Half, and half again...

[Spectrum]

Originally posted by Nasor
Do you believe that 1/3 = 0.333...?
Do you believe that 3 * 1/3 = 1?

But within the mathematics problem before us never do we multiply a third by three: we add 1/4 to a half, and then 1/8th to that, and then a 1/16th, and then a 1/32th, and then a 1/64th, and then a 1/128th, and then a 1/256th, and so on. This is just as we do not simply add two halves together (as posted by Communist Hamster):

Indeed, And what if you add 1/2 and 1/2? It equals 1

Nameless, I have looked at the links provided and cannot find anywhere that explains how movement is impossible. Does it relate to Eistein's theory of special relativity, or shall I search for Max Planck info.? Perhaps I haven't read the links as fully as I should have, but I'd be interested in reading more on the actual theory.

 

[cato]

the reason 3*1/3=3*.333...=1=.999... was brought up was because the argument for movement depends on being able to reach a finite number by approaching it at infinity.

nameless, the professor was probably just trying to cover his butt. can you, or this prof, prove that .999... is not 1? it has been proved that it does and until that proof in invalidated, .999...=1.

moreover, Occam's razor (an important tool when explaining the universe) states:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

basically, it says that we should not choose a more complicated theory when there is a simpler one to explain the same phenomenon. so, even if the theory you present is just as valid (which you have failed to show) it is not as simple as assuming things do move. therefore, we should assume things do move.

the links you gave do not explain in enough detail how things can't move. moreover, you still have to mathematically prove Zeno right, i.e proving .999... != (does not equal) 1

 

[nameless]

But within the mathematics problem before us never do we multiply a third by three: we add 1/4 to a half, and then 1/8th to that, and then a 1/16th, and then a 1/32th, and then a 1/64th, and then a 1/128th, and then a 1/256th, and so on. This is just as we do not simply add two halves together (as posted by Communist Hamster): Nameless, I have looked at the links provided and cannot find anywhere that explains how movement is impossible. Does it relate to Eistein's theory of special relativity, or shall I search for Max Planck info.? Perhaps I haven't read the links as fully as I should have, but I'd be interested in reading more on the actual theory.

First, I'd suggest reading the links more thoroughly (one that leads in the right direction seems to be, "Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime" ie;

Julian Barbour
"My ideas about time all developed from the realization that if nothing were to change we could not say that times passes. Change is primary, time, if it exists at all, is something we deduce from it."

(Dr. Barbour not only knows that time is but an evolution parameter derived from change, he denies the existence of a time dimension in which we are moving in one direction or another. I recommend Dr. Barbour's book "The End of Time" to anyone interested in these issues. In my opinion, Dr. Barbour does not go far enough. I hope the title of his next book is "The End of Space and Time."
Also check out his his other book "Absolute or Relative Motion" and A Talk With Julian Barbour.)

Mark William Hopkins wrote:
Nothing moves in spacetime. Motion is an object (namely: the worldline)
in spacetime. All verbs are nouns.
Of course, according to the special and general relativity
(as formulated in textbooks) nothing moves in spacetime.

etc... (From the links) Read and enjoy the journey.

Another interesting conversation; String Theory Discussion Forum
[ String Theory Home ] [ Forum Index ]
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, Forward or Backward

Just google up "impossibility of motion" (lots of Zeno stuff, which is not nearly as powerful as the rest; also look up "impossibility of time" as they are 'co-dependent'. Without one, the other is impossible and there is lots on the "impossibility of 'time'"!)

Another interesting paper is;
The Unreality of Time
By John Ellis McTaggart

What time is it?

One more interesting paper is;
The Time Percept
Or, If a Clock Ticks in a Forest and No One is Around to See it, Does Time Still Pass?
Daniel J. Burdick
excerpt;

"Time is the most elusive physical element. Despite familiarity with the concept, time is difficult to describe. Time is always the underlying assumption in our descriptions of the universe. In physics, it remains the largest barrier to the unification of relativity and quantum theory; some physicists believe time will have to be dismissed altogether if that unification is to occur (1). In more common experience, time appears to be an immutable and often lamented truth; who hasn't wished to "have more time," or to be able to "go back and do it over?"

There are some excellent links here, too.

This stuff is just a bit of fodder for YOU to draw your own understanding. The rabbit hole is deeper than you could possibly imagine.

Is 'paradox' not evidence that there is something wrong with the equation somewhere?

As for time, I think that it is a meme, and an 'assumption'! Have you personally directly experienced any evidence of 'time'? Have you ever experienced the past? "Hiya folks, I am standing here in the 'past' (or 'future'?)!" No one has. All one can 'experience' is the moment of Now. Memories and imagination and thoughts make our concept of 'past' and imagination and fantasy form a 'future'. The only experienced 'existent' is Now. And the Planck NOW is timeless! All else is illusion and fantasy. No time, no motion.

