zeno's paradox of the arrow considered:
in this paradox, Zeno states that a flying arrow is motionless, for assuming time consists of instants, in each instant it occupies a certain space only and is considered at rest, and therefore the popular notion of motion is impossible.
now the general conclusion from zeno's paradoxes of motion is that time and space are not infinitely divisible, therefore that the infinitesimal has no real existence and belongs only to the abstract fields of mathematics.
again, let everything that is be called matter. it is matter that fills space. and we consider space to be finitely divisible. the simplest theory is that this matter is made up of a finite number of individual least bits of matter, each only one thing to be considered, and the smallest distance is the size of the smallest least bit of matter.
what time is, fundamentally, is change in this matter. and we consider change to be discrete, if time is not infinitely divisible.
what Zeno states is, in my opinion, entirely on the right track. if we see an object move across our field of vision, what is happening in front of us is that, pixel by pixel, the image is shifting one pixel across, in moments, to merely give the illusion of motion. because we consider change to be discrete, time does indeed consist of instants. at any one instant, for the whole of that instant, only one state of a least bit of matter holds, and in the next, it is suddenly another.
CLEARCHARGE
Showing posts with label motion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motion. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Quantum of Change
quantum of change:
Zeno's paradoxes make use of mathematical theory of continuous numbers and the infinitesimal to put the case that motion is but an illusion. as discussed before, the key to understanding here is that continuous numbers are purely theoretical, they are not real!
now motion may be an illusion, if motion is thought to be the actual movement of an object or body maintaining its integrity or identity as it moves in the "external world", if the "external world" itself does not actually exist and we are all "brains in a vat". then such movement is merely the function of our eyesight, that is, the image of an object or body is copied to adjacent pixels and we see what only seems to be motion. however that was not zeno's point, i believe.
there are two questions here, one is about infinitesimal space, and the other is about infinitesimal time. the paradoxes arise when we consider the concept of the infinitesimal to hold. posit that there is indeed a minimum distance that has real significance in reality and that nothing smaller should be considered, that is, the size of the littlest least bit of matter, uniform throughout, that experiences individual change. there should then be no smaller "real" distance. can we use the general conclusion that the infinitesimal is not real enough when we think about change? for when we talk about time we are really talking about change. but what do we mean by change? yes, it is a difference in the same thing! therefore there are two things to be considered here, what it was, that is, the state it was in, and the difference. a difference means a sudden change! change is sudden! if we consider the infinitesimal to hold then logically a discrete change is in itself impossible and one second would never become the next second!
what could be true is the concept of quantum of change, that is, there are discrete "steps" of change. you can think of life like a movie's film negative, with 24 frames a second. but how is it that if, like continuous numbers, continuous change with an infinite number of "instants" is not real, it is so easy to think of? like somehow, something is always changing, so it is continuously changing, something like that. however, continuous change is not that easily definable or explainable, in a strict sense, as is discrete change, and there is the example of a movie's film negative. posit that the truth is always more explainable, with more real life examples, than something that is not true, a falsity. such we hope!
CLEARCHARGE
Zeno's paradoxes make use of mathematical theory of continuous numbers and the infinitesimal to put the case that motion is but an illusion. as discussed before, the key to understanding here is that continuous numbers are purely theoretical, they are not real!
now motion may be an illusion, if motion is thought to be the actual movement of an object or body maintaining its integrity or identity as it moves in the "external world", if the "external world" itself does not actually exist and we are all "brains in a vat". then such movement is merely the function of our eyesight, that is, the image of an object or body is copied to adjacent pixels and we see what only seems to be motion. however that was not zeno's point, i believe.
there are two questions here, one is about infinitesimal space, and the other is about infinitesimal time. the paradoxes arise when we consider the concept of the infinitesimal to hold. posit that there is indeed a minimum distance that has real significance in reality and that nothing smaller should be considered, that is, the size of the littlest least bit of matter, uniform throughout, that experiences individual change. there should then be no smaller "real" distance. can we use the general conclusion that the infinitesimal is not real enough when we think about change? for when we talk about time we are really talking about change. but what do we mean by change? yes, it is a difference in the same thing! therefore there are two things to be considered here, what it was, that is, the state it was in, and the difference. a difference means a sudden change! change is sudden! if we consider the infinitesimal to hold then logically a discrete change is in itself impossible and one second would never become the next second!
what could be true is the concept of quantum of change, that is, there are discrete "steps" of change. you can think of life like a movie's film negative, with 24 frames a second. but how is it that if, like continuous numbers, continuous change with an infinite number of "instants" is not real, it is so easy to think of? like somehow, something is always changing, so it is continuously changing, something like that. however, continuous change is not that easily definable or explainable, in a strict sense, as is discrete change, and there is the example of a movie's film negative. posit that the truth is always more explainable, with more real life examples, than something that is not true, a falsity. such we hope!
