Philosophy Now Forum

The space between two immediate points is either nonzero or zero in an entity. We are dealing with the discrete entity in the first case. The only candidate for the continuous entity is the second case. The position of two immediate points in the continuous entity is the same. Therefore, the continuous regime is undefinable.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:37 pm The space between two immediate points is either nonzero or zero in an entity. We are dealing with the discrete entity in the first case. The only candidate for the continuous entity is the second case. The position of two immediate points in the continuous entity is the same. Therefore, the continuous regime is undefinable.

In any continuum, there is no such thing as two adjacent points, if that's what you mean by "immediate points." For example in the mathematical real numbers, if x < y, then (x + y)/2 is strictly between x and y. And you can deep on doing that as many times as you want. For example there is no first positive number greater than zero. If 0 < x, then 0 < x/2 < x.

So your concept of "immediate points" is not coherent. And since we can perfectly well define the mathematical real numbers, your thesis regarding the continuous regime being undefinable is refuted.

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:00 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:37 pm The space between two immediate points is either nonzero or zero in an entity. We are dealing with the discrete entity in the first case. The only candidate for the continuous entity is the second case. The position of two immediate points in the continuous entity is the same. Therefore, the continuous regime is undefinable.

In any continuum, there is no such thing as two adjacent points, if that's what you mean by "immediate points." For example in the mathematical real numbers, if x < y, then (x + y)/2 is strictly between x and y. And you can deep on doing that as many times as you want. For example there is no first positive number greater than zero. If 0 < x, then 0 < x/2 < x.

So your concept of "immediate points" is not coherent. And since we can perfectly well define the mathematical real numbers, your thesis regarding the continuous regime being undefinable is refuted.

I am aware of all these. The question is if there is no such thing as immediate points then how an object can move?

movement happens to infuriate Zeno

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:06 pm movement happens to infuriate Zeno

Good an explanation as any. Zeno suffered from constipation, and had a lot of time to think about things moving half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and never quite getting there.

You've solved the riddle of the ages.

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:37 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:06 pm movement happens to infuriate Zeno

Good an explanation as any. Zeno suffered from constipation, and had a lot of time to think about things moving half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and never quite getting there.

You've solved the riddle of the ages.

I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not. (which perhaps bahman that was what you were alluding to)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:56 am

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:37 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:06 pm movement happens to infuriate Zeno

Good an explanation as any. Zeno suffered from constipation, and had a lot of time to think about things moving half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and never quite getting there.

You've solved the riddle of the ages.

I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not. (which perhaps bahman that was what you were alluding to)

That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

I'm always amazed that people can convince themselves that they are personally knowledgeable about the ultimate nature of reality.

How do you know, one way or the other? What do you mean that reality is discrete? That it's made up of little bowling ball-like objects, one next to the other, in a grid? What's your evidence? How do you know? How could anyone know?

How do you know you're not this guy?

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

I'm always amazed that people can convince themselves that they are personally knowledgeable about the ultimate nature of reality.

How do you know, one way or the other? What do you mean that reality is discrete? That it's made up of little bowling ball-like objects, one next to the other, in a grid? What's your evidence? How do you know? How could anyone know?

How do you know you're not this guy?

I have a few arguments against the continuous process. By reality being discrete I mean that there is a gap between two states of affairs. I cannot tell whether I am that guy or not.

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:00 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:37 pm The space between two immediate points is either nonzero or zero in an entity. We are dealing with the discrete entity in the first case. The only candidate for the continuous entity is the second case. The position of two immediate points in the continuous entity is the same. Therefore, the continuous regime is undefinable.

In any continuum, there is no such thing as two adjacent points, if that's what you mean by "immediate points." For example in the mathematical real numbers, if x < y, then (x + y)/2 is strictly between x and y. And you can deep on doing that as many times as you want. For example there is no first positive number greater than zero. If 0 < x, then 0 < x/2 < x.

So your concept of "immediate points" is not coherent. And since we can perfectly well define the mathematical real numbers, your thesis regarding the continuous regime being undefinable is refuted.

A continuously changing finite number is always finite thus necessitating continuity as definable. However because it continuously changes the number in question always has a different definition and this difference necessitates an absence of definition as difference is the void of one set of qualities within another (ie 3 is 1 more than 2 thus 2 is different from 3 by 1, 2 is absent of 1 when compared to 3. This void of 1 is an absence of definition within 2). A paradox occurs.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:56 am

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:37 pm

Good an explanation as any. Zeno suffered from constipation, and had a lot of time to think about things moving half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and never quite getting there.

You've solved the riddle of the ages.

I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not. (which perhaps bahman that was what you were alluding to)

That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:56 am

I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not. (which perhaps bahman that was what you were alluding to)

That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:45 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

Rubbish. Find a microscope far more capable than delving beyond the limits of what we can observe at the sub-atomic level and you will find that is not the case. (such a device does not and never will exist)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:56 am

I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not. (which perhaps bahman that was what you were alluding to)

That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

I always thought that the number of points between 2 objects was infinite. I would like to understand the concept you referenced. Please school me.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:45 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

Rubbish. Find a microscope far more capable than delving beyond the limits of what we can observe at the sub-atomic level and you will find that is not the case. (such a device does not and never will exist)

Put a microscope to a line and you will observe further lines; increase the power of the microscope and you will still see lines. Why?

A point is not an atom. A point is a 0d entity. Thus a line between two points, with the line being composed of further points, is a line composed of further lines. To magnify a line is to observe another sub-line then another sub-line, ad-infinitum. The division of a 0d point, as a line, results in further points. To magnify a point is to result in further points. Infinity is perpetual change where the same thing recreates itself in a new time and space; infinity is provable through the ever present "now".