion of compatibility between a period of time and a point in time. This is evident from the fact that it is a differentiation. So the "instantaneous velocity", is derived from a period of time, and presented as a point in time. If someone believes that it is a true representation of a point in time, that person has been deceived — Metaphysician Undercover
The instantaneous velocity is whatever it shows at a particular moment in time, e.g. if you took a picture. — Michael
Do you have any expertise in maths or physics? I don't, but I'm pretty sure derivatives and instantaneous velocity aren't just "approximations" and "illusions". — Michael
No matter how you look at it, "instantaneous velocity" is an average, and does not represent a moment or instant in time, in any sense of "true" representation, unless "moment" or "instant" is defined as a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Nice argument Banno. Unsupported assertions are a sign of ignorance. — Metaphysician Undercover
And yet, we can Calculate Instantaneous Velocity — Banno
Causation (i.e, first cause, god, no beginning and no end). The fact that you "start anywhere/somewhere" should be an indicator that you're not dealing with infinity when counting.Where do you think our sense of infinity comes from? It comes from us, i.e., finite beings, we create the concepts using finite signs. We extrapolate based on the continuation of 1,2,3.. that it goes on ad infinitum. There's no mystery here. — Sam26
Sometimes we do talk about infinity. When we do this, we are using finite objects - ink marks and sounds.
So...? — Banno
I'm not following this at all. Are you claiming that we do not talk about infinity? OR that such talk is no more than sounds? — Banno
I would argue that language being about stuff is language's primary, if not it's only, function - to inform, to communicate. I would also say that our concepts are what language is about and our concepts are either about the world or aren't (objective or subjective), and that sometimes it is difficult to impossible to distinguish between the two.Language can be about stuff. It's just that it can do other things as well. This in contrast with what might be Harry Hindu's view - it's hard to tell - that language is only about... — Banno
Only odd if you were the only being in the universe. You wouldn't be using pointers because there would be no need to point to things if you were the only being in the universe.If it is a pointer, it can be used to point to anything.
Which seems odd. — Banno
Now, if you could offer some examples of "language use" where words and numbers are not used to inform or communicate, and does not equate to just making scribbles and noises, then I would be interested in talking about those cases. — Harry Hindu
I wouldn't say that any of these expressions point to or are about anything (in the sense of reference). They may indicate something, but that's not quite the same thing – — Michael
So if numbers are an aspect if counting, and one cant count to infinity, then finitism. — frank
(misquoted)What you mean, is that we calculate with something called "infinity", we employ a faulty representation of "calculate" in relation to the philosophy of rigorous definition, and you falsely assume that this is a true representation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.