T
thinkandmull
Guest
You don’t believe infintie regress is possible?
- Status
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Oh, now you have put me to work! It is a long article. Please, let me have a look at it.
**Time! **Please, think about the following: You have an analogous clock to measure the time it takes for an object to move a distance L. What are you doing? You are simply comparing the movement of the object with the movement of the clockwise.
Where is time then?
Time is nothing but a relation, an intellectual operation that you perform considering at leat two movements.
So, the divisibility of time is just the divisibility of movement.
Best regards!
JuanFlorencio
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Dear Thinkandmull:
I think a fundamental mistake that the author of your article makes is that he thinks of movement as an infinite series of individual finite movements. If that were the case, he would not be able to state examples similar to the one about Achilles run. He artificially says that after 1/2 an hour Achilles is in another status. But obviously before 1/2 an hour it would be necessary to consider Achilles status at 1/4 of an hour. But before 1/4 he would need to consider 1/8, and before that, 1/16, and so on, in such a way that he would be unable to describe any status subsequent to the first one.
Best regards
JuanFlorencio
I think a fundamental mistake that the author of your article makes is that he thinks of movement as an infinite series of individual finite movements. If that were the case, he would not be able to state examples similar to the one about Achilles run. He artificially says that after 1/2 an hour Achilles is in another status. But obviously before 1/2 an hour it would be necessary to consider Achilles status at 1/4 of an hour. But before 1/4 he would need to consider 1/8, and before that, 1/16, and so on, in such a way that he would be unable to describe any status subsequent to the first one.
Best regards
JuanFlorencio
B
Bahman
Guest
What you are learning now about series is in fact an infinite regress. It says that that there exist a set with infinite elements S={s0,s1,…} where the sum is finite and the elements are defined by a rule (read it causality) s1=L(s0), s2=L(s1), etc.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Whether you think of it as an “infinite series of individual finite movements” or an “infinite series of individual infinite movements”, infinite points are still passed over. The article tries to argue that you can do this in finite time, but that’s unnecessary, since all time is infinite, as infinite as a segment
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The other issue I was struggling with is that the Hypotenuse of a right triangle, when parallel to one of the other sides, is longer. So when you draw the one to one correspondence, the longer segment would have more points. But with the triangle, when you draw the correspondence from the Hypotenuse to one of the sides, you seem to get a one to one correspondence again.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Hi Thinkandmull!,
Please, start drawing the one to one correspondence and you will observe the following: every time you draw a line you will divide both the Hypotenuse and the other side in the same number of parts, but the parts of the hypotenuse will always be longer than the parts of the side. You can go on forever, and it will always happen the same thing: same amount of parts on both segments, but longer in the hypotenuse.
The division process will never end for any of the two segments, and it is what we mean when we say that both infinites are comparable (one to one). In other words, you will never finish the division in the smaller segment before you finish it in the longer one.
Kind regards
JuanFlorencio
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That accords with my explanation I gave at the beginning. I also said:
**Now, if the diameter of a marble can be crossed, why cannot we reach the prime matter of half of the marble, for Aquinas says in his article on ‘whether there can be an infinite magnitude’ that by division we approach prime matter. The trick is that it is three dimensional and it ‘full up’ in a way that goes behind space. **
I’m having trouble getting at what I’m thinking here, but do you have a different explanation?
As for the Zeno thing, as I awoke this morning I thought “what if, instead of walking straight to the door, I first went half, PAUSED, than half, pause, half, ect.” Would I ever get to the door. Its so strange! This is because I am getting ever closer to it, but moving forward less and less so it seems that I can but will never reach the door.
**Now, if the diameter of a marble can be crossed, why cannot we reach the prime matter of half of the marble, for Aquinas says in his article on ‘whether there can be an infinite magnitude’ that by division we approach prime matter. The trick is that it is three dimensional and it ‘full up’ in a way that goes behind space. **
I’m having trouble getting at what I’m thinking here, but do you have a different explanation?
As for the Zeno thing, as I awoke this morning I thought “what if, instead of walking straight to the door, I first went half, PAUSED, than half, pause, half, ect.” Would I ever get to the door. Its so strange! This is because I am getting ever closer to it, but moving forward less and less so it seems that I can but will never reach the door.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
If you really were able to do so (reducing the size of your step to half the previous indefinitely), you would never reach the door. It is just a matter of getting used to it. Sometimes we may believe that a conclusion is absurd just because we cannot think it. But the reason for our inability to accept the conclusion might be that we do not have some elements of the premises in our repertoire. Once you get those elements, the conclusion becomes “natural”.
Concerning the approach to prime matter by successive division of a body, I tend to think differently. I would say that as long as you have something that can have any interaction with something else it is not prime matter yet. And when it cannot interact anymore, then it is out of your reach (because to be reachable is to be able to interact).
As for something infinite in magnitude, it could be our universe. At least I cannot conceive it within limits.
Regards
JuanFlorencio
T
thinkandmull
Guest
But if you are approaching something that’s not moving, you must eventually get there
I am not really perplexed much by the paradox, although I’ve thought about it ever since high school. I think of a stick figure “man” trying to understand three dimensional reality. Or a “fish” in a tank which was given by God only two thoughts and no others: that there is a good God, and that suffering is real. The fish could naturally assume that reason is not fit to know anything, and yet it could never refrain from thinking of one or the other of the ideas it was given. Perhaps there are like two sides of our minds, and that when seeing the physical world, we see it with two different sets of principles, and only in the next life with we see all the dimensions together. If our minds were different, adding 3 plus 3 could equal 73, but there would be a totally different function going on in our brains, instead of how it is now, that is, putting two mental quantities exactly together. If we thought with this new function at the exact same time we use our current function of mental math, we would feel as if there was a contradiction in reason itself, which is impossible.
