Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
  Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as FattyC)
Posts: 120/135
Donated $1.00
(27-Jan-2004 at 17:09)


Zeno's Paradoxies

ATTENTION: FOR THIS DEBATE, PLEASE BE PHILOSOPHICALLY INTELLIGENT

This is a philisophical debate, so you CANNOT use common sense as proof, unless you can tell me what common sense is. No philosopher can.

Here is the issue; the existence of time.

Zeno broke down the elements of time into Past, Present, and Future.

Past is the culmination of events that do not exist anymore, things that have already passed.

Future is the culmination of events that will or could happen, and still do not exist.

So then, what is present?

Any moment in time can be devided into half; the half that has happened, and the half that hasn't. Therefore, any amount of time can still be split into half, refuting that idea that "the present" exists.

Furthermore, he disproved change. Any amount of distance can be devided, and so you have an infinitismal amount of distance that would have to be traveled. That refutes the idea that you can travel from one point to the next.

An example would be an arrow. For an arrow shot form point A to go to point C, it has to pass through point B. But in between points A and B is point C, and so on and so forth, so that the arrow has to pass an infinite amount of points.

And time has to pass an infinite amount of moments. And we know that infinite cannot be reached, ever.


Ideas and thoughts?
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PHRACK Add PHRACK to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1435/8194
(27-Jan-2004 at 17:34)
Re: Zeno's Paradoxies

Quote:
(Originally posted by FattyC)
And time has to pass an infinite amount of moments. And we know that infinite cannot be reached, ever.

Ideas and thoughts?
Back in Zeno's days people had a bad grasp of infinity, that was his excuse. What is yours?

An infinite amount of infinitely short moments can very well pass in a finite amount of time. Differential calculus is based on it. Actually the Greeks knew something about how to do this, Archimedes solved some problems that way, but they never got comfortable with the idea, insisting that you had to go back to "classic" geometry to really prove a relation.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 1487/3863
(27-Jan-2004 at 18:04)


We are defining the term "present" here... why does the present need to be something entirely seperate and diffrent from the past and future?

Think of it as two identical semi circles, one is past the other future, put the semi circles together and you have a circle, or the present.

Maybe the present is merely a term to describe the near past and the near future without needing to use two diffrent tenses.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 154/200
(27-Jan-2004 at 18:20)
I'd like to think that present is something that *is* going on right *now*. You cannot measure it because by the time you want to start measure it is already too late...hmm

Even in The world of black and white, there's always grey.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Zippikay Add Zippikay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 355/2231
Donated $14.28
(27-Jan-2004 at 19:37)


Re: Zeno's Paradoxies

Quote:
(Originally posted by FattyC)

ATTENTION: FOR THIS DEBATE, PLEASE BE PHILOSOPHICALLY INTELLIGENT



An example would be an arrow. For an arrow shot form point A to go to point C, it has to pass through point B. But in between points A and B is point C, and so on and so forth, so that the arrow has to pass an infinite amount of points.

And time has to pass an infinite amount of moments. And we know that infinite cannot be reached, ever.


Ideas and thoughts?
Wow, crazy, I was just discussing this today in my physics class with my teacher trying to tell him that you can not get infinite, or reach it just because of that reason.


The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Tack Add Tack to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old Ann
Posts: 53/57
(27-Jan-2004 at 19:58)
the present

- the present is the cumulative of past and future.
- the moment when future and past interact
- things in the past create the present and the present+past create the future,
so the present is the moment that the past creates a new future


hmmz interesting
#6  
View Public Profile Visit Ann's homepage Find more posts by Ann Add Ann to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 167/1288
(27-Jan-2004 at 20:30)


Re: Zeno's Paradoxies

This sounds VERY familiar to what I was trying to say once in the religios thread. I just did it in a lot more words.

Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

Here is my theory. I know it is flawed because I BSed most of it and when you find a fault in it, please point it out.

