John Merryman replied on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Eckard,
I said the events move future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This occurs within the physical process that is eternally present.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Paul,
Our vision processes a series of discrete perceptions, as does our mind form discrete concepts/thoughts, much like a movie camera takes a sequence of still shots, out of a continuous stream of input. If this input actually consisted of discrete moments, wouldn't it be much more efficient to process them directly? Just leave the camera shutter open and run the film by it and these moments would present themselves directly.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 07:02 GMT
Eckard
You cannot just keep rejecting the notion of ‘present’ (and hence what past and future are) without explaining how physical existence occurs, which I keep asking you to do. Especially in the context of: “It is merely not suited for exact physics”.
“I agree, in principle, with Paul on that existence in reality must be distinguished from mere pictures, plans, expectations, etc.”
While I agree with this, I have never said it. The output from processing what is physically received is knowledge or belief, and is irrelevant to a physical theory. In pursuing that analysis, any representational device must conform to how physical existence occurs, ie not invoke metaphysical presumptions. Reality/physical existence is what is potentially receivable by any sensory system or equivalent. Potentiality referring to physical issues with the physical process which results in a receivable input. While at the reception end of the process, we need not necessarily be limited by current capabilities. But, in both cases the hypothetical is being invoked to overcome verified issues, within a specified context, ie not stray into the metaphysical. From a proper understanding of what was received, we can infer what occurred.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 07:34 GMT
John
“events move future to past”
I know what you mean, but the proper expression of this is ‘present to subsequent present’. Nothing physically exists either in the future or the past. Whatever comprises physical existence can only be in one physically existent state at a time. For the successor in the sequence to exist, the predecessor ceases to exist.
“Our...
view entire post
John
“events move future to past”
I know what you mean, but the proper expression of this is ‘present to subsequent present’. Nothing physically exists either in the future or the past. Whatever comprises physical existence can only be in one physically existent state at a time. For the successor in the sequence to exist, the predecessor ceases to exist.
“Our vision processes a series of discrete perceptions, as does our mind…”
Any consideration around the subsequent processing of what was physically received is irrelevant to a physical theory. We do need to understand that processing, so as to better identify what was received, but that is not physics. You receive a physical input. That is the result of a physical interaction with something else. In the context of the recipient sensory system (or indeed a properly constructed equivalent) what is physically received is a representation of what occurred, albeit with some physical issues which need to be eliminated. We want to know what was, and if necessary if the process is not perfect, what would have been, received, and hence, given an understanding of how these physical phenomena work, what therefore occurred which resulted in their creation.
“If this input actually consisted of discrete moments, wouldn't it be much more efficient to process them directly?
It is not the input, but what caused the input. Although the input is itself physically existent, and therefore subject to the existential sequence rule. The point being that what sensory systems utilise of the physical input is some physical effect which more or less stays the same during its existence (in other words, what is ‘conveying’ it alters). This is why sensory systems evolved, this constancy enhances survival, because it enables awareness of physical existence (including yourself). So, there are two problems: 1) the extent to which the physical phenomena which enable receipt of a representation, can accurately and/or comprehensively capture and convey all that occurred, 2) the extent to which we could capture and process all that, if it did.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:39 GMT
Paul,
‘present to subsequent present’
With time, we are not measuring the present, but the events. It is the present which is the constant against which we measure them.
Say your clock measures the peaks of a wave. The wave is a dynamic process which recedes and builds between measured events and that creates duration.
"Whatever comprises physical existence can only be in one physically existent state at a time. For the successor in the sequence to exist, the predecessor ceases to exist."
Your theory that reality just blinks into and out of a series of presents doesn't seem to have a solid physical explanation. There are lots of explanations out there, from gods to strings, which many people firmly believe, but have foggy explanations.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 06:56 GMT
John
“With time, we are not measuring the present, but the events. It is the present which is the constant against which we measure them.”
