Rather, I think it is fragile, it is broken up and annihilated in the flow of becoming. — SaugB
But if you consider yellow as the initial stage and orange as the final stage then there are still transitory phases present. Then we cannot even consider orange as a fixed state.
Sounds like a transposition of Xeno's traversing half of a half of a half... distance with color.
If physics solves Xeno's paradox by pointing to the relationship between distance and time as measured for a moving object, then maybe we can apply it to a color continuum (or perceived changes in color states) in some way. — Nils Loc
Your example of color change reminds me of physical Phase Transition. The perceived shift in color is caused by a change in wavelength, and the gap "traversed" between one peak and another is insubstantial Time. Hence, those frequencies of on-off blinking (max/min; yes/no; something/nothing; positive/negative; hot/cold; energy/entropy; potential/actual) are increments of Planck Time. So there is no physical "substance" in between color states --- just the Potential for being, that I call Intention, Causation, Time in action.But, when 'this' becomes 'that,' it traverses something in between, such as when the color yellow becomes red it traverses orange. And whatever is traversed is not the end-point of that becoming, by definition. So, how do we attribute existence to that traversed thing — SaugB
Hence, those frequencies of on-off blinking (max/min; yes/no; something/nothing; positive/negative; hot/cold; energy/entropy; potential/actual) are increments of Planck Time. So there is no physical "substance" in between color states --- just the Potential for being, that I call Intention, Causation, Time in action. — Gnomon
Everything starts out continuous and ends discrete — Gregory
But the problem is why does any process of becoming end where it end and not end before? For me, it has to be because of some fragility to the transitory phases, and not because they are 'elusive.' — SaugB
So, how do we attribute existence to that traversed thing, ie, in our example, the orange between the yellow and the red? — SaugB
Peter Lynds had a paper published in the Foundations of Physics Letters some time back in which he proposed there are no instants of time. — jgill
And how do we attribute existence to the moment in time at which that color exists? Does time flow in a continuum of instants? Or does it exist only in intervals? Bergson argued that time as we live it is in duration (durée réelle), and time for science is a matter of instants - allowing for the freezing of time for purposes of calculations, like instantaneous velocity. So the existence of "a traversed thing" is equivalent to an instant of time. — jgill
But even when we think that it is broken up and not completely annihilated, it is still hard to see how it participates in a flow of becoming as one single thing, which it has to be, because the entity that was yellow was one single thing and the entity it becomes, ie, a red entity, is also one single thing. So, it is one entity when it is yellow, and unless it breaks up when it is orange, and then reassembles to become red, it is difficult to see how yellow becomes red via any process. — SaugB
...but why does orange 'give way' even after it has become visible in a particular yellow-to-red flow of becoming? — SaugB
The Planck scale is the birth of the dialectical contrast between the reversible and the irreversible as an actualised physical reality. So Bergson was right about durations. Or if we are to talk about point-like "instants", then we have to recognise that they must already have this internal dialectical structure. An instant already marks the point where irreversibility AND reversibility have just entered the world as "a thing". — apokrisis
I've assumed it had more mundane characteristics in terms of light traveling a tiny distance and the four universal physical constants. — jgill
I assume your first sentence above refers to an inability to measure below certain limiting dimensions. — jgill
I think you are also viewing red as a final stage but it can also be a transitory stage. Everything is ever changing. — philosopher004
But it doesn't actually exist on the electromagnetic spectrum. There is no magenta wavelength. — Bird-Up
What happens when you ask the story of how yellow turns into blue? Why does it have to pass through white to get there? — apokrisis
The 'it' in your t-shirt case might refer to the t-shirt.I think they can't be different entities because only their color changed but their essence of being the same t-shirt is not lost.We can say, "It was yellow. It is blue." but are we really talking about the same "it" in both those sentences? Wouldn't their difference in color be the defining mark that would make them different entities? — SaugB
In my hypothesis, that intermediate "duration" between energy peaks and valleys is not Time, but Timelessness ( a state that cannot be measured in Planck units). Again, that notion is too complex, and too far above my pay grade to explain in a forum post. And the math necessary to pin it down is beyond my untrained abilities. Besides, these Ideal notions are merely incidental to the purpose of my thesis, which is to understand, in a layman's overview, how & why the Real world works as it does : to dispel the mysteries.But is it not true that given there was a duration, no matter how short, between the hot entity staying hot and then becoming cold, something actual happened in that duration to that entity? — SaugB
I think of that traversed thing as not so much elusive ... Rather, I think it is fragile — SaugB
Your question sounds like Zeno's Paradox. He assumed that the "gap" traversed between any two steps in a race (movement in space & time) is infinitely divisible. Hence, motion (and Time) is impossible. If so, are our experiences of those distinctions illusory? Are we just imagining Space & Time? Is Change even possible?We have heard the philosophy that everything flows [eg, Heraclitus]. But, when 'this' becomes 'that,' it traverses something in between, — SaugB
Therefore, like Einstein, I suspect that the solution to the stated problem depends on your perspective --- it's all relative. The paradox results from the assumption of Infinities in the Real world. But the physical solution is found, only if you ignore idealistic Infinity. So, are asking for an Ideal answer, or a Real answer? :nerd: — Gnomon
I believe that even when some middle phase is very evident and visible, but it gets traversed, there has to be some explanation as to why it gets traversed — SaugB
Whenever humans conceive of a continual progression as a series of steps, they implicitly digitize a whole system. For example, as someone pointed out above, the color spectrum is not inherently divided into the conventional colors of the rainbow. Instead, we tend to standardize "separate" colors for our own analytical purposes. Hence, the increments are somewhat arbitrary and relative to the perceiver. Is "Becoming" inherently a sequence of discrete stages, or is it hacked by humans into smaller segments for the sake of understanding the "elusive" middle?Rather, I was thinking of why, in any process we call 'becoming,' where there are at least three phases, with two end-points and a middle point, the middle phase gets passed over or traversed. Is it because it is elusive, as if in a sense it was never there? — SaugB
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.