Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
Heidegger contradicts de Beistegui in a number of ways. — Xtrix
Think of absolute space and time as understood in past centuries. Those are literal nothing. — Gregory
Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
The process is a continuum. The result is something discrete. — Gregory
It shows there is a paradox in that every object is both finite and infinite at the same time, almost in the same respect. — Gregory
And I asked where when. I m asking you to point out where Zeno proves any such thing. Because I, having read them and of them, am aware of no such thing. So the ball is not in Zeno's court, but yours.Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
Zeno applies the principles of continuity — Metaphysician Undercover
Am I the only one who finds it unintuitive that a line segment can be shrunk for all eternity and never disappear? Just asking — Gregory
What about the forces of nature? Are those "physical"? Newton thought that notion was absurd. Quantum entanglement, curved spacetime. Einstein considered a lot of this "non-physical." Etc. Is language and mathematics physical? — Xtrix
Sounds more like empirical to me, but I take your meaning. — Xtrix
The word "real" is likewise honorific. If we define reality as anything "perceptible" or "physical" or "natural," etc., then we get an answer in one step: reality = the natural. But that only means we have to understand what physical and natural mean, and then to have some idea of what "material," "matter," and "body" mean (including the senses, which are part of the body), and so on. So we're back to the beginning and the topic of this thread. — Xtrix
Well, let's notice right off that you moved the bar from perceived to detected and measure, which are not at all the same — Coben
But in any case the laws themselves are certainly not observed. — Coben
That's very hard to prove and further, are you willing to put in the time to become an expert in things you have decided are not real? And certainly some people both from experience and innate talent have a much easier time. And then last, again, my point was just how common it is that when one person can perceive something this is due to expertise/experience rather than your generalization that this is usually hallucinations, etc. — Coben
nothing. Nor did you respond to the idea of being agnostic — Coben
Just what do you imagine "principles of continuity to be"? — tim wood
f Achilleus stops at every point for any length of time, then he can't get where he's going. It's continuousness that gets him there. But that's obvious, so what do you mean? — tim wood
Indeed he didn't, and that's why Achilleus gets where he's going.Zeno did not say that Achilles "stops at every point". — Metaphysician Undercover
Here's the fault. You apparently imagine that Achilleus gets where he is going because, you suppose, space is not infinitely divisible and continuous, whatever these mean - as if the divisibility or continuity of space had any relevance. Suppose it isn't and suppose it's relevant. You would acknowledge, I trust, that even being just finitely divisible there are still a lot of divisions, so many that it would take Achilleus a very long time to reach his destination. Further, the tortoise covers the same distance without difficulty, which under your argument he should have at least as much difficulty doing as Achilleus. How do you account for the tortoise?The fault here is in the assumption that space and time are continuous and infinitely divisible. — Metaphysician Undercover
Physical laws are as much physical as the objects they obey them for the simple reason that they're perceivable or observable. — TheMadFool
Science is empirical. — TheMadFool
I offered you a definition of physical as that which can be perceived through the senses (and instruments). — TheMadFool
So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought. — Xtrix
Physical laws are as much physical as the objects they obey them for the simple reason that they're perceivable or observable. — TheMadFool
Really? Where? What, exactly, do you mean? — tim wood
That's not what Galileo or Newton thought. But regardless, if those things are all "physical," then anything we can understand is physical. Not much of a definition. — Xtrix
Partly, but not always. It's also theoretical. It involves logic, mathematics, etc. — Xtrix
And what law is that? My point should be obvious, and made more-or-less explicitly by Hume: you don't see laws. You observe what you suppose to be event, and maybe craft up an account of the event that seems to work. The distinction runs deep into what concerned Kant in Hume's own account. That is, the law is a creation of mind, and there's no law that says that what we think of as a law, is the way anything actually works. And indeed, across history people have composed different and differing laws concerning similar events. Aristotle himself is an example of such a person.As the apple that fell on Newton's head
All things, towards the center of gravity, head — TheMadFool
Here's the fault. You apparently imagine that Achilleus gets where he is going because, you suppose, space is not infinitely divisible and continuous, whatever these mean - as if the divisibility or continuity of space had any relevance. Suppose it isn't and suppose it's relevant. — tim wood
Suppose it isn't and suppose it's relevant. You would acknowledge, I trust, that even being just finitely divisible there are still a lot of divisions, so many that it would take Achilleus a very long time to reach his destination. — tim wood
Further, the tortoise covers the same distance without difficulty, which under your argument he should have at least as much difficulty doing as Achilleus. How do you account for the tortoise? — tim wood
2) notwithstanding how divisible the way is or is not, we do routinely get where we're going. . — tim wood
The problem is presented as a problem of spatial divisions in relation to temporal divisions, the distance in space covered in a specified period of time. So the problem is a problem involved with dividing space and time into increments. It would be rather ridiculous to say that the divisibility of space is not relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
Further, the tortoise covers the same distance without difficulty, which under your argument he should have at least as much difficulty doing as Achilleus. How do you account for the tortoise?
— tim wood
Again, this is irrelevant. The degree of "difficulty" is not a factor in Zeno's presentation. What is presented is that it is impossible for Achilles to catch up to the tortoise, not that it is difficult for him to do that. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is, if at every point of division Achilleus paused for the same increment of time. — tim wood
The question was/is, how do you account for the tortoise? And that's just one of many. Given the tortoise has a head-start of any increment at all, how does Achilleus even get off the starting line? What is the distance to the first point that the tortoise got to? And so forth. — tim wood
It might help if you made clear just what your point is. — tim wood
Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
And how is it faulty? Or, rather, it's faulty in Zeno's use, but what is that to us? By the way, when does Zeno use terms like "continuum"? Or even any division of space? Pay attention to the language!Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
Pay attention to the language! — tim wood
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.