Remember that the maths was developed to deal with idealised point objects. So the Zeno-style paradox of jumping to the first next point to get moving is an artefact of that maths. — apokrisis
If we took the arrow in flight analogy. I do want to freeze frame it, just like the paradox. But I want to swap it out for an arrow that is not in flight:One that I pull out of my quiver. When I release time again, the swapped out arrow will drop lifelessly to the ground while the in flight arrow will continue its flight. — MikeL
As both arrows are identical in appearance, it is my contention that the difference between the two arrows must have to do with a difference in the energy fields of the atoms within the arrow. Could it be that an asymmetry in the energy field of an atom (pulling all the energy fields in a singular direction like a magnet) is creating the motion. — MikeL
If we can accept this assumption then we can elaborate on it further to say, an initial change in the direction of the energy field creates acceleration. The restoration of the energy field thereafter maintains a velocity at the point of release, a further tug will cause further acceleration.
That being said, I can envisage a futuristic programmer typing a value and direction of the energy field into an object and causing it to spontaneously leap into a state of acceleration. — MikeL
Being able to switch the balls. I'm not sure if being able to divide motion in such a way is possible, but the thought experiments exist. — JupiterJess
If we took the arrow in flight analogy. I do want to freeze frame it, just like the paradox — MikeL
I do not believe it is possible possible to develop an ontologically sound metaphysics that is premised on divisibility of duration and motion. It's a brick wall and you are inviting in all kinds of problems, infinities, infinitesimals, and paradoxes, etc. But as an exercise, go for it. Learning is by doing. — Rich
The mind divides motion for practical purposes which is why the mind invented symbolic representations. It is a way of freezing so multiple minds can share. — Rich
The problem is, that to have an ontology which has the capacity to act as the basis of an epistemology, it is required that the ontology is premised on the divisibility of duration and motion, contrary to what you state here. — Metaphysician Undercover
which are required by the fundamental laws of logic, — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem applies to the movement of any object. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is in the mind is some memory of the event, also stored as an interference pattern outside of the brain in the holographic universe. — Rich
You are confusing a problem of maths with a problem of reality. Calculations break down when they arrive at a singularity - a point of circular self-reference. But that's just calculations for you. Don't conflate the map with the territory. — apokrisis
Ontology describes what is and how one derives knowledge varies. — Rich
Science at times may require divisibility for practical problem solutions, but such efforts have nothing to do with the ontological underpinnings. — Rich
The universe is indivisible, but humans, for various practical reasons have developed symbolic representations that can be manipulated as if it was divisible. There are no boundaries between this and that. It is a complete continuum. There is no such thing as the beginning and end of something. — Rich
We derive knowledge from others, so our principles of communication dictate how we derive knowledge — Metaphysician Undercover
It is a division between what has been (past) and what may be (future). — Metaphysician Undercover
food and eat it without eating the entire universe — Metaphysician Undercover
That was Newton's very great genius. He knew what to leave out when everyone else - like Aristotle or Descartes - was saying you couldn't possibly. — apokrisis
Sharing it ideas is helpful in providing direction and clue, but ultimately one must rely on direct observation and intuition. This is how the Daoists accumulated their vast knowledge. Without direct experience too much is lost including that which cannot be communicated in any fashion and certainly b not via words or math. — Rich
No such division exists. It is a continuum. The division is artificial since duration continues without interruption. Call it b what you wish, it is all arbitrary with no hard boundary. It is for this reason that any symbolic approach will utterly fail and the search for truth and facts will equally fail. All is in continuous flux and cannot be frozen. You can try but then the infinities and infinitesimals will start popping up all over. — Rich
Try finding the boundary between the fruit, you, and the universe. Impossible. But keep trying. — Rich
But observation is dependent on words. To observe is to "notice", or take note of what is happening. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is this very attitude which you refer to, the attitude of leaving things out, because predictions can be made without resolving these little paradoxes, which moves us forward into a realm of misunderstanding and self-deception. It is self-deception because some believe that because predictions can be made, the phenomenon is understood, and others such as yourself seem to believe that understanding the phenomenon is unimportant so long as predictions can be made. But the philosophical spirit does not stop with the pragmatic of making predictions, it is the desire to understand. So things which appear as unimportant to the pragmatist, which one might be inclined to "leave out", are very important to the philosopher, because unraveling these little problems, these little paradoxes, is like working on a little puzzle which hides the mysteries of the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover
For the time being though: Motion is relative, which is a good thing, because on both arrows I placed a tracker that is recording all the atomic information of the arrow. To the tracker the arrows are not in motion. The tracker is beaming information to a teleporter which through the trackers activates the teleportation of both arrows. When they materialise at the new destination I suspect the arrow in motion will continue to fly while the other won't. Is this a feasible work around for the pointilism vs continuous problem of time? If so, how can we account for the movement of the arrow in flight, or do you think they will both drop lifelessly to the ground? — MikeL
. But referring back to the individual is inconsistent with your fundamental principle that there is no boundaries and therefore no individuals. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you claiming that the present, as the division between future and past, is an artificial division? — Metaphysician Undercover
I have no problem finding a boundary between the fruit and the rest of the universe. This boundary is what allows me to pick up the fruit and move it this way and that way, in relation to other things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Symbolism is not required to observe. What is required is memory of the observation. — Rich
However, I think the issue of thinking about the mysteries of inertial motion could perhaps be fruitful to science - it's a "boundary" issue between science and philosophy, I would say. — Jake Tarragon
The future is an image in memory (the past) of some possible actions (Bergson's virtual actions). — Rich
The boundary is a cloud. — Rich
If I understand then, your question is how does the arrow get from one point to the next. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since the memory, is not the occurrence itself, then the memory is a symbol of the occurrence and memory is symbolism. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree, and believe there are many such boundary issues. Resolution of these issues requires speculation and hypotheses (philosophy), as well as empirical trials (science). — Metaphysician Undercover
. A real boundary between X and Y would consist of something which is neither X nor Y, but prevents the two from mixing. The piece of fruit, does not mix with the surrounding air to become a homogenous thing because the chemistry of these two keeps them separate. — Metaphysician Undercover
The nature of time, and the issue of continuous versus discrete motion, which MikeL appears interested in, is one such key issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've been thinking a lot about your pointilism problem, and it seems like an easy fix. First, here's what I think the problem is. Between each interval there are an infinite amount of intervals. So 0.9 can become 0.99 can become 0.999 but never reach one. In a nut shell is that it? That an infinite amount of time would be required to transverse the infinite number of intervals? — MikeL
If so, the easy fix would be to make time a quanta. Give it a fixed value, then you can summate it.
Yes? No? — MikeL
There is no boundary here. There is a gradual and not so gradual fall off in substantiality or compactness if energy. Food moves from substantial to unsubstantial via the digestive process which begins with the bite. What is left behind is still embedded in the energetic universe that surrounds us. It is a continues flow like a cloud forming rain (insubstantial to substantial) and the rain then melting into the ground. Never a hard boundary in this process of conversion. — Rich
I think the root issue of the OP is not about discrete vs continuous motion per se, rather it is motion itself - and I think MikeL has sort of acknowledged that. It's something that "bothers" me from time to time - the way I phrase it is "what the heck is the difference between two objects that move differently besides the motion itself?" Psychologically speaking, it seems that there should be some way of knowing the velocity of an object (moving in an inertial reference frame, for the sake of simplifying) by isolating the object and getting "intrinsic" information from it. This "information" would represent a "cause" of the motion. The object moving in space would be the "effect". — Jake Tarragon
A gradual boundary is still a boundary, and I think you are speaking nonsense calling this a "compactness" of energy. The energy cannot be compacted unless something compacts it, and this would be the boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is a difference between continuity of substantiality and boundary. A wave is continuous with no point of demarcation. — Rich
But "wave" refers to an activity of a substance, and that substance must consist of particles, and space between the particles in order that the wave can move. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have to say this, but such a description is anachronistic Newtonian. While I don't agree with Whitehead's analysis, on the basis of quantum mechanics and his own studies of Bergson, he did endeavor to eliminate the notions of particles and space and such and replace it with processes (activities). One way to think of electrons are as wave perturbations (large amplitudes). Such electrons do not occupy a definite space or time but are in constant in and out flux. This marries well with current understanding of particle theory. — Rich
But it is wrong to refer wave-like things as an example of what a wave is, because these things aren't waves, they simply have some wave-like characteristics.. — Metaphysician Undercover
If one wishes to begin to form some sort of image in their mind of what the nature of nature might be, one must begin to think of the substrate as a continuity of wave forms as opposed to particles separated by .... what? — Rich
There are no points and there are no boundaries. — Rich
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.