[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle Anyway, motion. There must be a non-contradictory explanation for Nature, as it cannot contradict itself. It is to be witnessed in Humans, that we are also 'Space' (if everything is), and that acting contrary to Nature is relatively rapidly reducing our ability to exist within it. Thus our own contradictory Natures are killing us. So, motion is a non-contradictory property of One thing (Space). Space, with its motion are not 'two' things, but complimentary parts of the same thing, that which necessarily exists. 'Consciousness', we can also equate as the 'motion of mind', and apply the As in all things, a balance would be nice! ...and this is because all 'parts' are a delicately balanced as One Thing, at source. It is not possible for Space to 'rest', but some parts do move exceedingly slow... pif.

Re: Consciousness please see new Forum by Rascal Puff in Psychology "The burden of Consciousness"

I see all matter as being imbuded with motion - not as a consequence of vibrating particles - but as a thing that generates this movement of particles towards it and within it - some may call it energy - but this is too limiting - I call it 'life force" but can't define this. But this life force is "rest" and draws space into the configerations that ensure its continuation - "life" continues in whatever form that is conjusive to the place it finds itself in. We find evidence of life everwhere even in volcanoes. Rocks are life - everthing is life.

When we "cause motion" this is just the manipulation of space.

LIFE FORCE IS TOTALLY AUTOCRATIC.

[N0B0DY]

Like in 30 Days of Night, Lloyd, "No god."

Both Ayn Rand and nature contradict themselves. Like you said:

"As to laws of nature, they are only our understandings of how she works. Nature needs no laws, she just is, and just happens, as she does. The laws are our abstract knowledge of her self-mechanics. Just as a car runs, so does a universe."

Cars, and the observable universe, run according to strict mecjanical laws, Lloyd. Yet the question remains simple, can there possibly be absolute motion?

I have my own thread, Dave, and you don't participate. Primarily I'm thinking because of its paradoxical nature. However, this thread is seen as a shot in the foot, like I attempt to negate chirality and Lloyd plasters chirality all over the place. I'm not all that retarded, Dave.

Your thread is about motion, and I ask you to explain how anything can possibly move if all things at their furthest refinement are the same? Or, do you, like Lloyd, claim that absolute motion is relative as well?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Both Ayn Rand and nature contradict themselves.

Dear Nob ... I don't see how nature contradicts herself. What I was saying is, regardless of whether we understand nature or not, we have discovered thru trial and error a set of laws that she never steps outside of. (so-far !!)

A paradox is outside these laws. Therefore if you propose that paradoxes can exist in nature the onus falls on you to show them, not the reverse.

Thats why I said the DEFAULT of your question is in reverse. if you are proposing a new law (or paradox) then this is not within the laws we have compiled so far. Surely you can see that the onus must be on you.

A very simple way to resolve it is to put forward the 'paradox' that you see and we can debate it? An example of your quote that nature contrdicts herself would be a good starting point.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

You are certainly far from obtuse, Greg, therefore I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant for some reason.

First I gave two examples, which were glossed over; second, my whole time being here at this forum has essentially consisted of mostly arguing motionlessness through the claim that the absolute center of any conceived and/or perceived motion must be motionless in order for there to be any possibility of perceived motion.

The only burden I would have in proving is that of motionlessness, which doesn't require an Einstein to deduce (neither/nor, therefore not) the impossibility of velocities. The burden of proving that there are "NO PARADOXES IN NATURE" is on those who make such a claim.

The funny thing is, Greg, you don't seem to have realized what you stated. That inasmuch as you claim a paradox must exist outside of said laws, making the claim that that there can be no paradoxes in nature - implying that they would be impossible - based on said laws, renders your conclusion as not supported by your premises.

Observable laws are just that, based on observation which is based on conscious perception. All notions and models of physics, being based on conscious observation, would obviously submit to notions of motion. Yet, the absolute universe is not required to abide by relative laws and arbitrary measurements of motion and therefore transcends them.

[Graybeard]

No I wasn't being wilfully ignorant. I have not really followed the 'Theory of Nothing'. There were so many posters, so many posts, and so many ideas in there that I sorta gave up on that one, sorry.

You said that you gave two examples of paradoxes. I read back to find them. Are these correct?

Originally Posted by N0B0DY One of the most common, imo, is based on the commonly-accepted inflationary model which posits expansion of space into non existence; Another, based on an alternative model of a priori infinite space, is that space in all its fullness would have the capacity to move anywhere when it already is allegedly everywhere.

Now that I have read them I understand what your saying.

If we replace the word expansion, with the word creation would you agree that the paradox is resolved? In other words space is being created wherever gravity cannot overcome it. As space already exists so it must have been created 'inside' non-existence or it has always been here.

As regards the second one, I am not sure what you mean by space moving?

The way I see it there is no paradox, altho I am not sure if anyone else sees it like me. But to me space is a variable measurement only. The motion of matter is the 'cause' , or first principle, space is one of the measurable by-products. Not a very good description, I know, but I find these ideas difficult to place in text

No offence Nobody ... cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Pif has been at this for only a few years, but granted the absolute is not everyone's empty cup of tea.

I had mentioned back in #56: http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces...-motion-6.html that Zeno's paradox is based on infinity and eternity, and he didn't necessarily claim absolute motionlessness - both Achilles and the tortoise are said to be in motion, but that it would take an eternity for Achilles to overtake it. I propose that both Achilles and the tortoise are one, or rather none, with the space dividing them. Same with the chicken and the egg, no RNA required.

Ultimately, I essentially agree that all is within, within the mind, and if paradoxes are said to exist that are only possible within a presumed existence. Whereas non existence doesn't share in those circumstances that would allow even mistaken paradoxes to be possible.

To each our own realizations and level of understanding, based on our own personal experiences that lead us, I guess.

[dleviwing]

Zeno’s “Achilles and the tortoise” is assuming Achiles is an idiot by assuming he will only cover the distance between them at specific increments of advancement of the tortoise. In reality by the time the tortoise has gone 2 meters beyond his original head start of 10 meters, Achiles would be 8 meters ahead of him. This is an excellent example of a paradox caused by an improper assumption and improper logic. If these types of stories convince you then you would be just as much an idiot as Achiles.

If we view it in the terms of relative position we can say that Achiles is always behind the tortoise on the surface of the Earth except for the instant he is side by side with the tortoise and thus never leading him. This is just another way of thinking that screws up the facts.

[N0B0DY]

I agree, Dave, because the reality is dependent upon speed. My claim is that the reality of motion, and reality in general, is dependent upon speed.

Any particle, wave, object moving at less than absolute speed, creates time. Time is the sole factor of creating space and observable reality.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Any particle, wave, object moving at less than absolute speed, creates time. Time is the sole factor of creating space and observable reality.

That’s just making it more complex than it need be. Time is not created by anything other than the human mind; at least here on planet earth!

[Tina]

Originally Posted by dleviwing That’s just making it more complex than it need be. Time is not created by anything other than the human mind; at least here on planet earth!

Don't you think the patterns of day, season, aging process suggest progression of measured time?