I still claim Aristotle was wrong. You are moving the same way if you just cross the segment and stop for a second at each half point. The time is difference, not the motion-what you pass over
I am not really perplexed much by the paradox, although I’ve thought about it ever since high school. I think of a stick figure “man” trying to understand three dimensional reality. Or a “fish” in a tank which was given by God only two thoughts and no others: that there is a good God, and that suffering is real. The fish could naturally assume that reason is not fit to know anything, and yet it could never refrain from thinking of one or the other of the ideas it was given. Perhaps there are like two sides of our minds, and that when seeing the physical world, we see it with two different sets of principles, and only in the next life with we see all the dimensions together. If our minds were different, adding 3 plus 3 could equal 73, but there would be a totally different function going on in our brains, instead of how it is now, that is, putting two mental quantities exactly together. If we thought with this new function at the exact same time we use our current function of mental math, we would feel as if there was a contradiction in reason itself, which is impossible.
I still claim Aristotle was wrong. You are moving the same way if you just cross the segment and stop for a second at each half point. The time is difference, not the motion-what you pass over
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
As soon as you make your decision, you get there. But if you follow you procedure it is because you don’t want to reach the door.
Actually it is not a paradox.
Strange thoughts! Still…
The apostles had some breads and some fish, but there was a lot of people. Jesus asked them to put them together and distribute them among the multitude. Everybody ate, and the apostles needed several baskets to put the leftovers. Do you mean something like this? I think it is possible; but not for me. Whenever I put two breads together they remain two, no matter what procedure I follow. It does not have to do with my mind; it is that I don’t have the power. So, I have to conform my expectations to what is possible for me.
Concerning the impossibility of contradictions in reason… It is not impossible. You need a set of axioms to start reasoning. But your life has so many aspects that you need more than one set of axioms. You have several of them. And if they are not homogeneous, you will eventually find contradictions in your thoughts. That is pretty common.
You might say, “but I am not talking about individual reason which can err, but about Reason”. It would mean that a unique set of homogeneous axioms could form the basis for a universal and homogeneous comprehension of the entire reality. I am far, but far, far, far from such Reason. I guess it is the Glory of God.
Wrong? The great Aristotle? The one that invented Logic, and wrote about mechanics, optics, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, psychology, politics, economy, zoology, botany, astronomy, poetry, rhetoric, and I don’t know what else?.. Yes! I think he must have made many mistakes. I wish I could be able to make at least half of them.
Do you think time is some kind of entity of the same class as my table? (I know Blue Horizon says it is almost empty space, but as my books and my computer are much bigger than neutrons, that empty space is enough to support them safely; so, it is of no concern to me).
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Time for me is like wind was for the ancients
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
For the Ancient Greeks? Do you mean time is everything for you? Air was considered the arche.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
From the start of the universe time has existed. How long has your table been around?
B
Bahman
Guest
Time is simply the continuation of our experiences hence it is mental/subjective rather than physical/objective. The existence of physical time implements that things are connected.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Well…, I have one which was there before I was born. It isn’t old enough, right?From the start of the universe time has existed. How long has your table been around?
However, I was not asking if time and my table have always “coexisted”, but if Thinkandmull considered time as an entity of the same class as my table.I guess “time” arose as a secondary topic here, but if the original discussion were about it, I would say “first was the creation, and only until human beings were created time appeared”.
Best regards!
JuanFlorencio
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The universe is supposedly about 14 billion years old. Time was created with it, so I think it’s a bit presumptuous that time was not created until men were created. Don’t you?
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
I will bring Aristotle here just because he said brilliantly what time is. He said: “time is ‘number of movement in respect of the before and after’”. I think we would use the following words: “time is the measure of change in respect of the before and after”.The universe is supposedly about 14 billion years old. Time was created with it, so I think it’s a bit presumptuous that time was not created until men were created. Don’t you?
In other words, time is not an entity that could have been created “at the same time” as the other creatures. It is not an entity at all! But when man was created, it was possible for him to measure change in respect of the before and after. That is how time appeared. If it sounds presumptuous, please don’t blame me; I wasn’t there!
JuanFlorencio
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Time as an invention of man can be said to exist when man came into being. Man measures time by the rising and setting of the sun in hours, minutes, days, months, years, aeons.
But that is an invention of a way to measure time, which already existed as a dimension of reality. We shouldn’t conflate the measurement of a thing with the thing itself.
Time exists and has been measured. If time did not exist, there would be nothing to measure. Past, present, future are not mere concoctions of the human mind. They are facets of reality. It has been well said that time exists, because if it did not exist, there would not be anything to stop all things from happening at once … in other words, pure chaos.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Dear Charlemagne!,
Time is not some thing that you measure; time is the measurement of something (change).
Or, have you measured time? How do you do it?
Now, I am not saying that time does not exist. What I say is that it does not have the kind of existence that my table has. While my table is an element of interactions, time is a relation.
regards
JuanFlorencio
- Status