Erm...ever thought of this?

OK, imagine a particle moving from on side of this screen to the other. Got that? It got there didn't it? Well, now understand that there is an infinite number of points between one side of the screen and the other. So how does it ever get there if there is an infinite number of points it must pass through?

Now, back to the particle. Imagine the distance it must travel is 17 inches, this is roughly 43 cm. Imagine as this particle is 42cm along the line. It then reaches 42.1 cm, 42.2cm etc until it gets to 42.9cm. Then it reaches 42.99cm and 42.999cm etc, so again, how does it ever reach 43cm or any other point for that matter?

As for speed, which is distance over time. So to measure time taken to move between these infinite points, the measure (i.e time) must also suffer from this problem. As time moves from one point to another, time must go through an infinite number of points to move forwards, so how can it?

My little solution to this, and mostly inspired by the general theory of relativity is that all of time and space (and thus our perception of it) is relative, and thus no two people can have exactly the same experience, and thus no two people will ever have the same reaction to a given, governable situation. Thus human behaviour is fundamentally unpredictable even by the laws of physcology, seeing as you can perhaps predict how a person reacts to a situation, but not how they will observe it. This means, well, I don't know really, other than this is what makes us all individuals.

Please discuss, and tell me what you think, even tell me I'm wrong if you want, but keep it within reason.

Ta,

Dickie

The particle always moves through an infinite number of points to go a specific distance A plane does not contain a finite number of theoretical points.

The length of travel along the plane and the particles' speed define how long it will take a particle to get from one place to another. Not the number of apparent/theoretical points it has to pass through.

If a car is traveling at exactly one mile an hour, it will take it one hour to travel one mile, regardless of the number of reflectors or pebbles observed on the road.

Damn thee. Yeah, fair enough. But hey, I'm thinking and questioning the world around me which is more that 99% of the population do, right?

You were doing that, and you presented a case for it that was intelligible and reasoned. I'd rather respond to an infinite number (;)) of these than a single bible-thumping evil-spirit-summoning pair-of-cute-nine-west-boots thread.

So contemplate on!

P.S. AND your post didn't give my spell-checker fits and conniptions. You get large quantities of bonus points for that. The only things it puked on were the colloquialisms ("erm") (many of which I also use) and the "i.e." which it wanted capitalized and which I firmly disagree with it being such in that use. So it was easy to tell the spellchecker to add both to the dictionary... Oh - and the legitimate typo of "psychology". Again: that can be let go as legitimate typos are 100% justifiable in a fast-moving forum environment. Although I'd like to take this opportunity to plug Google's spellchecker built into their toolbar. Free, fast, and can check submission boxes on the fly...

Dickie, what you are talking about is Zeno's Paradox. It is the most puzzling thing I have ever heard of, and I have thought it into the ground for ages. I really don't know for sure what the resolution is, and I have yet to come across anybody who does. It's almost like it is reality's satire of itself, proving that it doesn't exist. This is all a dream. Let Zeno's Paradox be your dream sign. :idea:

Zeno said that when an object falls and hits the ground, it has to first go half way there, and then half the remainder of the distance, then half of that, then half of that, for infinity. That makes it appear that the object could never hit the ground, from what appears to be a logical standpoint. However, the object hits the ground. The only solution I have ever been able to offer is that it proves that motion inherently involves the covering of an infinite number of points, and because time is similarly infinitely divisible, the two infinities work together in a a process that involves their relativity to each other and create a finite event. I'm not sure of all of the details of that, but it is my hypothesis. Like in the Far Side cartoon, you need to insert "and then a miracle happens" somewhere in there because science has yet to fully explain the resolution, I think. One proposal is that it proves that time does not happen in frames, but I don't think that really explains it. Another one is that it proves that space is not infinitely divisible, but I think that is an absurd concept. There is also a proposed solution that an infinite number of distances can add up to a finite distance, but I don't think that explains how an infinite number of points can be covered. The last major one involves Einstein's theory of special relativity and how the lack of absolute time and space make it possible, but I still have some things to learn about special relativity. As of now, I don't see how it resolves the paradox. Does it make distances get skipped? Whatever, Einstein. I'm stumped, but I plan to spend the rest of my life trying to figure it out.

Archimedes said something similar. He said that if a man is running away from somebody with a bow and arrow, and the person with the bow and arrow shoots an arrow at his back as he runs, the arrow could logically never hit him because it would have to first go to the line that marks where the runner was when the arrow was shot. Then, the arrow would have to go to where the man was when the arrow reached that line. Then, the arrow would have to go to the line where the runner was when the arrow was at the previous line. Because the arrow could never hit the runner's previous line and a next line at the same time, the arrow could never hit the man, but somehow it does. It has to do with the gap between the lines getting smaller and smaller until it reaches zero, which seems to involve Zeno's Paradox. I can't fully explain it. :?

