Parmenides

[odims_sphere]

Parmenides stated that the senses deceive us and, hence, our perception of the world does not reflect the world as it really is. Instead, the real world is something above our apprehension and can only be apprehended through logic. His chief doctrine is that the only true being is "the One" which is indivisible and infinite in time and space. But "the One" is not conceived by Parmenides as we conceive God, neither is it reminiscent of the Hindu "Brahman". Instead he thinks of it as a material being with infinite extension, which he concludes from logical reasoning.

Later his follower Zeno proves that motion doesn't actually exist.

To evince that motion and change is an illusion, Zeno presented the following paradoxes:

1. The Racecourse. Imagine a racecourse of a given length, say 100m. The runner starts at the beginning of the racecourse and reaches the goal in a given time. In this example of motion, the runner traverses a series of units of distance, foot perhaps. Zeno holds, that each unit of distances can be divided into smaller distances, 1/2 foot, 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot and so on, until at last we have an infinite number of distances. How can the runner traverse an infinite number of distances in a finite amount of time?

2. Achilles and the Tortoise. The swift Achilles and the tortoise hold a race contest. Because Achilles is a sportsman, he gives the tortoise a head start. While the tortoise is already moving towards the goal, Achilles starts and pursues the tortoise. In a few seconds he reaches exactly the point, where the tortoise has been when Achilles started. However, during this time the tortoise has moved forward and it takes Achilles a certain amount of time to make up for this distance. Again, the tortoise has moved on in that time and Achilles needs another, smaller amount of time to make up for it. The distance between Achilles and the tortoise will always be divisible and, as in the case of the racecourse, no point can be reached before the previous point has been reached, thus Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.

3. The Arrow. Does the arrow move when the archer shoots it at the target? If there is a reality of space, the arrow must at all times occupy a particular position in space on its way to the target. But for an arrow to occupy a position in space that is equal to its length is precisely what is meant when one says that the arrow is at rest. Since the arrow must always occupy such a position on its trajectory which is equal to its length, the arrow must be always at rest. Therefore motion is an illusion.

[phee]

I like experimental physics

[BrassFusion]

This proves, once again, that people who don't understand physics shouldn't write about it. At least not before they put the bowl down.

[odims_sphere]

This proves, once again, that people who don't understand physics shouldn't write about it. At least not before they put the bowl down.

um.. this was like between 500 and 300 BC, this was cutting edge physics at the time. Who's to say that in 2500 years people wont look back on us and say we were high for thinking that the earth revolves around the sun. For that matter how do we know anything about what we KNOW to be true really is? Hell less than 1000 years ago people KNEW for a fact that the earth was flat.

I'm not trying to start a fight, and I apologise if it's taken that way.

[mallochai]

I'm not trying to start a fight, and I apologise if it's taken that way.

way to cover your butt, odims.

[odims_sphere]

way to cover your butt, odims.

It's what I do best...

no wait, I don't usually do that very well at all.

:fear

[phee]

He usually doesn't when he goes clubbing

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I like him...

I like what Antiphon and he spoke about with the Clazomenians.

"A thing does not need to become different from another thing which is already different; it is different, and if it's different has become, it has become different; if its different will be, it will be different; but of that which is becoming different, there cannot have been, or be about to be, or yet be, a different - the only different possible is the one which is becoming."

[phee]

Neat

[BrassFusion]

1. The Racecourse. Imagine a racecourse of a given length, say 100m. The runner starts at the beginning of the racecourse and reaches the goal in a given time. In this example of motion, the runner traverses a series of units of distance, foot perhaps. Zeno holds, that each unit of distances can be divided into smaller distances, 1/2 foot, 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot and so on, until at last we have an infinite number of distances. How can the runner traverse an infinite number of distances in a finite amount of time?

This was just as stupid 2500 years ago as it is today and I'll tell you why.

If distance is infinitesimally divisible, time is also infinitesimally divisible. That's simple logic and it crushes the whole thesis.

