Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AMPosted: 7 years agoThis is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity. There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it."Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 2,607 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:17:46 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity. There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Zeno's paradoxes haven't been refuted through "science," they've been refuted through infinitesimals. Similarly, the randomness problem was not solved through empirical evidence (as people who don't understand QM seem to think) but through math and logic."Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
 Posts: 2,607 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:18:20 AMPosted: 7 years agoInfinitesimals apply here as well, I believe. It's the same principle."Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:18:49 AMPosted: 7 years agoCorrect. I should have said modern mathematics."Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:19:21 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/17/2013 12:18:20 AM, MouthWash wrote:Infinitesimals apply here as well, I believe. It's the same principle.What exactly is the argument?"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 21,814 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:24:39 AMPosted: 7 years agoMeasures of space are an abstraction. They have practical uses on a large scale but, as any physicist will tell you, it's applications break down at a point. Actually, not at a point, lol.Grand Poobah of DDO
 Posts: 21,814 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:24:52 AMPosted: 7 years agoSame thing with time.Grand Poobah of DDO
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 12:30:10 AMPosted: 7 years agohttp://en.wikipedia.org...Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Anonymous 1/17/2013 3:42:41 AMPosted: 7 years agoIgnoring scientific hypotheses becoming fact in order to make paradigms work (e.g. planck time being the smallest unit of time, as that's firstly not how we use time and secondly a guess and thirdly creates the more deadly Quantum Zeno's paradox):The solution is that time does not have absolute placement. Time is relative to us. As such, time is not exactly 'right', nor can it be (as it is a construct made and thus subject to rational criticism). Thus, time does not 'exist' in the same sense that objects exist, but it exists as a relationship we have between the real world and our place in it.For example, Twelve o'clock is midday, when the sun is at the top of the sky. Half past 12 is half-way between the noon sun and the One o'clock sun. Twelve seconds later is the second period, times twelve, from now. Taking any unit of time outside of context (e.g. 1 hour) only makes sense as a duration, that cannot be measured reliably, only split into its parts, and only works as time again when we apply it to context again.
 Posts: 1,227 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 5:16:18 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity. There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Looks to me as though you're equivocating parts of a whole and division of something into smaller demarcations.So, in terms of time, what we have are passing events, which are, in terms of the contemporary explanation of time in physics, is actually our sensation of inertial frames. That is to say, time is a primary component of what we perceive as movement through space.That is completely separate from taking one of these intertial frames (abstractly, as one cannot actually remove one, as such movement would require the expenditure of intertial frames) and dividing them into progressively smaller parts. Dividing something into smaller parts doesn't increase their measurement, it decreases the tools used to measure it.Let me give you an example. Say, there's a hose. That hose is only so long. However, by using something with the necessary degree of precision, like say a laser or something, one could divide this hose into vertical slivers so thin, their numbers could surpass the limitations of every measuring system known to man, but it would remain just as long in actuality. Oh, perhaps, slightly shorter, as fooling about with so many slivers that are so thin makes in inevitable that a few will go missing.Another way to say it is that there is only an existant infinity in the abstract sense, but not in the actual sense. There's no infinite quality to actual things, because they're actual. In other words, they operate within the constraints of what humans interpret as reality, such as compatibility with three dimensions and the reflection or absorption of light, and another one of these constraints is finitude. How could you possibly perceive something infinite? In terms of space, that would mean that it is either in the second or fourth dimension. One couldn't see three sides of a spacially infinite thing. One of the visible sides would always trail "off the frame."So, everything will always have given constraints as part of its definition, but it can still be divided infinitely (or, to its irreducible constituent parts, like atomic and subatomic particles).
 Posts: 204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/17/2013 8:59:55 PMPosted: 7 years agoHere's how I interpret this. You have to first remember that time doesn't actually flow in units (except Planck time, but them this problem is null) it flows in a nonstop stream. So at any point, the universe is in a different state then at any possible other point. And this would require infinity units, except they must also take up space in time. So either A) you have an infinite amount of infinitely small units taking up one imaginary but distance-consuming unit, because infinityunit/infinityunit = 1 imaginary, real time unit of any value, or b) all events occur simultaneously and our brains interpret them through cause and effect as occurring linearly, by making faster the things that use more energy or create less change.