I really don't understand the problem here.

Just because it would take an infinite amount of time for you to consider an action, doesn't mean that it takes an infinite ammount of time or it to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
I really don't understand the problem here.

Just because it would take an infinite amount of time for you to consider an action, doesn't mean that it takes an infinite ammount of time or it to occur.

---

I'm not sure what you mean. An infinite amount of time to consider an action? The puzzle concerns how an infinite number of points can be covered when infinity doesn't have a limit. How can a limit be reached when infinity is limitless? There is no last event in terms of the divisibity, yet the stream of events ends. How does that happen?

The particle, itself, has an infinite amount of reference points along it's length

coupled with the infinite amount of reference points it's travelling through, as it moves

it's a miracle it ever moves at all

Quote:

---

miracle[/b]

---

oops, wrong forum :-P

anyway, my point is
length is fixed
no matter how accurately you measure it to
the length itself doesn't alter
therefore the infininte number of reference points are arbitary

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Universal Mind


I'm not sure what you mean. An infinite amount of time to consider an action? The puzzle concerns how an infinite number of points can be covered when infinity doesn't have a limit. How can a limit be reached when infinity is limitless? There is no last event in terms of the divisibity, yet the stream of events ends. How does that happen?

---

It's really quite simple, the number of points on a line is completely irrelevant when considering the motion of an object on a line. What is important is the distance between the point it is going to reach and the point from which it starts, and the time it takes for it to get from one point to another. What you are talking about is consideration of a process, not the process itself. Distance and time is only divided in the head and this division has nothing to do with the actual process of these objects undergo.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Belisarius)</div>

Quote:

---

It's really quite simple, the number of points on a line is completely irrelevant when considering the motion of an object on a line. What is important is the distance between the point it is going to reach and the point from which it starts, and the time it takes for it to get from one point to another. What you are talking about is consideration of a process, not the process itself. Distance and time is only divided in the head and this division has nothing to do with the actual process of these objects undergo.[/b]

---

The infinite divisibility exists independently of conscious awareness of it, so the distance and time are not divided just in the head. Human analysis of the divisions is in line with reality. They exist, not just in our heads.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ynot
The particle, itself, has an infinite amount of reference points along it's length

coupled with the infinite amount of reference points it's travelling through, as it moves

it's a miracle it ever moves at all

Quote:

---

miracle

---

oops, wrong forum :-P

anyway, my point is
length is fixed
no matter how accurately you measure it to
the length itself doesn't alter
therefore the infininte number of reference points are arbitary[/b]

---

How are they arbitrary? They are still real, and I don't see how an infinite number of them can be passed when infinity is limitless, although obviously it happens. There is no "last division," but the series of divisions is gotten past. It is a paradox that seems like just a contradiction, until I look at the fact that motion does happen.

I have never thought about this during a lucid dream. I am going to start doing it. It drives me insane, but in a good way. :shock:

Quote:

---

The infinite divisibility exists independently of conscious awareness of it, so the distance and time are not divided just in the head. Human analysis of the divisions is in line with reality. They exist, not just in our heads. [/b]

---

Let me put it this way. If the object can move at all it must move from one point to another point, it can also move from one point to a different point. If you have a problem of an infinite number of points as it nears its destination, then you must also have the same problem as you near it's starting point. On line ABC there are not only an infinite number of points between B and C, but also between B and A. You can choose any points along a line and find an infinite number of points between them. Not only can you find an infinite number of points between two points, but you can find an infinite number of points between two points beyond them.

I guess what I'm saying is that the only miracle that occurs is motion.

How are they arbitrary?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ynot
length is fixed
no matter how accurately you measure it to

---

You can measure length to an infinite accurancy
but that doesn't make the measured length infinitly long

analogue & digital are used as my own custom pseudo-babble, as I can't think of the right words at the moment

length is an analogue meeasurement
the only two known, fixed points are the start and the end points
(an upper and a lower limit)

you are trying to express an analogue length digitally (knowing all the points along the entire line, results in an infinite amount of digital reference points - but this doesn't change the original analogue length)

An analogue wavelength, expressed digitally

http://www.snoopy.force9.co.uk/untitled.JPG

Maybe our world does in fact have a floating point precision ? :P
Like a computer simulation, it moves spatially and determines collisions by examining the space through which it moved.

Thinking out of the box here... don't mind me... :?

[quote]

Quote:

---

you are trying to express an analogue length digitally (knowing all the points along the entire line, results in an infinite amount of digital reference points - but this doesn't change the original analogue length)

---

Finite distances are infinitely divisible. Moving past the end of a finite distance is therefore just as bizarre as traveling past infinite space, but the former actually can happen. Can the latter?

