But no typo's? — bongo fury

* typos

haha :ok:

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

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.

That's because you confuse stopping a particle at a specific time and observing a particle at that time. Don't forget momentum. — jgill

One cannot observe an object at an instant in time. An observation occurs over a period of time. I don't see how "momentum" is relevant. Remember the uncertainty principle?

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

That sentence refers to the v = s/t formula.

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).

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

Come on, Meta.

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

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

Come on, Meta. — Banno

You seem to be one of those someones, who has been deceived by the smoke and mirrors.

Yep. Along with all the physicists and engineers and mathematicians since Newton.

Right, so what does "instantaneous velocity" mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine you're driving and you watch the speedometer go up and down as the car speeds and slows. The instantaneous velocity is whatever it shows at a particular moment in time, e.g. if you took a picture.

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

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".

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.

The instantaneous velocity is whatever it shows at a particular moment in time, e.g. if you took a picture. — Michael

Even taking a picture occurs over a period of time. A camera is not capable of stopping the clock at a point in time, to show how things would appear at that point.

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

Do you know what a differentiation is? It requires two distinct descriptions of the same changing thing. Therefore the possibility of a single point in time is excluded.

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

Sorry, Meta, that's just wrong.

Nice argument Banno. Unsupported assertions are a sign of ignorance.

If you guys don't give up your inane arguments, I'm going to have to start referencing the uncertainty principle. You wouldn't want that would you?

Nice argument Banno. Unsupported assertions are a sign of ignorance. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet, we can Calculate Instantaneous Velocity — Banno

What meta is suggesting is approximation of velocity is truth when it's just sufficent. Complete misunderatanding of the 1.

1 has it's beauty, it's not this represention we have of it, detrimental to all and stupid.

A real complexity of the mind is shown here. If we can make ourselves stupid by believing in 1, what is the sense of good?

How 1 math is used results in incorrect measure of velocity, but it is sufficent complementory when such building a portofolio.

That's what I understood from this thread.

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

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.

Ever looked into a mirror that is across the room from another mirror, like in a dressing room? What about a circle? The Greeks were the first to mention infinity as a boundless system. Aristotle argued that there was no actual infinity, only potential infinity, which I interpret as imagined infinity.

So, what does counting, and numbers - of which only a finite number have ever been written or conceived, or used, have to do with a conceptual paradox we call, "infinity"?

What you mean, is that we calculate something called "instantaneous velocity", which employs a faulty representation of "instantaneous" in relation to the philosophy of rigorous definition, and you falsely assume that this is a true representation.

Ever wonder why physicists cannot determine the position and momentum of a particle at the same time (uncertainty principle)? Perhaps you ought to consider that it has something to do with the principle I'm arguing, the mathemagician's representation of velocity at a point in time is not at true representation.

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

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

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.

So, we can talk about infinity like we can talk about God or talk about Queen Elizabeth. When it comes to "infinity" we're not sure whether it's only a concept or a fundamental feature of reality (or potential vs. actual infinity as Aristotle put it) just as we're not exactly sure if "Big Bang" refers to any real event that occurred before the existence of beings to conceive it and use scribbles and sounds to refer to it.

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.

If it is a pointer, it can be used to point to anything.

Which seems odd. — 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.

The fact that we live with others that have views of the world like we do, but might have false beliefs, or missing views that you have, gives us reason to point to things to inform, to communicate. But we have to agree on the pointers to use and what they point to. Different cultures use different pointers to point to the same thing, which is what we are translating when translating languages - what the pointers are pointing to.

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

When I'm at home alone, playing a game and losing, I often shout out "for fuck's sake". I'm not informing or communicating with anyone. It's an expression of frustration, much like laughing is an expression of happiness and crying is an expression of sadness. 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 – talking fast indicates that I'm in a hurry, but that doesn't mean that my words refer to the fact that I'm in a hurry.

@Banno

So if numbers are an aspect if counting, and one cant count to infinity, then finitism.

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

But if we reflect that what a word refers to or is pointed at is never a matter of fact anyway, but is one rather of interpretation, theoretical parsimony then strongly argues against the easy option of distinguishing as many varieties of meaning as we might have different words for. Obviously no two of these kinds will ever be quite the same thing.

The argument isn't just about theoretical desiderata and separate from the subject-matter: the behavioural interactions we are discussing depend on agents' anticipations of each others' interpretations, so we are theorising about theorising (about...).

And so I applaud @Harry Hindu's objection here to the habitual distinction of expression and exhortation from description. My attempt here.

To expand a little: since no bolt of energy (nor any more subtle physics) connects uttered word to object, we (interlocutor or foreign linguist or even utterer) are perhaps entitled and perhaps required to interpret the utterance as pointing, in various degrees of plausibility, not only a presently uttered token but also the "word as a whole" at (not only a present object but) some kind as a whole, and then by implication as also pointing not-presently-uttered but semantically related words at related objects and kinds. In other words, any speech act offers a potential adjustment (or entrenchment) of the language in use, so that the extensions of related words are shifted in related ways.

Hence utterances that vent frustration can also offer (directly or indirectly) potential adjustments to the extensions of words ("patient", "skilful" etc.) that might or might not point at Michael.

And hence also Harry's and my other examples as linked above.

I will give my opinion on 1 and all the numbers in general.

Number 1 as a symbol on the screen is free from all meaning. We ourselves give meaning to it and see it as a representative of something that we might imagine 1 is pointing towards. Why would number one have any inherent value? Also, we can't exactly count objects in the universe. Is atom one or made up of lots of smaller parts? Where do we put a boundary between one object and another object? We can't use numbers to simply quantify some objects without having complete knowledge of what that object is.

So if numbers are an aspect if counting, and one cant count to infinity, then finitism. — frank

That's a bit too fast, but in being wrong, might be the gist of what is going on. It's worth talking to a child about infinity to see the change in thinking as they realise that for any number they construct, someone can make a bigger one; they say "a squillion billion", you say "a squillion billion plus one". Then the confusion when they begin to realise that "infinity plus one" is still infinity. The game changes before them.

So they come to realise that for every integer there is a bigger integer, and despite that we can talk about all the integers. It's the sort of recursion that recurs in maths.

Picture a child saying "but you can't talk about all the integers...

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

(misquoted)

...and claiming finitism.

So the rule is that for every number, one can add one. The rule only generates one new number. One has to see the rule in a different way in order to understand infinity: imagine a number bigger than any number the rule could generate...

______________________
Anther way to approach it that the rule "For every number, you can add one. to make a bigger number" is not generating all the numbers, but only the integers. We can find infinity by calculating 1 divided by 3, as a decimal; or by asking what number times itself makes 2.

_______________________
SO we learn how to count, and then we learn how to do other things with counting.

So you want to argue that all utterances can be given a propositional content - perhaps*.

But the salient point is that some utterances do other stuff as well.

(*Attributing propositional content to "Hello" seems excessive...)

we can't exactly count objects in the universe — Don Gas

Well, that's not right, is it? We count things all the time.

Picture a child saying "but you can't talk about all the integers... — Banno

A finitist has no problem with speech about infinity. The spaceship travels on forever. The reading on the odometer is always finite. That's all.

Where's @Nagase ?

I'm not at all sure were you are going with this.

I'm not sure you understand what finitism is if you think it precludes talking about infinity.

It doesn't. It just doesn't allow talking about the infinite as if it's finite (IOW set theory).