The big bang is not a sufficient explanation for the beginning of the universe. Theory holds that the big bang occurred without cause and from nothing. One might ask, “What came before the big bang?” There is no explanation save that time is caused by the big bang. Therefore it can’t be logically said that there was a “before” or a “beginning” to the universe because these terms are describing time. There was no time before there was space. In Einstein’s theory of relativity, time and space are inter-related.
There is support for a universe without cause in quantum physics. It occurs on an atomic level. Particles such as electrons are chaotic and are really “clouds of probability” rather than the orbital electrons you would learn about in high school. This chaos of probability shows us that particles can disappear and reappear at random. They can also change their direction or movement pattern at random. This is all thought to happen without cause. It is believed that because of the small size of these particles, physics act differently. Thus, Quantum physics. If these particles can be so chaotic, then why can’t the universe come from nothing without cause? This theory is something I can’t tolerate. I believe these things do have cause and nothing is chaotic. Just because we don’t know the cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Cause and effect is universal law. Effect cannot occur without cause.
My theory is that there was no beginning of the universe. It has always existed and always will exist. I will prove this by first proving my views on time and space. Einstein has shown us that time and space are relative to each other (Space-Time Continuum). Without one, we can assume the other one does not exist. If one is infinite, the other is infinite.
Time is nothing but measurement. If time is not measured, it does not exist. How can one describe how long a unit of time is unless it is compared to another unit of time? How do you tell how long a second is without first knowing it’s relation to a minute? What about a minute to an hour? Etc. There must be comparison to comprehend measurement. A second when cut in half, yields a half a second. Cut in half again it is a fourth of a second. It is possible to cut time in half indefinitely and never reach where time is equal to zero. If time can be indefinitely small, it can be indefinitely large. Thus we see time is infinite. No matter the given unit of time. Another way to view time is to not measure it at all as I stated before. So we are left with two possibilities. Either time is infinite or time does not exist. If time does not exist then it cannot be a factor in Einstein’s theory of relativity. There fore space-time does not exist. The same logic can be given to space as it is given to time. You can likewise cut a measurement of space in half indefinitely. We can now conclude one of the following is true. Both time and space don’t exist, (This is absurd because we can see for ourselves that we exist right at this very moment.) or time and space are infinite.
This disproves the idea that the universe has a beginning. All that begins must have an end. Nothing can have a beginning and no end or it is still infinite. Anything infinite cannot have beginning. It is proven that element cannot be destroyed. It can only be changed. If element cannot be destroyed, how can it be created? The only way to have the universe end is to have an “anti-big bang”. Where suddenly, and without cause, element, space and time are “blinked” back out of non-existence much the same way the universe first “blinked” into existence. The fact that you are here right now proves that this cannot happen because such an occurrence must be outside of time. This conflicting beginning and ending of the universe is not possible. Why? Because any event that does not have a probability equal to zero and given an infinite amount of time, will and must happen. This means that all possibilities have happened and will happen unto infinity. How can an infinite amount of possibility be constrained to a beginning and ending universe? Therefore the universe is infinite. In short, all time is an eternal “Now”.
All space is an eternal “I am”.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')

Last edited by MAPS, 27-Jan-2004 at 20:34.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 1489/3863
(27-Jan-2004 at 23:48)


Re: the present

Quote:
(Originally posted by Ann)

- the present is the cumulative of past and future.
- the moment when future and past interact
- things in the past create the present and the present+past create the future,
so the present is the moment that the past creates a new future


hmmz interesting
I don't know if anyone has read K.J. Parkers recent novels... Memory, Shaddow and Pattern I beleive they are called. Anyhoo, part of the storyline involves an order of Sword Monks. A religion devoted to the art of sword craft.

Anyhoo, a precept of their religion is that there should be no time between the sword being in its scabbard, and the sword being held ready. I dont remeber the theory behind it unfortunatly.


But as I was saying, why does the presnt need to be defined as something unique and exclusive of the past and future?

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 59/65
(28-Jan-2004 at 15:09)


Okay, i'm bored.

My own views may seem strange to some but these views are gaining precendence in the scientific community.

The Multiverse: Our 'universe' is a subset of the multiverse, an infinite set of all possible universes which include an infinity of identical universes to our own.Each event in our universe produces an infinity of nearly identical universes. A higher measure of these universes will be ones reflecting those events most probable outcome.

