Motion is an illusion?, Zeno's paradox
-
If suppose an object is to move from one point to another, then it would have to pass through an infinite set of points in space. And knowing all motion across a corresponding set of points require time to accomplish, then the object would have travelled from one such point to another in zero time. This contradicts with the knowledge that motions take time. So in conclusion, we aren't really moving by our own definition?
hell yes? -
kong simi lanjiao
later tio flame again then u know
dun come kpkb to me. -
i don't t hink i did anything now to instigate flaming,much less ytd early morning.
u didn't quite do your job bout those gals....
anyway those who dosen't understand can just leave this topic alone. -
ayyy.. yr caps lock can turrn off one ah? last nite i tght yr keyboard spoil...
-
Actually he makes a bit of sense.Originally posted by Dongseng:If suppose an object is to move from one point to another, then it would have to pass through an infinite set of points in space. And knowing all motion across a corresponding set of points require time to accomplish, then the object would have travelled from one such point to another in zero time. This contradicts with the knowledge that motions take time. So in conclusion, we aren't really moving by our own definition?
hell yes?
Unfortunately, you're still wrong. You shouldn't think of infinite as zero, or any form of recurring value that cannot be placed anywhere in real life. It would be the same as saying that 0.99999.... is not equal to 1, which it is.
You're implying that if Point A to Point B has a distance of zero, then whatever the speed taken, time to travel is still zero. Problem is splitting an absolute value into infinite sections does not make each section zero, thereby proving you wrong.
Thanks, and hope if it helped.
edit for spelling -
i hate you and i don;t like ur helpOriginally posted by PointBlue:Actually he makes a bit of sense.
Unfortunately, you're still wrong. You shouldn't think of infinite as zero, or any form of recurring value that cannot be placed anywhere in real life. It would be the same as saying that 0.99999.... is not equal to 1, which it is.
You're implying that if Point A to Point B has a distance of zero, then whatever the speed taken, time to travel is still zero. Problem is splitting an absolute value into infinite sections does not make each section zero, thereby proving you wrong.
Thanks, and hope if it helped.
edit for spelling -
i read that entire thread and im sure i banned the right person..
and by ur attitude in this thread, i wun be surprised if i have to do it to u again........ -
kns say sorry to me now!Originally posted by Dongseng:i hate you and i don;t like ur help
-
not amusingOriginally posted by PointBlue:kns say sorry to me now! -
bai bai you going to tio ban!Originally posted by Dongseng:not amusing
-
why can i break free from losers.
why cant u just leave me alone.
u do't happen to hit on me do you
puke* -
*sniffs a clone* sounds like one particular rude thread starter who hurl abusive insults at other forumers during yesterday's early morningOriginally posted by Dongseng:i don't t hink i did anything now to instigate flaming,much less ytd early morning.
u didn't quite do your job bout those gals....
anyway those who dosen't understand can just leave this topic alone. -
Zeno came to that conclusion--that motion was an illusion. In that, I would say he is correct. But Zeno did not, to my knowledge, come to that conclusion concerning the state of rest. Perhaps motion is not fluid but discrete--like frames of a film running in chronological and rapid sequence which produce the illusion of motion. So all objects can only exactly occupy the space they occupy (i.e. they are at rest) at any given instant and therefore have no space in which to move. Likewise, the "instant" we refer to can be infinitely refined but there comes a point in which the object has no time which to move, in which to act. The object is then annhilated in the next instant only to be replaced by a very similar but not exactly identical replica. Each succeeding instant gives rise to an extremely rapid succession of these spatial/temporal replicas that we then intrepret as a single object in motion.
But this interpretation has a major flaw, if events occur in slices of space and time in which there is no time to act or space to act in, how does one then discern motion which is, in fact, an act--the act of discerning? How does discernment occur where there is no space or time in which to act? It cannot and yet it undeniably does.
So what is motion? To have motion, we must have a body to be placed in motion, space for the body to traverse, and the motion of the body. If you take away one, the others cease to be intelligible or to have value. But are mover and motion separate entities? The mover the object and the motion the transitive attribute? The motion is nothing more than the object itself. Motion is unintelligible without a mover. But are motion and the mover the same? How then do we distinguish them? How can we NOT distinguish between an object in motion and an object at rest? Motion is neither identical to the mover nor separate from it.
A body in motion is nevertheless at rest at any given point-instant of its motion. It divides space into that which has already been traversed and that which has yet to be traversed. There are no other categories. There is no space being traversed to place in between the other two because that is merely where the object sits at a state of rest where it does not have the space to move. What gives space any distinction at all between that which has been traversed and that which is yet to be traversed is the arising of motion itself.