The present is what is existent (ie the ‘event’). Timing is the calibration of the rate of change, ie how quickly the present is replaced by the subsequent present. What we are measuring against is a conceptual constant rate of change. ...
view entire post
John
“With time, we are not measuring the present, but the events. It is the present which is the constant against which we measure them.”
The present is what is existent (ie the ‘event’). Timing is the calibration of the rate of change, ie how quickly the present is replaced by the subsequent present. What we are measuring against is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is, within the realms of practicality, all timing devices are set to the same point, and irrespective of how they are driven, maintain the same rate of change, ie are synchronised.
“…doesn't seem to have a solid physical explanation. There are lots of explanations out there, from gods to strings, which many people firmly believe, but have foggy explanations.”
Yes it does. Because the question I keep asking is, how else does the physical existence as manifest to us occur? There is something, it must be comprised of some form of elemental components, which exist in some physically existent state, and can only be in one such state at any given time. ‘Gods and strings’ are irrelevant, because the investigation must be limited to the form of existence as is available to us, ie what we can know, which includes hypothesising but within that context. We cannot have knowledge of what we cannot know, that is belief. As I said in a thread on ‘Is Quantum’ which you sparked off, this existence could be a shoot em up game, we do not know, and never can. Physics is supposed to be a science, not a religion.
You are sitting on a chair, typing at a keyboard, watching a monitor, in a room, etc, etc. All these things (including you) are physically existent, what that ‘really’ means we can never know, because we are part of it and therefore cannot externalise ourselves from it. But they are independent of the mechanisms that detect them. You receive physical input about them. So does the monitor about the keyboard, but it has not been involved in the evolution of sensory systems, but it cannot process it. So, leaving aside the unanswerable question about what is ‘really’ going on, we address the question we can answer which is, we are caused to be aware of something physically existent, how, in generic terms can that occur, how is it detectable, what are the physical processes involved.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 10:02 GMT
John,
Rotations of earth are seemingly without transient components which gave rise to the untenable ideas uttered by you:
"... events move future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This occurs within the physical process that is eternally present."
Not just Samoa's missing day is man-made. Tomorrow means always the day after today, and in reality there is only one point now. It must not be permanently attributed to a particular date. While the rotation of earth structured our life and was initially used as measure of time, we may meanwhile be pretty sure that time would still be measurable if the earth did disappear.
Those who question the 2nd law of thermodynamics and causality tend to do so because transient components disturb their naive harmonic up to symmetry models. Nonetheless, I do not exclude the possibility that the thermodynamic model is not always appropriate.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
Paul,
You keep asking: "how else does the physical existence as manifest to us occur?"
I see your notion of physical existence as something that is based on "manifestation to us". This corresponds to the common fuzzy use of the notion "present" which includes possibly wrong predictions as well as possibly incorrect pictures of the past. In other words, your notion of existence is a practical one.
I see you not more stupid than those mathematicians who feel forced to arbitrarily ascribe the value 0 to sign(x) for x=0. I prefer to say infinity as well as zero are just properties, and within real numbers, f(x) should always be understood as the limes from lower x. This would clarify and simplify a lot.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Paul,
There is only one present and change occurs within it. Since change can occur at different rates, clocks can run at different rates and yet remain in the same present.
If what ever exists at that elemental state did not move around and create change, there would be no emergent reality from it. A non-fluctuating vacuum. Each particle isolated in its own unmoving state. So dismissing motion as the cause of change is complete and utter nonsense.
Eckard,
Yes, the motion of the earth, relative to the sun, is particular to our situation, but it is a basic example of how motion creates transistion from one configuration to the next, rather than traveling along some Newtonian flow of time, or relativistic fourth dimension. It's not the present which moves in one direction, but the events which come and go, as the present changes configuration.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 21:50 GMT
John,
It is impossible that there is just one present (1) AND that change occurs within it (2). Something within which change occurs (2) must have a temporal extension. This duration depends over a huge range on the considered subject. Its extension into past and future might e.g. be as small as attoseconds or as large as millenia. However, there is just one extension-less point (1) between past and future.