For instance, if 'time' is an impossibility, 'movement' would perforce be impossible as time is required for motion to happen. Time/motion/space are all intimately related, inseperable. No 'time' would also indicate that space itself is impossible as it would require a 'certain amount of time' to 'exist', like what we consider 'matter' (which would require 'time' to actually 'exist'! Look up the impossibility of 'time'. There are many referrences, and if time is impossible... matter, motion, space, etc.. are also impossible as they are all predicated on 'time'!

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!"
*__-

 

[nameless]

it is not as simple as assuming things do move. therefore, we should assume things do move.

the links you gave do not explain in enough detail how things can't move. moreover, you still have to mathematically prove Zeno right, i.e proving .999... != (does not equal) 1

Actually, I do not have to prove anything. Think and research and think and synthesize, etc.. for yourself!
But that is, of course, not necessary when you choose to live by assumptions, 'beliefs'. <spits in dust>
Always error if one is interested in Truth.
Actually, I do not think that you truly studied all the reference material I provided, with an open inquisitive mind. Perhaps you are too locked into your.. 'assumptions'. Silly! Assumptions...

It definitely takes more energy (a limited resource at best) to doubt and question than to 'believe' and accept 'ass-umptions'!
You are asking to be spoon fed. If really interested, do the work. Otherwise,..
Believe what you like.

 

[cato]

firstly, I could not find one link that explained why nothing moves. I assure they don't really mean that nothing moves, I think they mean that there are 4 parameters which change WRT (with respect to) each other, and nothing moves through spacetime, things merely change with respect to it. that does not imply Zeno was right.

secondly, you are the one making the claim that is against the norm. the burden of proof is on you.

thirdly, existentialism has no place in physics. Descartes realized that existentialism cannot prove anything useful. it all reduces to "I think therefore I am".

if you cannot prove to us that Zeno was right, than you are just a fool who is misinterpreting what modern physicist say. at the moment, Zeno's paradox has been proven wrong. unless you can prove otherwise, this discussion is over.

 

[nameless]

"firstly, I could not find one link that explained why nothing moves."

Perhaps the lack is yours?

cato, you win.
You've found me out, I'm "just a fool".
Have a nice night.

 

[Nasor]

the reason 3*1/3=3*.333...=1=.999... was brought up was because the argument for movement depends on being able to reach a finite number by approaching it at infinity.

You know, now that I think about it - it doesn't even matter whether or not 0.999... exactly equals 1. All that matters is that you can sum an infinite set of discrete values and produce a non-infinite value. Whether you want to call it 0.999... or 1, either way you don't get an infinite result.

 

[Spectrum]

True, Nasor.

 

[nameless]

Here's a delicious read regarding;
Zeno's paradox, quantum physics and relativity.
Motion is still impossible!

 

[Communist Hamster]

Then come up with a model of the universe that does not require motion.

 

[Pete]

That's right, nameless. Motion, and if fact all change, is impossible.

*shakes head*
*walks away*

 

[nameless]

Then come up with a model of the universe that does not require motion.

I already have a rather good one, both explanitory and predictive. I developed it over decades of foundational research and creative thought. With all that foundation from many disciplines converging 'here', it isn't difficult for me to understand (for the most part) my present perspective. I think that if I just offered you the punchline without your having an understanding of the 'foundational' support, you will do what comes natural. The mind treats a new idea like the body treats a new protein; it rejects it. Automatically.
Have you even read the whole link that I immediately above provided?

That's right, nameless. Motion, and if fact all change, is impossible.

*shakes head*
*walks away*

*rolleyes*:

Yes if motion is impossible, it is obvious that all apparent change is also impossible.
Obviously you are either too lazy, or attached to your own beliefs (or both) to even have read the aforementioned link. You are obviously ignorant of quantum physics, and and most (if not all) other disciplines. There is nothing wrong with having your own opinion, but, whyn't you try reading the link? An informed opinion can be more useful, perhaps, in the long run,eh?

Be careful about shaking your head, rolling your eyes and walking away at the same time.
You'll probably fall down.
*__-

Last but not least, you are asking for conversation on a variant subject than this thread. If you'd like to discuss 'motion' start a thread and I'll drop in.

 

[Pete]

Obviously.

How can I fall, if movement is impossible?

How can we have this discussion, if change is impossible?

You *obviously* have something quite different in mind from the rest of the English speaking world when you say "change" and "movement".

 

[nameless]

Obviously.

How can I fall, if movement is impossible?

How can we have this discussion, if change is impossible?

You *obviously* have something quite different in mind from the rest of the English speaking world when you say "change" and "movement".

Pete, you are arguing naive realism, which has been thoroughly refuted. Naive realism is basically accepting how your mind interprets the input of the senses as an accurate descriptor of some sort of reality 'out there'. Appearances are always deceiving and believing them to be reality is delusion. The link that i provided is not really that difficult and the differential equasions can be brushed aside for the moment. Go ahead and read it. Not that I aggree with everything on the page, but I think that he states his case very nicely. I'm not going to paraphrase the whole thing. If you really are interested in understanding and not just interested in wasting our time, read the damn thing! *__-

I will offer this 'food for thought', though;
Imagine a movie reel with all those still shots (cells) on that long tape. Now, cut every 'cell' apart from the next one and mix them all on the table, randomly.
These are all the Planck moments of 'existence', quanta (QM), resultant of collapsed quantum 'probability/possibility' waves within the Quantum Wave Field, Mind!