CLEARCHARGE
Sunday, June 17, 2012
On Numbers and Motion
on numbers and motion:
there is Zeno's paradox of motion that holds that travel from one point to another is impossible mathematically for if you were always to travel half the distance again from that just covered you would never arrive. although theoretically possible, could infinitesimally little numbers simply not be real? if we assume space is finite, we could not even write an infinitesimally little number down, there is not enough room!
but what is motion as assumed in this model? that an object really moves from one place to another relative to a fixed spatial location! the other view is that everything has a fixed spatial location, nothing can truly move. what we see, which i think could be agreed upon, is that there is a fluid change of the pixels of our eyesight which shows the object's recognizable configuration flowing across our visual range. this is just the same as what happens on a television except in 3 dimensions. therefore if only what we see is real and not based on any material world where the objects truly exist beyond our senses, we could conclude that motion is only virtual and the conventional model is false. i feel this a fundamental argument in metaphysics.
just as infinitesimally little numbers are not real, can we apply this reasoning to distance in space? everything that exists, let us call it matter, is in its own fixed space. surely an infinitesimally little distance is not real either? there are differences in matter. matter adjoins other matter. therefore, we can reason that, in isolation, neighbouring matter, by definition, is different matter, for if it were the same or subject to the same changes over time, surely you could not argue that it is indeed another separate bit of matter. we could reason that the littlest distance that matters is the size of the littlest bit of matter. it would seem obvious then, just as infinite space is impossible, that an infinitesimally little bit of matter could not exist.
CLEARCHARGE
there is Zeno's paradox of motion that holds that travel from one point to another is impossible mathematically for if you were always to travel half the distance again from that just covered you would never arrive. although theoretically possible, could infinitesimally little numbers simply not be real? if we assume space is finite, we could not even write an infinitesimally little number down, there is not enough room!
but what is motion as assumed in this model? that an object really moves from one place to another relative to a fixed spatial location! the other view is that everything has a fixed spatial location, nothing can truly move. what we see, which i think could be agreed upon, is that there is a fluid change of the pixels of our eyesight which shows the object's recognizable configuration flowing across our visual range. this is just the same as what happens on a television except in 3 dimensions. therefore if only what we see is real and not based on any material world where the objects truly exist beyond our senses, we could conclude that motion is only virtual and the conventional model is false. i feel this a fundamental argument in metaphysics.
just as infinitesimally little numbers are not real, can we apply this reasoning to distance in space? everything that exists, let us call it matter, is in its own fixed space. surely an infinitesimally little distance is not real either? there are differences in matter. matter adjoins other matter. therefore, we can reason that, in isolation, neighbouring matter, by definition, is different matter, for if it were the same or subject to the same changes over time, surely you could not argue that it is indeed another separate bit of matter. we could reason that the littlest distance that matters is the size of the littlest bit of matter. it would seem obvious then, just as infinite space is impossible, that an infinitesimally little bit of matter could not exist.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Motion Illusion
the motion illusion:
as we know in our dreams, changes in place can be abrupt, for suddenly we are somewhere else as if we had teleported there. and so instead of the whole construct that we are moving around on top of a planet Earth in a 3D universe, we should consider the opposite view, that we remain fixed in position, we do not move relative to our surroundings, but the scenery we are so beguiled by moves relative to us. logically there are only two theoretical possibilities.
that people are in motion relative to the surroundings, however, is the theoretical model we have held since day one, that the surroundings are stable and two points are always the same distance from each other and that travel one point to another occurs in an unbroken line.
imagine a model of a series of 2 rooms in which this 3D logic breaks down. there are only 2 rooms with 3 doorways, one at the end of room A, one between rooms A and B, and one at the end of room B. the traveller walks from the end of room A through the doorway between rooms A and B to room B, all according to 3D logic. however when he or she passes through the doorway at the end of room B, he or she finds himself or herself back at the end of room A. now imagine a whole complex of rooms with different rules for which room leads to which room and back again. what if the rules then become unstable and you are never sure which room leads to which room?
in a situation where such 3D logic breaks down, it leaves only the theoretical case that motion in the conventional sense is but an illusion, that we never move at all.
CLEARCHARGE
as we know in our dreams, changes in place can be abrupt, for suddenly we are somewhere else as if we had teleported there. and so instead of the whole construct that we are moving around on top of a planet Earth in a 3D universe, we should consider the opposite view, that we remain fixed in position, we do not move relative to our surroundings, but the scenery we are so beguiled by moves relative to us. logically there are only two theoretical possibilities.
that people are in motion relative to the surroundings, however, is the theoretical model we have held since day one, that the surroundings are stable and two points are always the same distance from each other and that travel one point to another occurs in an unbroken line.
imagine a model of a series of 2 rooms in which this 3D logic breaks down. there are only 2 rooms with 3 doorways, one at the end of room A, one between rooms A and B, and one at the end of room B. the traveller walks from the end of room A through the doorway between rooms A and B to room B, all according to 3D logic. however when he or she passes through the doorway at the end of room B, he or she finds himself or herself back at the end of room A. now imagine a whole complex of rooms with different rules for which room leads to which room and back again. what if the rules then become unstable and you are never sure which room leads to which room?
in a situation where such 3D logic breaks down, it leaves only the theoretical case that motion in the conventional sense is but an illusion, that we never move at all.
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)