Not to mention the fact that all these experiments have provable negatives.

[know_buddy_kares]

Those were all bad examples to disprove motion. In order to disprove motion, you'll have to get into quantum physics...

*takes breath*

this is basic...

Everything, moving or not, is composed of atoms. Looking at the atoms we can see they ALL move. Now, looking further into the atom, we can see it's made of protons and neutrons, with electrons orbiting around.

This means every different thing you could possibly see and touch is made by the same 3 things, protons neutrons and electrons. So how do we get different atoms... it's the number of protons and neutrons (always an even number) even these aren't holding completely still, they move around a bit with each other however, this is where it goes to theory, these protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of something smaller, quartz, which are certain energetic patterns of vibration amongst one another that form a bigger pattern (like the substance of a crystal) to form the electrons and neutrons and protons.

So given this, this means we are just a big harmonics of energy, extremely complex, however the physical matter it's self is an illusion, thus movement is an illusion.

Theory 2: Take an atom, or a group of atoms, see them bouncing around, now it takes energy for them to move, they cannot move without energy... so lets freeze them (since heat is a form of energy) to sub zero... they move less... then we hit absolute zero which means in a sense, no energy may exist as it would induce heat, this includes light. with no energy for the atom to move, could it even exist, or would it dissolve into pure energy and we have nothing at absolute zero. Theoretically, you could not have matter existing at absolute zero. Therefore you cannot make something completely stationary in this way. How this relates to movement is quite simple, it's all relative, such as a race track, we see movement as the change in things in relation to other things, which does require time. So if the absence of movement cannot be achieved how may one prove it's opposite, movement it's self.

Theory 3: Take some matter, and zing it forward really fast, to light speed, theoretically time slows down as well for substance to go sub light speed. This has been proven in a jet. Gravity also effects time flow. Theoretically, no matter may go as fast as light as when it reaches such speeds, it shall turn into pure light energy. Einstein's theory, say when he imagined going at light speed, not only did he mention time slowing down, but he also theorized getting heavy as well, which means gravity would also have a part to play in this as well.

Theory 4: Time, actually... this is too complicated to simply write without writing a 10,000 word essay. To get to the point of the matter...

Read a quantum physics book, it can explain things 100 times better than I can.

[BrassFusion]

hey! ted's back!!

and movement isn't an illusion in the context of sensory reality. our atoms really are moving relative to one another in ways that, though not 100% exact, are always approximately predictable and repeatable.

if we didn't have physical laws like gravity we could expect every test of everything ever to have a random result, and our universe is way too consistent for that to be the case.

[sinmantyx]

I'm an experimentalist:

Trust me...

...you don't want me to "weigh in" on this one.

I will say though, that "thought experiments" are great ways of testing our models to ensure their validity. Conceptual teasers like Schroedinger's undead cat; or any of those what-have-yous; are just plain fun. I get that.

However: Don't you know that statistics is the new math of the physical world? We don't have LAWS anymore: that's just Classical Newtonian wooey! The clock-work universe is just an empirical illusion based on the most probable outcomes; and wave-function collapse due to observation.

I mean: when there is a very small but non-zero probability that I will spontaneously turn into my mass in tacos (which, by the way, would be an increase in entropy -- so that's TOTALLY valid) --- theoretical physics just starts getting a little too silly for me.

So, I'll stay with experimental science.

I can adequately model the movement of human beings on a race course with surveying equipment and a photo-gate. All else is mental masturbation.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Not everything has nuetrons. and what about quarks? you forgot to mention them...

Particles or waves... gravity... heavy stuff... If your not looking at it, is it there? Wait..

The self. Thats what they were talking about. The mind. Pure thought. Pure logic. Movement is impossible because to get there you have to get half way there firswt.. but to do that.. you have to get half way to the halfway point... on to infinity. You will never get there because you can never cover any given distance so you can never start.