 Posts: 3,202 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 5:22:24 AMPosted: 7 years agoQuantum Zeno sounds so cheesy... nac
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:07:20 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity. There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Well, according to quantum physics neither time or space an infinitely divisible, they are quantized and there is a point at which you cannot further reduce the time increment (roughly 10 to the −43 seconds).It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:28:24 AMPosted: 7 years agoPlus, the reasoning of the thought excecise is flawed because it introduces the self-referential paradox into the reasoning. If it is true that you can't traverse an infinite, then you can't make the case that the second cannot pass because the time can be divided into an infinite number of increments, it can't be divided into an infinite number of increments because you also can't traverse the infinite of the mathematical sequence necessary to make that argument.Mathematically, all you can do is recognize that the numerator and the denominator of the equation you are applying to the division of second can both be approacing infinity, but they will always maintain thier respective relationship that equals 1 second, the mathematics of division doesn't change the second it represents. Even if you could traverse the infinite in your thought excercise, you would have an infinite/infinite second, and the equation still equals 1 second.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:31:48 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:07:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity. There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Well, according to quantum physics, neither time or space are infinitely divisible, they are quantized and there is a point at which you cannot further reduce the time increment (roughly 10 to the negative 43 seconds).Sheesh, the system changed the sentence I typed, corrected and bolded.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 5:03:46 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Actually, he did.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.It's not science but rather mathematics.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.Time = change; this is not a mental construct. Solution = limits: http://www.youtube.com...In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity.Yes, but there is in physics: the smallest amount of time is Planck Time.There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.Infinities (ie never ending) do not exist in the real world.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Time is independent of the mind. Time = change; if there is change then there is time; if there is no change then there is no time.WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 7:46:15 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 5:03:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Actually, he did.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.It's not science but rather mathematics.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.Time = change; this is not a mental construct. Solution = limits: http://www.youtube.com...In order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds. In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity.Yes, but there is in physics: the smallest amount of time is Planck Time.There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.Infinities (ie never ending) do not exist in the real world.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Time is independent of the mind. Time = change; if there is change then there is time; if there is no change then there is no time.The Fool: Time is a MEASURE of change. We measure change in Time, Not time in Change. Time is within the domain of Change. Change is the Broader, and thus Universal to Time. Want to debate on it!?"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 8:35:39 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 5:03:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 1/17/2013 12:09:22 AM, phantom wrote:This is very similar to Zeno's paradoxes as you'll probably notice, though I don't know if he ever devised one related to time.Actually, he did.Though I'm not familiar with the details, people say modern science refutes Zeno's paradox's but I don't know if the same refutations could be applied here as I don't really know what they are.It's not science but rather mathematics.The Fool: You mean natural Science. And there IS No Science without MATHEMATICS OR REASON. All physical understanding is COMPLETE Dependent on Logical/math/geometry.But None of them are dependent ON Physics or any physical Notion whatsoever. It is as A SYMMETRIC Relationship. We can get rid of the notion of physical phenomenon and continue to do science, just as well.I want to know how it's solved, if it can be. If not, then I'd say it could be an argument that time is just a mental construct.Time = change; this is not a mental construct. Solution = limits:The Fool: Where you out of your mind, to recognize that? LolIn order to get from one moment to the other, you have to pass through a certain space of time. Let's say one minute. In order to pass from one minute to the next you have to pass through 60 seconds.KEY WORD: CERTAIN. 