Now, give each of a certain group of 'cells', in a certain sequence, your 'conscious attention'. What you now have is your movie; an 'apparently' seamless flow of motion/action in a temporal matrix telling a 'meaningful' story in a 'logical' manner.
All 'moments' are consciously accessible and 'awareness' goes where it does (whether randomly, volitionally or a combination of the two).
There is nothing 'between' the moments 'attaching' them one to the next other than 'memory'. Our memory sees the 'cells' and deletes the 'space' between them (perhaps, fills it in like in animation), thus giving the illusion of motion and 'time'.
One could just as well access them in a completely random order, or a 'different' order and be living in a completely different 'universe'.

Or access a few moments that would appear in a 'future' of a particular 'movie'. We called that prophesy and thought it unnatural and even involved gods and spirits. Now we have a simple context and explanation for such a relatively common 'phenomenon'. Dejas vous along similar lines. The only 'thing' that 'moves' (and not really moving then, as consciousness already 'is' in each moment, NOW!)

Want some ice cream? Access the moments that contain your appropriate self image and ice-cream in a certain order. Or, perhaps, access a moment where you have an empty ice-cream cone in your hand and an appropriate memory of having eaten the ice-cream. Theres some on your shirt! *__- You'd never know the difference.

Actually, the only possible act of volition is 'choosing' the 'next' (language problem) moment of which to become Consciously aware. All exist simultaneously though. There is no 'succession' of anything. No 'time'.

Actually believing the sensoro-mental hologramic 'evidence' of your memory of a dream of existence is accepting an awful lot of assumptions. Ultimately, such 'belief' is fallacious delusion. Like believing the common sense evidence of the sun orbiting the earth, or the earth being the center of 'the' universe .

All the 'cells/moments' exist, simultaneously, in/as Planck moments. The only 'thing' that 'moves' is 'conscious awareness'. A Planck moment, by definition, is too short to be of 'time', to 'short' to have duration.
Time is necessary for motion. Time is an illusion derived from paying attention only to a specifically ordered group of 'cells', and then thinking about them.

"A memory that goes in one direction only is a poor memory indeed!" -Red Queen to Alice

I can go on for a long time pointing out how this hypothetical scenario explains precognition, deja vous, empathy, remote viewing, and many other ill explained phenomena.

Well, if this bit of crude analogy doesnt provide you with some food for understanding, even a bit, of my perspective, then you aren't interested, aren't trying to understand or just aren't a free thinker.

You *obviously* have something quite different in mind from the rest of the English speaking world when you say "change" and "movement".

No, I just realize that the 'motion' and 'change' to which I refer in day to day conversation is nothing more than illusion, a 'trick of the light', a fiction, not 'Real'. I play 'make-believe'.

With respect for this thread, I won't go into this anymore here. Start a new thread if you are really interested.

 

[Spectrum]

It seems to me that the impossibility of motion being described comes from the argument that we are so small in comparison to the universe, and our life-span is so small relative to the length of time, that 'any motion' is closer to zero than to one, so it may as well be described as zero. I also think this is how it ties into the thread title.

Incidentally, Duendy, you commented on another thread that my threads don't amount to much because of the size of my posts (that they are too small), but here is a thread in full flow. So, (not that I really pay much attention to what Duendy posts.)

 

[nameless]

Spectrum, interesting perspective. No, that wasn't where I was coming from, but that is an 'original' perspective, I think! There's that 'convergence' thing again... The fellow did mention it (convergence) on that site.

 

[cato]

nameless,

this is no new theory, they just threw QM in it and repackaged it. in Plato's time it was called the allegory of the cave.

however, if it does not provide any better prediction of things, or phenomena, it is completely useless. I explained before how useless theories should be discarded.

are there any consequences of your theory that could not be explained by a more "classical" theory?

 

[nameless]

Why bother with me, cato, I'm a fool, remember? To continue with me must mean that you, too, are a fool, as only a fool will waste their time with another fool. I won't. Your ill-informed and ignorant opinion is what is useless. If you still are a devotee of classical theory, enjoy your outdated ignorant world-view, you certainly have a large support group! You are in no position to learn anything, here. You arent a productive part of the bar-B-que, here, you are a mosquito. Swat!!! Bye bye.

 

[cato]

I said IF it has no use, and then asked what it's use was. can you provide me with it's use?

your insults bounce off me like so many ping pong balls. moreover, if you read them with an English accent, it sounds like monty python.

 

[Pete]

Pete, you are arguing naive realism, which has been thoroughly refuted.

Of course it has! But your language implies that you simply do not believe it yourself.

If it was "refuted", this implies a change from a state of "non-refuted" to a new state of "refuted".

So, was there ever a time when realism was "unrefuted"?

You refer to me walking away and shaking my head, as though these are potentially real actions. Are they?


Your position is a sham. It is implicit in your language that you do accept the actuality of movement and change.