Comp hypothesis: The entire multiverse is computational and giving a computer with enough capacity and enough time then the entire multiverse can be emulated.
We are nothing more than our memories, this is our own conscious algorithm running within the multiverse. Due to decoherence we perceive the most probable outcome of each event.

Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The only viable interpretation of what is occuring to microscopic (photons, electrons) particles, as macroscopic (people, houses, planets, cabbages) objects are made up of these microscopic particles they have to follow the same laws. Run at a wall enough times you will appear on the other side of it, quantum particles are happy to do this. We are made of quantum particles, therefore we will do this also, but everything has to happen in concert thus decreasing the likelyhood of this occuring so i don't recommend it. It never becomes impossible, just more and more improbable. M-Theory is simply trying to tie macroscopic and microscopic physics together, essentially with a quantum theory of gravity. Relativity and Quantum mechanics will not be proved wrong, but will simply become part of a better unified theory of how things work.

Teleportation: No problem at all. If you accept we are all computational then you will see that recording + subsequent destruction of your original + restarting your program elsewhere is easy. Leave the original undestroyed, no problem. (There is nothing uncopyable about consciousness).

Time Travel: No problem, no paradox. Go back into the past and kill your father. This is a different 'parallel' universe.

Subjective Immortality: We can only perceive the universe that we exist in. Subjectively you will live for ever. You stand in the middle of a nuclear explosion, there is a greater than zero chance you will survive. Your next thought will be in one of those universes, but other obervers will perceive your destruction, as this is the most probable outcome.

We don't need god. I may as well argue that we are being run in a virtual simulation on someones laptop in the 35th century. Effectively it doesn't matter, we cannot disprove the hypothesis, we can only show that there are simpler explanations for reality. Before you discount the many worlds interpretation for being overly complex, remember the critics of galileo and do not mistake vastness for complexity. We should assume there is nothing special about ourselves, our place in the universe or our place in the multiverse.

Spacetime:A continuous, four-dimensional volume operating under a single set of physical laws, sometimes called a "dimension." Our "normal" spacetime consists of our observable physical universe: length, width, depth, and time. There is no flow of time, only subjectively. Time is the '4th' dimension which we move through in a forwards direction, this is required for us to be 'conscious' and have a memory of 'past' events. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Mwi/comp/etc: This doesn't explain first-cause. But ultimately we don't need a computer to run our universe program for our universe to exist. Numbers exist independently of any physical reality, all realities, all universes and the multiverse can simply be a product of the truth of numbers. Call it numberland, mathspace whatever.


This is brief, and has a lot of questions unanswered. But I urge people to question everything, look into these things before putting on the god blinkers.

I hope someone finds this entertaining.

Anyway, if you are interested in Theories of Everything, check out:

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/

Wei Dai's 'Everything' List. Which might seem a headfuck at first but worth sticking at.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

which is a group discussing the nature of reality, in particular the many worlds interpretation.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by incubus Add incubus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as FattyC)
Posts: 121/135
Donated $1.00
(28-Jan-2004 at 16:35)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)

Back in Zeno's days people had a bad grasp of infinity, that was his excuse. What is yours?

An infinite amount of infinitely short moments can very well pass in a finite amount of time. Differential calculus is based on it. Actually the Greeks knew something about how to do this, Archimedes solved some problems that way, but they never got comfortable with the idea, insisting that you had to go back to "classic" geometry to really prove a relation.
lol, "had a bad grasp of infinity"? how do you have a bad grasp of infinity?

So then, your argument is this: that the culmination of infinitismally small moments can pass in a given amount of time, ...how? you don't provide any proof that this is so.

let's take your idea to a different field. Can you cross an infinite amount of distance?

You are basically saying that regardless of how many moments you have, there is an end to those moments, where there are no longer infinite in number........that's not logical. you have proven nothing.

How did they solve the problem? As far as I know, they never solved it.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PHRACK Add PHRACK to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 60/65
(28-Jan-2004 at 17:16)


Quote:
(Originally posted by FattyC)

lol, "had a bad grasp of infinity"? how do you have a bad grasp of infinity?

So then, your argument is this: that the culmination of infinitismally small moments can pass in a given amount of time, ...how? you don't provide any proof that this is so.

let's take your idea to a different field. Can you cross an infinite amount of distance?

