Regarding the Question of Elapsed Time

D

dwood7755

Registered Member
arial14black

...the question has been asked... if a person was to turn on a light and then,1/2 of a second later, turn off the light, then, 1/4 of a second later, turn the light on, again, and then, 1/16th of a second later, turn the light off, again, and then, 1/32nd of a second later, turn the light on, again, and 1/64th of a second later, turn the light off... and, so on and so forth,,, after one minute of elapsed time, would the light be on or off ?!?!...

Many a layperson and scientist and mathematician and physicist, alike, have attempted to answer this question... and, all resulting in composing their answers with regard to the light, itself...

Some have said that the light would be on... while, some have said that the light would be off... some have said that the light would be, niether, on or off,,, while, some have said that the light would be, both, on and off...

The flaw lies with respect to the question about the light... and, all of the corresponding answers... concerning the light, itself...

In reality, the answer should be with regard to time, itself...

The truth of the matter is that if you keep splitting your time in half, every step of the way... you will never reach a full minute of elapsed time... you will, always and forever... infinitely, so... be turning the light on and then off, again... for all eternity... as, you will never reach that minute of elapsed time...

Therefor, the question of whether the light is on or off, becomes moot... the reality is all about the answer of time and how it becomes infinite...
 
Id say on because you have merely 24 fps and therefore it would appear to be on at all time.
 
arial14black

...Once, again... Dilbert misses the point !!! Everyone, so far has expressed, only so much, as his or her, flawed "opinion" !!! ...

The scientific and mathematic reality is that the full minute can never elapse in its entirety if one continues to divide each frame of time in half.

Dilbert's reply consists of a "24 frames per second" reply... but, how can you have "24 seconds per frame", when a full second of time can never elapse ?!?!... DUH !!! That's the trick in the queastion at hand...

The question cannot and should not be about whether the light would be on or off... or, even as to what our perception of the light would be... the light is irrelevent...

TIME IS THE RELEVENT ISSUE, HERE !!!

A full minute of time CANNOT ELAPSE... if one continues to cut one's response time in a continuing half amount !!!

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE UNDERSTAND ?!?!
 
Missed the point?

It is so bloody simple that nobody wishes to answer it, we all learned that in kindergarden.
 
Your statement of the problem is physically impossible. Mathematically, you can split time intervals in half as much as you want, but not physically. Even if you can make a light switch respond as fast as you want, at some point you will hit quantum mechanical limitations.
 
When i replied with the limitations of clock cycles he called me a fool. When i wrote it mathematically i was apparently still a fool. When i said that the human eye cannot observe it (24 f/s) then i was apparently an even larger fool.

dwood7755 isn’t the brightest IMHO.
 
Dilbert... don't attribute to me, words that did not write... for, I never wrote that you are a fool... however, you persist in your convoluted thinking of the light switch... as though, that would be the relevent issue... whilst, it is not and never has been...

Pertaing to this issue... it matters not the speed of light... but instead, that a single minute cannot pass if continually sliced in half for an eternity...

Mathematical formuli, aside... you persist in misunderstanding the the irrelevance of the original question...

"TIME" is the important dimension, here... "an infinite amount of time"...
 
Sheesh guys. This is a simple reformulation of Zeno's paradox. You can never reach your stated goal (distance, time, etc.) if you continuously break it up by half the remaining units. If you start this process, you will be cycling the light in ever finer steps, leading to an eternity contained within less than a minute. I think that was dwood7755's point. Clearly this is a practical impossibility (as mathman stated) due to QM limitations.
 
The question was stated "after one minute of time" would the light be on or off. The fact is that the number sequence does not have a 1 to 1 mapping with physical reality - a finte switching rate. It is physically impossible to switch at an infntie speed so whatever the physical limitations of the switching rate then at some point the halving of timee process for the next switch position would extend into the 1 second window. If the switching specifications were provided to Delbert I am sure he would provde the calulations indicating the only rational answer.

Because it is a simple heads or tail proposition it will depend on what the first switch did that is # 1, and the calculated position when the 1 second time expires and whether the last completed switch is odd or even.Assume 1 is off heefore all even numbers on. If the mod #/2 = 0 the switch is on (is mod the test for zero remainder in division by 2?).

geistkiesel

Geistkiesel
 
I admit I havent read any but the original post, but realize this. It is a paradox. Such as the one with the runner who must complete half the distance between where he is and where hes going. He should logically never get there, but in reality he would finish the race (assuming he isnt dead). So truthfully youve stumbled upon an ifinite series that will never be answered, but if you wanted to include human error there might be a correct answer because it would have included the fact that after a minute it would need to be either on or off. So chose your answer the man who never finishes or the man who finishes with limited accuracy...
 
Isn't this just Xenu's paradox or something?

Ah... I see SL is way ahead of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top