You are not the only one who is using the notion present in different meanings. Einstein was not better in that respect.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 02:36 GMT
Eckard,
Consider
Since I treat time as effect, what I mean by "present" is what is physically extant. As in the energy manifesting, whatever the form. "Duration/temporal extension" is the physical occurrence of the process. There is no physical extension, other than what is occurring, because the timing initiation no longer exists at the conclusion. The starlight hitting your eye is not still leaving the star. As I pointed out previously, timing is an effort to make a static measure of a dynamic process, so its boundaries, no matter how exact, are inherently fuzzy. A dimensionless point in time would not have any action and thus nothing exists. Anything multiplied by zero is zero. So even the start and finish points of a measurement require some action and thus duration to occur. It would be similar to insisting on an exact temperature. Which as a dynamic equilibrium, will have some degree of fluctuation.
So there is no "extension-less point between past and future," there is only energy. Being conserved, it simply exists. The past is form it previously manifested and the future is the potential form it may manifest. The present is what it is currently doing.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
John,
If there was just one temperature in the universe, then it should not be subject to fluctuations. It is at least reasonable to consider time as a measure that can be quantified with very high accuracy while you did not even bother to quantify the much larger and very different from case to case fuzziness of the "extant" present.
Why do you, Paul, Einstein, and the mathematicians who followed Dedekind assume an extended to a pebble point? I see this split and wishful thinking. It is schizophrenic because it cheats itself by changing the own point of view, and it is wishful in mathematics because it effectively provides the illusion that the continuum that includes irrational numbers is strictly rational. Let me reiterate: Existence in one logic domain does not necessarily imply existence in an other one too. For instance: What exists in a mathematical model doesn't necessarily exist in reality too.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 09:55 GMT
Eckard
You may ‘see’ what I am saying about existence as…but this is not what I am saying, it is your interpretation.
We exist. We are therefore trapped in a particular existential circumstance. Whether there are possible alternatives of existence is irrelevant, because we cannot be aware of them, either as received, or as hypothesised to be potentially so. Unfortunately, from within that closed system, the mechanism which enables the processing of what we can be aware of, enables ‘enhancement’, apart from the fact that the process which results in awareness is not physically perfect. So there is a secondary need to differentiate knowledge from belief from within the closed system. And there is an additional problem in doing that, because there is only awareness. We are only ever comparing awareness with other awareness, we are not able to compare it with ‘reality’, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it in order in any sense to ‘acquire’ it.
Now, awareness is caused by physical input received, which itself was physically caused by something else which was physically existent. That is physical existence. Obviously, the word ‘received’ includes hypothetically received, ie what could have been had everything been physically perfect. But not anything we can think of.
There are two knowns about what is physically received:
-it exists independently
-it alters
That means it is existential sequence, etc, etc, etc.
How one represents all this in numbers, graphics, or whatever, is another issue. But it must be represented, ie the generic form of physical existence determines it, not the other way around.
If you can identify a factual flaw in that, let me know.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT
John
“There is only one present and change occurs within it”
How? If change is occurring then something is becoming something else. And the something has ceased having been replaced by the something else, which was not in existence previously.
“Since change can occur at different rates, clocks can run at different rates and yet remain in the same present.”
Not so. Timing devices are all functioning to the same conceptual constant. Just like rulers. The issue of variability is a practical one. And anyway, this is just a measuring system, it does not affect what is being measured, just the calibration of what is being measured.
“If what ever exists at that elemental state did not move around…”
So what is “moving around” then? Moving means it was ‘here’, then it was ‘there’. As I keep on saying, forget how this actually manifests, which at the existential level might always be beyond our ability to identify. Keep it simple(!) For existence to occur there must be a physically existent state which is a) definitive, b) involves no change.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Eckard,
I'm not quite sure how you are interpreting what I've said. Certainly there is no one temperature. Just as action occurs at different rates(time), so does energy have different equilibrium points(temperature) in different situations. Temperature can be quantified to a very high accuracy as well, but the only "extension-less" temperature would be absolute zero, ie. no fluctuations.