There may be an infinite amount of points between two points (a and b for example) but the particle doesn't travel TO them one after another. It travels THROUGH them Or it covers an infinite amount of points in its motion.

The start and the destination are the only relevant points. It will cover the infinite amount of points no matter how far it travels but ... but.... ahh feg whaterer the next bit it was it was probably right so just assume it was :wink:

My thoughts on this rather interesting subject are this . Imagine if I am in a tree and am holding a ball , and i drop that ball . So the ball drops from my hand and hits the ground . Now , the ball didn't 'know' that it would have travelled X distance before it hit the ground , it was simply being acted upon by gravity and hence if the ground had not been there it would have continued to fall .

To think that for every particle in the universe there is a set of parameters recorded for every possible collision it could have is rediculous . Distance is simply a means of measuring space , and i think that is the downfall here , the measurement . Just as if we try to look and see the location of a particle , the action of shining the light will in effect change the position of the particle . It not the same but similar line of thought , when we begin to examine something we inherently are interfering with the outcome .

The universe isn't really divided up into units of length called feet or metres , they are simply the units we use to describe distance , and in describing distance of an infinite number of points that is where our limitation lies .

Also , lets examine the first argument . The object is chucked to the ground , it first falls half the distance in T amount of time , then it travels half that distance , but in T=1/2 amount of time . That is the downfall of this experiment as if you continually divide something in half you will never be left with one indivisible quantity (unless your talking about particles) .

Captain obvious to the rescue!

I have thought about the paradox and have no solution whatsoever.

what would be wild is if the whole universe is just inside a computer (the maya) (time and causation thread, check it out) and this paradox is just a glitch.

Ok Mr know it alls. Lets think about this.

If the universe is relative and everyones experience is different. Why do we both read the same words on the page here. I really don't think that is the answer to this.

The answer to the question presented IMO. Lies in the secret of time/space.

My theory is the particles are not really even moving, because they are not even solid particles of a kind. This involves the time-space existence that creates the manifestation of movement. A Part of a electrical energy etheric like substance than manifests itself in the time/space existence at varies levels from whatever the source is. From this source comes all manifestations. Which for a lack of a better word. involves the nature of consiousness and etheric energy. Something scientist have not even aknowledged yet, let alone studied.

Hold your thumbs up to a white background, of a white part of your computer screen.
Hold them about half a mm away from each other. Slowly part then to about a mm or a mm and a half away from each other. Look past them and you can focus of the etheric like substance that makes up your etheric body. All physical forms have this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Incesticide+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Incesticide)</div>

Quote:

---

My theory is the particles are not really even moving, because they are not even solid particles of a kind. This involves the time-space existence that creates the manifestation of movement. A Part of a electrical energy etheric like substance than manifests itself in the time/space existence at varies levels from whatever the source is. From this source comes all manifestations. Which for a lack of a better word. involves the nature of consiousness and etheric energy. Something scientist have not even aknowledged yet, let alone studied.[/b]

---

Forgive me if this sounds rude or ignorant , but im not sure what your getting at with this argument about particles moving , for without movememnt everything in the universe would be at an absolute zero temperature . Its just not possible that you can see everything around you without movement .

<!--QuoteBegin-Incesticide
Hold your thumbs up to a white background, of a white part of your computer screen.
Hold them about half a mm away from each other. Slowly part then to about a mm or a mm and a half away from each other. Look past them and you can focus of the etheric like substance that makes up your etheric body. All physical forms have this.

---

Not sure what your getting at with this experiment , i think you are mistaking diffraction of light with something else .

What is deffraction of light? How does that work?
And what do u mean by the universe would be at zero temperature?

I know there is movement but what I was saying is the movement is just a created illusion of space/time

interesting topic BTW

wow this thread is... crazy!
Im' not entirely sure what's going on anymore so i'll refer to the original question.

According to various scientists, there is not an infinate amount of points, because there is something called the Planck length. this is the smallest possible length in the universe and nothing can get any smaller than it. this length is VERY tiny (about 10-33 cm long).
eg. 'zeno's paradox' say's that when an object falls and hits the ground, it has to first go half way there, and then half the remainder of the distance, then half of that, then half of that, for infinity. But with the Planck length, it would reach the smallest possible length, and be unable half it's distance further. so it would keep traveling at this rate untill it got to a solid surface.
I'm not entirely sure if this is right, or that this length even exists (i mean how can someone discover something so pointlessly small?). Sorry if this is just a load of blabbering crap but this is my first philosophical post.
wikepedia can help.. .if your a mathematical genius!