Yet, how does motion rise? When does a body begin to move? When it is moving? No, it is already moving. When does it START to move? Before it is in motion? No, because it is not yet in motion. When does a body BEGIN to move? When does the motion arise? It doesn't. But that is not to say that motion doesn't arise because then we could not distinguish space and matter which are intelligible only when motion completes the trinity. Motion arises and yet it doesn't.
Just as there is no category of "space being traversed" there is no point at which motion arises--a body is either in motion or it is not.
So, as Zeno postulates, there is no motion only rest? No. The same critique applies to rest as applies to motion. When a body in motion ceases its motion and comes to rest, at what point does the body BEGIN to rest? When it stops? No, it is then already at rest. When does it BEGIN to rest? Just before it stops? No, it is still in motion then. When does it begin to rest? It doesn't. And yet we distinguish a body at rest from one in motion and so there must be moment at which rest arises.
Moreover, if there is no motion, there is no rest and vice versa. One exists only by being differentiated from the other. One without the other is unintelligible. Without an independent existence, neither state can be said to be intrinsically real.
Therefore, motion AND rest are illusions.
sounds like it -
well u have to ask those troublemakersOriginally posted by Phoebie:*sniffs a clone* sounds like one particular rude thread starter who hurl abusive insults at other forumers during yesterday's early morning
i hate it when tards come and play a fool
for me,i don't appreciate it -
now back to topic
those who flame me before are not suppsoe to partake -
I was on topic when you decided to flame me.Originally posted by Dongseng:now back to topic
those who flame me before are not suppsoe to partake
Good job for demonstrating idiocy.
-
i'm not going to swallow my pride and call it quits because of what happened ytdOriginally posted by PointBlue:I was on topic when you decided to flame me.
Good job for demonstrating idiocy.
naive kid -
".. it would have to pass through an infinite set of points in space."Originally posted by Dongseng:If suppose an object is to move from one point to another, then it would have to pass through an infinite set of points in space. And knowing all motion across a corresponding set of points require time to accomplish, then the object would have travelled from one such point to another in zero time. This contradicts with the knowledge that motions take time. So in conclusion, we aren't really moving by our own definition?
hell yes?
Infinite set of points? I think it means is that there is no definite number of sets you can obtain by assigning the points. For example, 1 set of points is that from point A to point B has 3 points in between. Another set could be 5 points in between. And another would be 123 points in between and so on till infinity number of sets. It is the number of sets that is infinite and not the amount of points in between. Because, for every set, the number of points are fixed. -
So why flame me when I was answering your question seriously? Ha? Tell me! Answer the question!Originally posted by Dongseng:i'm not going to swallow my pride and call it quits because of what happened ytd
naive kid -
ur in my black listOriginally posted by PointBlue:So why flame me when I was answering your question seriously? Ha? Tell me! Answer the question!
so even when ur asnwering my topic,i will have something against you
because i have no wish to have my enemies disucssing topics with me -
but I think calculus is able to derive a larger "picture" by the infinitesimals because the infinitesimals themselves are not actually 0. However this paradox brings up the issue of moving from one "point" to another, and a single "point" as we know it has no spatial dimensions. I'm just not sure whether we can say each point is not arbitrarily identifiable because it has no spatial dimensions. If affirmed, then moving from 1 point to the nearest point would indeed take 0 time because the distance covered is 0.Originally posted by dinky1409:".. it would have to pass through an infinite set of points in space."
Infinite set of points? I think it means is that there is no definite number of sets you can obtain by assigning the points. For example, 1 set of points is that from point A to point B has 3 points in between. Another set could be 5 points in between. And another would be 123 points in between and so on till infinity number of sets. It is the number of sets that is infinite and not the amount of points in between. Because, for every set, the number of points are fixed.
which makes me question how is it related the the "sets" u have mention -
Why am I in your black list? This is my first time talking to your thread. So why?Originally posted by Dongseng:ur in my black list
so even when ur asnwering my topic,i will have something against you
because i have no wish to have my enemies disucssing topics with me -
why do u keep talking about this thread.Originally posted by PointBlue:Why am I in your black list? This is my first time talking to your thread. So why?
i'm not doen with alot of people who provoke me in the other thread and that includes you who have your share of fun.
please know that i'm hating u with relations from the other disturbance u gave me
I've already answer u
don't start with me -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWv8krmwjs8
the above video most probably show how this threadstarter is behaving in front of his computer screen -
old stuff
seen it and post it
and sorry,wrong assumption
i don't go round wacking my stuff not stomp the floor.
i keep my anger inside so i can trash ur whore head when i see you