What do you consider to be the present? Is it that "dimension-less point between past and future," or the fuzzy reality of energy?
Paul,
I am keeping it simple. It moves.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 12:14 GMT
Eckard,
I would consider an "extension-less point between past and future," to be a model that doesn't exist in reality.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
John,
Of course, a point is something ideal as are the present state, the future, or a number too.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Eckard,
Would you agree that the actual physical reality, the energy/mass/motion, is inherently fuzzy from the perspective of these ideal models?
And would you consider that it is due to these models arising from our left brain, linear, discrete rationality, which tends to project to linear extremes, but does not easily process the right brain, non-linear, analog, connective entanglement that is constantly overiding the digital models?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
No and no John,
Being a bit familiar with physiology of cortex, I would like to abstain from any comment on your belonging idea.
What about your idea that the reality is fuzzy, I see the notions existence and the "present" state fuzzy and not logically consistent. There is no present state between past and future.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT
Eckard,
There are many ways to quantify fuzziness, from statistics to thermodynamics to quantum behavior.
In what context is the present not between past amd future? At some point physics does have to engage the reality we inhabit, or the abstractions start to take on a life of their own and it becomes another conceptual cult. Consider the latest debate consuming the physics community; whether one is stretched out or burned up on entry of a black hole, as a way to solve the loss of information. I think it safe to say one would be burned up long before reaching a black hole and the actual edge of the gravity well is far out past the visible edge of the galaxy, yet this argument now consumes theorists tired of debating multiverses. One can only wonder what arcane abstraction everyone will gravite to next.
Meanwhile I am going to contInue to inhabit my present.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
John
“I am keeping it simple. It moves.”
Which is change. But you are trying to propose some form of existent state where there is motion, but no change.
Physical existence cannot be ‘fuzzy’, or in any way indefinite, or involve change, otherwise what is it, how does it occur, as I keep asking both you and Eckard.
Physical existence has nothing whatsoever to do with left brains, or any other feature of the subsequent processing of the physical input received. As I keep on saying, a brick receives the same input, it just cannot process it into knowledge/belief, and that is not a physical process.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Eckard
"There is no present state between past and future."
So how and when does physical existence occur then? As I keep on asking.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
John and Paul,
"In what context is the present not between past and future ... So how and when does physical existence occur?"
At least as long as there are no somehow relevant in practice atoms of time, it is reasonable to consider time a ubiquitous continuum that can be resolved as accurately as required. Anything that already happened can be observed, in principle, anything that did not yet happen can definitely not have caused any noticeable effect. You may use the method of nested intervals and find yourself limited to the presently smallest measurable timespan, maybe in the range of femto-seconds. The best oscilloscope I used had a sample rate of 2 Giga-samples corresponding to 500 ps.
If we are using the notions "the present" and "physical state", we are inspired by what is strictly speaking a snapshot over a considerably larger time of exposition. In some historic or cosmic context, notions like presently or nowadays even include years, decades, or much more.
Let's therefore categorically distinguish between the precisely separable notions past and future in physics on one hand and the deliberately fuzzy practical notion "present state" which is justified by the fact that there are no extension-less events. In brief: Past/future and present belong to different logical levels. Unfortunately even Einstein did not grasp that. Similarly, even Ebbinghaus admitted that the mathematicians do not understand in what the real numbers are different from the rational ones.
Are there singular points? On an abstract level it is useful to operate with points. When mathematics introduced singular points, this was perhaps just a consequence of an imprudent redefinition of the notion number. Being someone who much enjoyed using models that led to infinite values, I never felt tempted to believe that these models are completely realistic.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Eckard
“it is reasonable to consider time a ubiquitous continuum that can be resolved as accurately as required.”