It's a way to think. It opens the mind. Logic does not have to be correct to be good and sound logic.

I was going somewhere with this...

[BrassFusion]

I mean: when there is a very small but non-zero probability that I will spontaneously turn into my mass in tacos (which, by the way, would be an increase in entropy -- so that's TOTALLY valid) --- theoretical physics just starts getting a little too silly for me.

It all depends on your definition of a taco. I mean, what really makes a taco? Meat wrapped in grease wrapped in some sort of shell?

Holy fuck, we ARE tacos!

Not everything has nuetrons. and what about quarks? you forgot to mention them...

Particles or waves... gravity... heavy stuff... If your not looking at it, is it there? Wait..

The self. Thats what they were talking about. The mind. Pure thought. Pure logic. Movement is impossible because to get there you have to get half way there firswt.. but to do that.. you have to get half way to the halfway point... on to infinity. You will never get there because you can never cover any given distance so you can never start.

It's a way to think. It opens the mind. Logic does not have to be correct to be good and sound logic.

I was going somewhere with this...

I like the thing about, "IF you throw a baseball at a frog and it goes halfway each second, it'll never get there," because that's actually true. IF the ball went halfway at precise intervals, it would never get there.

IF.

Those examples above... didn't really have an "if" to give them a proper context. They just kinda nudged their way into our universe uninvited.

oh and by the way... logic does have to be correct to be sound. it doesn't necessarily have to form a true statement- i assume that's what you meant. the examples that started the topic show poor logic and false results. now, if they were written as an exercise in isolating logical fallacies, that's GREAT! if they're written in the spirit of theoretical physics, they're not so great. really bad, in fact.

[sinmantyx]

oh and by the way... logic does have to be correct to be sound. it doesn't necessarily have to form a true statement- i assume that's what you meant. the examples that started the topic show poor logic and false results. now, if they were written as an exercise in isolating logical fallacies, that's GREAT! if they're written in the spirit of theoretical physics, they're not so great. really bad, in fact.

Among the physics crowd, they are generally just presented as problems to be solved...like quick-change riddles. The idea is to find the problem because you know it's not true.

If you disprove something empirically observable, that means that your models are wrong. It doesn't mean that your "perceptions of reality" have been enhanced. If you want that kind of enlightening experience, I guess mind altering drugs are a good choice. I mean, half the "oracles" back then were just druggies.

If you thought I was making that shit up about a small but non-zero probability of almost anything happening (unless you have a net decrease in entropy) --- that is actually more consistent with observation than motion being impossible.

[BrassFusion]

Of course. If you got dismembered by a chaingun you'd be more similar to a great deal of tacos than you are now, and debating how much more like a taco you have to become before you can be called a "pile of tacos" is moot.

But the posit that motion is impossible is untrue taken in the respective contexts of the physical reality we all share and the language we use to symbolize it.

(who else is hungry for tacos?)

[know_buddy_kares]

Not everything has nuetrons. and what about quarks? you forgot to mention them...

Particles or waves... gravity... heavy stuff... If your not looking at it, is it there? Wait..

The self. Thats what they were talking about. The mind. Pure thought. Pure logic. Movement is impossible because to get there you have to get half way there firswt.. but to do that.. you have to get half way to the halfway point... on to infinity. You will never get there because you can never cover any given distance so you can never start.

It's a way to think. It opens the mind. Logic does not have to be correct to be good and sound logic.

I was going somewhere with this...

actually i did mention quarks, but i spelled it wrong. And gravity is just magnetics. but to judge an infinite amount of divided segments of a distance, you must also take time into consideration too.

Say a runner runs 100 meters in 100 minutes. Divide it half, and he ran 50 meters in 50 minutes, divide it more and more until you have infinite distance, but at the same time, you've divided time infinitely as well. Movement cannot be proven nor disproven. Brass is right on one thing though, Movement does exist as how we perceive something. IE, the runner is moving because the ground he's running on isn't. Therefore he must be moving because his physical mass changes locations as time progresses on. But to get into actual factual sciences is rather tricky, and it's all just not able to be proven either way.

In contradiction to what you said though Brass, these people way back then that you refered to as "smoking a bowl" could do things that clearly boggle our most advanced sciences. Easter Island statues, Pyramids ect... how could a "primitive" culture such as that know how to place 20 ton stones together with EXACT pricision the likes of which you cannot slide a sheet of paper between them. It boggles ups, yes there's a ramp theory however, if you look in the true history of things, the story is missing peices. I believe that the ones that would come out of this theory, somehow had a different sort of technology, perhaps a better understanding of quantum physics than we do. After all, somehow the Egyptians knew how to make pyramids and the spynx just like we recently discovered exists on mars.

[BrassFusion]

I didn't say everyone back then was stupid and/or high. Just anyone who believed that those theories disproved motion...

Like I think I said, I can really respect the validity of those statements as a way to teach logical reasoning. But that's it.

[know_buddy_kares]

I'm an experimentalist:

Trust me...

...you don't want me to "weigh in" on this one.

I will say though, that "thought experiments" are great ways of testing our models to ensure their validity. Conceptual teasers like Schroedinger's undead cat; or any of those what-have-yous; are just plain fun. I get that.

However: Don't you know that statistics is the new math of the physical world? We don't have LAWS anymore: that's just Classical Newtonian wooey! The clock-work universe is just an empirical illusion based on the most probable outcomes; and wave-function collapse due to observation.

I mean: when there is a very small but non-zero probability that I will spontaneously turn into my mass in tacos (which, by the way, would be an increase in entropy -- so that's TOTALLY valid) --- theoretical physics just starts getting a little too silly for me.

So, I'll stay with experimental science.

I can adequately model the movement of human beings on a race course with surveying equipment and a photo-gate. All else is mental masturbation.

you are teasing my brain, i would like to hear more of what you say... but the idea of you spontaneously turning into taco's reminds me of the movie "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" made me laugh thanks.

[sinmantyx]

you are teasing my brain, i would like to hear more of what you say... but the idea of you spontaneously turning into taco's reminds me of the movie "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" made me laugh thanks.

Of course...Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy is pretty awesome...

What is this about gravity being "magnetics"?!

I'm pretty sure we still have 3 fundamental forces: electro-weak, strong, and gravity. Is someone jumping the gun to the Grand Unified Field Theory or am I being oblivious? You might want to be a bit careful about where you are getting your info...or clue me in.

Another good physics-buff series is LEXX, if for NO other reason than the "Mass of the Higg's Boson" reference. Last I heard, the prevailing theory is that Higgs has something to do with gravitational forces...so they are very interested in studying it and finding it's mass. I'm pretty sure Fermi is still working on that...next in line after observing the Top Quark.

I didn't end up working there. I worked at Argonne instead -- which is more up my alley -- characterizing thin-films and what-not. It's not so earth shaking, but a little more about experimental science and a lot less about Monte Carlo simulations (ick!).

So, if we keep talking about atomic and quantum physics, I will find myself out-of-my-league quickly.

[sinmantyx]

I didn't say everyone back then was stupid and/or high. Just anyone who believed that those theories disproved motion...

Like I think I said, I can really respect the validity of those statements as a way to teach logical reasoning. But that's it.

*I* said everyone back then was stupid and/or high.

They had cults surrounding the concept of irrational numbers for goodness sakes. The only reason we think they are so great is they had so *many* bizarre ideas and engaged in rhetoric so often that SOMETHING that ended up written down had to have been true.

Democritus was not smart. He was lucky.

Their engineering was pretty awesome: but so is Dubai's. They also have the same secret: slave labor!

*down with nomos*

*up with physis*

*down with nomos*

*up with physis*

[BrassFusion]

*I* said everyone back then was stupid and/or high.

y'know, quoting me will only make other people respect you for so long before they figure out you're a big plagiarist.