100/100 or 1. A PARTICULAR. A SPECIFIC. But you keep referring to a lesser and lesser amount aka Uncertain, no thing in particular. As in a complete Thing. But less then 1. If be ONE step at a time. Not One Less step.It is like saying there is an infinites point on a straight line, But I can also say there is not point in particular on a line. AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. A PRIORI. without me having to explain further.The first one claims knowledge of the line and infinite. But then how can the line be a Line. Would it not cover Everything. Its seems you would have to think the thought forever. And you will never get to the end to know. But the fact that we perceive a line,regardless of its TERMs. As appose to the word "LINE". Is self-evident by what it is to see a line.Not so much with the infinite. I myself can perceive or conceptualize what is infinite.Because its an irrational concept.In order to get from one second to the next, you also have to pass through ten one tenths of that second. Let's put it in decimals. First you have 0.1 seconds then 0.11, then 0.111, then 0.1111, then 0.11111 and keep adding on. There's nothing in mathematics stopping us from continually adding ones or any other number until infinity.Yes, but there is in physics: the smallest amount of time is Planck Time.The Fool: With is another name for another time. Many things in science are false. Scientist are not the best conceptualizes and often susceptible to Poor definition. A physicist is the Least empirical of them all. Most of it is pure Math calculation. they don't actually See. 95% of what they think they are seeing with their eyes. We don't even see cause and effect with out eyes. We infer cause and effect Via THE MIND. It is a purely rational notion.As Hume says All we SEE one thing move and then the Next.Cause is a PURELY logical conception. Which is simply and IF THEN or "THEREFORE" Notion.We know that something exist when it changes form our we don't see it at the moment. BECAUSE WE GRASP "A PRIOR" THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADITION.There's an infinite amount of numbers between every number. But how does time pass through different spaces of time if it first has to pass through infinity? You'd never be able to get from one time to the next.Infinities (ie never ending) do not exist in the real world.If time is just a construct of our mind, then we could say that's just how we intuit events, but if there's a way to answer it from an absolutest standpoint, I'd like to here it.Time is independent of the mind. Time = change; if there is change then there is time; if there is no change then there is no time."The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 14,451 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PMPosted: 7 years agoDoesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?#StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders."Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 14,451 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.#StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:16:00 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.What do you mean? Measures of time start don't they?"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 14,451 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:19:55 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:16:00 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.What do you mean? Measures of time start don't they?The paradox assumes that you can move from .1 seconds to half of that to half of that and so on, right? You can move but you'll never reach your destination.#StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:23:30 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:19:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:16:00 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.What do you mean? Measures of time start don't they?The paradox assumes that you can move from .1 seconds to half of that to half of that and so on, right? You can move but you'll never reach your destination.Sounds like you're just affirming what the paradox is about. That's precisely why it looks like a paradox because mathematically speaking, it seems we can never get from one point to another because (mathematically) there are an infinite amount of points between every point."Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
 Posts: 14,451 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:25:53 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:23:30 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:19:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:16:00 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.What do you mean? Measures of time start don't they?The paradox assumes that you can move from .1 seconds to half of that to half of that and so on, right? You can move but you'll never reach your destination.Sounds like you're just affirming what the paradox is about. That's precisely why it looks like a paradox because mathematically speaking, it seems we can never get from one point to another because (mathematically) there are an infinite amount of points between every point.But you can move between the points, right?#StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned
 Posts: 6,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/18/2013 9:28:32 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 1/18/2013 9:25:53 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:23:30 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:19:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:16:00 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:07:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 1/18/2013 9:02:22 PM, phantom wrote:At 1/18/2013 8:50:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:Doesn't your OP assume that we can move through the units of time in order to get to smaller ones?Don't know what you mean, though I think the issues been dealt with safely by the previous responders.I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out on a different forum that in order for these types of paradoxes to work, the original movement has to happen. In order to move halfway through the race you have to have moved halfway through the race. If you can't move, you couldn't get there in the first place.What do you mean? Measures of time start don't they?The paradox assumes that you can move from .1 seconds to half of that to half of that and so on, right? You can move but you'll never reach your destination.Sounds like you're just affirming what the paradox is about. That's precisely why it looks like a paradox because mathematically speaking, it seems we can never get from one point to another because (mathematically) there are an infinite amount of points between every point.But you can move between the points, right?Yes, but that doesn't solve the paradox. If it were a real paradox, it would just mean that time isn't absolute."Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)