Really? I would prefer to consider it the unit of a measuring system known as timing which calibrates rates of change against a conceptual constant rate of change. And that the apparent continuousness of physical existence is actually a sequence of discrete physically existent states, because that is the only way that physical existence can occur. The rate of turnover of these in any given sequence being what is being timed.
“Past/future and present belong to different logical levels.”
Not so. The physical reality which enables observation, is different from the physical reality which it is a representation of, it is known as light. There is a time delay between existence and receipt of a representation (eg light) of that.
In physical existence, the past is what has existed but now ceased, the present is what is existent, the future does not exist. Then there is existence in the reality of physical representation (eg light), where a photon representation of something that existed previously to something else, could still be in existence after the photon representation of the other has ceased.
And you have not addressed the fundamental point. That is, if you deny ‘present’ then how and when does physical existence exist?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT
Paul, all,
Let me explain why I see a presently existing physical state a red herring. If we say something is a red herring, we mean that it is irrelevant and takes people's attention away from what is important. Important is the alternative between past and future. If something is considered to exist if it is present in the world as a real, living, or actual thing then the obvious tautology indicates a weakness of the notion existence. The attributes real and living denote relationships possibly to past and to future. Conserved quantities like energy actually exist in the past as well as in the future. Anything else is subject to possible change. In order to see such change as a succession of steps, you have to cheat yourself. My 2 Mega sample scope showed such succession of single steps. I am however sure, a better resolution would show steps in between. The timespan of 500 ps is already so minute that the usually as life considered process are not to be seen. I studied very fast processes of arc ignition. So there is no reasonable basis for a width of the timespan to which one could ascribe the present, and a present state only "exists" in the sense of a snapshot with chosen time of exposure. Should we accept arbitrarily chosen values as reality in physics? I don't think so. What do you think, how long is the interval of "the present" between past and future?
Incidentally, the physical reality I refer to does always refer to the object, not to observation. Hence there is only one such reality.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Paul,
" But you are trying to propose some form of existent state where there is motion, but no change."
How would there be motion, but not change?
"Physical existence cannot be ‘fuzzy’, or in any way indefinite, or involve change, otherwise what is it, how does it occur, as I keep asking both you and Eckard."
Motion.
Eckard,
" I studied very fast processes of arc ignition. So there is no reasonable basis for a width of the timespan to which one could ascribe the present, and a present state only "exists" in the sense of a snapshot with chosen time of exposure."
I'm not sure how this differs from my observation that there is only energy and time is a way to measure the change effected by it?
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 06:30 GMT
Eckard
“Incidentally, the physical reality I refer to does always refer to the object, not to observation. Hence there is only one such reality”
Good, because this is the essence of the exchange I am currently having with Peter, and the first post in that particular thread (last in his blog) was addressed to you.
Re ‘red herring’: that could be a case of admitting something does exist, but it does not matter. But this is not your stance. The fact is that there is physical existence, and the question is, how does that occur if not in a definitive physically existent state, which we can label as the present. In order to differentiate it from the past and the future, where in both cases, nothing physically exists. Physical existence cannot be some sort of ‘jumble’ with physically existent states still ‘hanging around’ having been superseded. How does the substance involved do that? Neither can there be any physical existence in a time point in the sequence which has yet to occur, physical existence cannot occur ‘ahead of itself’.
The point is not about the difficulty of identifying the duration, etc, it is about how physical existence must occur.
Paul
I am away for a couple of days
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
John
As I have said before, what is the essence of motion, it is change. That involves something and something different. It is this ‘something’ that is existent, not the change.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
Paul,
I see it the other way around; Motion is the essence of change.