You are basically saying that regardless of how many moments you have, there is an end to those moments, where there are no longer infinite in number........that's not logical. you have proven nothing.

How did they solve the problem? As far as I know, they never solved it.
I would suggest to you that spacetime is discrete.

Interesting link regarding this and and zeno:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Ar...ontinuous.html

Last edited by incubus, 28-Jan-2004 at 17:24.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by incubus Add incubus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1446/8194
(28-Jan-2004 at 17:24)
Quote:
(Originally posted by FattyC)
You are basically saying that regardless of how many moments you have, there is an end to those moments, where there are no longer infinite in number........that's not logical. you have proven nothing.
No, I haven't proven anything, to do that would take quite a lot of space. Do read some math instead. some subjects simply are too complex to describe in full in this kind of forum. Anyway it is nothing mysterious about summing up an infinite amount of infinitesimal intervals and get a finite answer. It's what you do every time you solve an integral or differential equation.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 53/154
(28-Jan-2004 at 23:24)


Yep, he is right. Its just 5th grade highschool math.

Zeno's paradox is what you get when you differciate the arrow movement in time.

And basicly we humans cant grasp infinity or the treue points.

A line is made up from an infinte number of points. But points have no size,shape or mass, they only have loction. But still it is possible to place these objects whit 0 with, 0 lengt and 0 hight until they form a solid line.

Now try to place 10 point so close together that they form a small piece of solid line. No matter how many points you take, you cant make a line out of it that has no holes in it.

Bu when you take an infinte amount of points you suddenly can.

Now this is the part were you mind looses track, you can imagine 1, 10, 100, 100 and even 10 billion if you try hard but you cant imagine infinity.

You can understand the concept of infinty, but not infinity it selfs. It impossible to understand how a infinte amount of nothing can be something. We can understand the idea but not the actual thing.

Now I dont know if they understood the cocept of infinity, but the fact zeno came up whit his paradox makes it verry likly they did.

Last edited by OrionBlauw, 28-Jan-2004 at 23:33.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by OrionBlauw Add OrionBlauw to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 205/227
(29-Jan-2004 at 09:00)
Quote:
(Originally posted by incubus)
Teleportation: No problem at all. If you accept we are all computational then you will see that recording + subsequent destruction of your original + restarting your program elsewhere is easy. Leave the original undestroyed, no problem. (There is nothing uncopyable about consciousness).
Ah, but the interesting thing about quantum teleportation, is that to make an exact quantum copy of the original you must necessarily alter the quantum state of the original. Therefore you won't have two EXACT copies. Therefore that is in fact a problem.

Perhaps you can make a rough copy, and keep the original, but it won't be the orginal, you could make a pretty damn good copy, but they are necessarily distinct.

O, let my land be wher Liberty
Is crowned in no false patriotic wreath
But opportunity is real, and life is free
Equality is in the air we breathe
-Langston Hughes, Let America be America Again
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Zfalcon Add Zfalcon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 618/728
(29-Jan-2004 at 09:24)
as your distances get infinately shorter, the time taken gets infinately shorter, and hence the time taken at any speed to pass an infinately small distance is infinately short. So it all cancels out. If crossing 1m takes 1s, crossing 0.000000001m takes 0.000000001s, and so forth.

Calculus is based upon the principle of lines being made up of an infinate number of infinately small points; if you want more information, consult newton or leibniz.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...

Last edited by Rabbousamai, 29-Jan-2004 at 09:32.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 61/65
(29-Jan-2004 at 10:10)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Zfalcon)

Ah, but the interesting thing about quantum teleportation, is that to make an exact quantum copy of the original you must necessarily alter the quantum state of the original. Therefore you won't have two EXACT copies. Therefore that is in fact a problem.

Perhaps you can make a rough copy, and keep the original, but it won't be the orginal, you could make a pretty damn good copy, but they are necessarily distinct.

Its not a problem for teleportation, it might be a problem for cloning. As it is though, for most practical cloning needs (including consciousness) duplication of the quantum states does not seem to be a requirement.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by incubus Add incubus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
  Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 23:10.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.