For example, motion is waves, while change is the succession of peaks, ie. the sequence of events.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 6, 2013 @ 14:02 GMT
John
You have the right to 'see' it anyway you want to believe in. However, physical existence occurs, and it does not do so in accordance with what humans, bees, plants, aliens, 'believe'. Movement is alteration of relative spatial position, ie it is inferred from the difference between existent states, and is the manifestation of something.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 6, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
Paul,
It's not a matter of believing. The evidence points to configuration as emerging from action. If you could explain how action emerges from configuration, I would willingly consider your reasons, but you have none, other than that's just the way it is.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
John
But I do not have to, because this is not what I am saying. Which is, in very simple language, there must be a point athich there is no "action" (ie change) otherwise whatever constitutes physical existence cannot exist. Any given elementary component of physical existence cannot be in different physically existent states at the same time.
Or to use your words, so what is "action" and "configuration" at any given time? There must be a physically existent state corresponding to these.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
Paul,
The most elemental state is the cosmic background radiation. All points are hypothetical. As I keep pointing out to Tom, a dimensionless point is a physical contradiction, but once you give it extension, it isn't a point and your theory goes out the window.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 06:58 GMT
John
Well I do not know whether it is or is not, and am not sure where that statement takes us anyway.
My argument is not about a ‘point’, it is when in existence there is no change, which must occur, otherwise existence cannot occur.
In respect of your comment, the issue is that any device (narrative, graphic, maths) used to represent physical reality must correspond with its generic form. So there cannot be a reference which amounts to a ‘blank sheet of paper’, or a ‘point in space’, because physical existence has a form, it is not an abstract concept. We cannot know of nothing, and neither can we track it in order to maintain the constancy of reference. Neither can we draw circles, either wrt nothing or something, just because they have certain properties. Those must relate to properties of physical existence to be a valid representational device, and then must be referenced to something, and continue to be referenced thereto.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Paul,
This seems more an issue of psychology than physics. You make the argument that; " it is when in existence there is no change, which must occur, otherwise existence cannot occur."
You contradict yourself. There is no change, yet there must be change. ?
Why is it so difficult to consider action as the source of change, even just as a point of consideration? No action would be like a flatline on a heart monitor. It is the blank sheet of paper. So what creates change, if not the wave action?
Personally I find it far more important to understand nature, than to be right and have over the years adjusted my thinking when finding views which made more sense than those I previously held, but often run up against people for whom it is far more important to win the argument, than any objective truth and understand that it is a very important survival mechanism to simply be the one to come out ahead. Having grown up on a farm and fairly socially isolated, I've found my personal necessity was more to figure out how nature works, than having to beat out the human competition. So in that sense, if I found your argument to be logical, I would take it seriously, but I find there to be a genuine dichotomy of being and doing, While your position seems to be very much on the side of being, with doing to be secondary. Yes, there must be something, but in order for it to manifest, it much also do something, or to the extent it doesn't, it fades away. As you say, change must occur, to which I concur. The source of that change is action. A pool ball gets from one spot to another by moving. There is nothing mysterious about it.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
John
This is a physics issue, and I do not contradict myself.
The point is that the only way the form of existence we can be aware of (ie by validated experience or proper hypothesis, as opposed to what we can believe) can physically exist is as existential sequence. There is something, and it alters. This means that whatever constitutes the entirety of physical existence must occur in one definitive physically existent state at a time. The state of physical existence cannot involve change, because that involves more than one such state. Neither can it involve any form of indefiniteness, because it would not then be physically existent. Change concerns the variation between states. Whatever is causing the alteration must have physical existence and is therefore subject to this rule.
Physical presence necessitates discrete existence.
Personally, I find facts much more interesting. We only have a short life and delving into made up stuff just strikes me as a waste of time. I was reading that massive book (Bugliosi) on the JFK assassination, then stuff about Iraq, North Vietnam, before picking up Hawking, and figuring, well here is an issue which needs resolving. While one would prefer to be correct, surely the underlying purpose in contemplating anything is to establish the correct outcome, not just think about it fr the sake of it.
“The source of that change is action”. Again, what is action, action of what on what, etc, etc. No there is nothing “mysterious” about movement, but it involves something, which was here and is now there. There is always an ultimate state of discreteness.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies