Welcome to the ToeQuest.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    7th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,000
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 13x in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    34

    Re: the motion paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    Not to assume too much condescending, seem you sacrifice future prospect going back in time participating in TOEQUEST. On the other hand this makes you live longer.
    Going back (to your present - in my past) means I live twice...I think

  2. #12
    7th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,000
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 13x in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    34

    Re: the motion paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    I agree there are no paradoxes in nature but there are also conjectures which can never be proven. Goldbach's conjecture, for an example.


    Will be waiting eagerly for your argument.
    Before I proceed I need to see if you accept this premise: There is no motion other than that which causes motion in all matter.

  3. #13
    In Training
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Exclamation Re: the motion paradox

    True, Nature has no paradoxes. And certainly mathematics has no paradoxes. What we do find is inconsistencies or language tricks that pit mathematics and logic against nature -- that's why the Zeno arguments are called paradoxes. It's not that they are arguments purely within mathematics or purely within physics. It's that the phenomenological experience contradicts the logic. It's correct to say that the so-called Zeno paradoxes are not paradoxes in the true sense of the word, but by tradition they are called paradoxes. (By the way, that tradition goes back to Aristotle.) In Mazur's book, it is the phenomenology that is the concern. The paradox is between two views of continuity--that of mathematics and that of real life.

  4. #14
    7th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,000
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 13x in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    34

    Re: the motion paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by Euclid View Post
    True, Nature has no paradoxes. And certainly mathematics has no paradoxes. What we do find is inconsistencies or language tricks that pit mathematics and logic against nature....

    phenomenological experience contradicts the logic...In Mazur's book, it is the phenomenology that is the concern.
    Welcome Euclid!

    When you say 'logic' do you mean 'rational' or logic as in 'formal Logic'?

    Also you say there are no paradoxes in mahematics: see Skolem Paradox.

    I think the "liars paradox" is a good example of phenomenological v's logical experience. In this case formal logic could not deal with the contradiction inherant in the paradox of the lier's lie.

    However recently I found a way to solve this Liars Paradox using Logic.
    In view of Zeno's Paradoxes do you think that they can ultimately be resolved by Logic?

  5. #15
    The Observer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    25
    Thanked 146x in 97 Posts
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: the motion paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    David Hilbert thought the same way that's why his school to axiomatize mathematics failed
    I would say he failed due to the fact he was attempting to axiomatize an abstract subject (mathematics); I don’t think that can be done can it?
    David

  6. #16
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,778
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,472x in 1,192 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    Re: the motion paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by dleviwing
    I don’t think that can be done can it
    I won't be a good judge for this. I know many tried and some have gone crazy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tina
    means I live twice
    Actually, You Only Live Twice, Ms Bond.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tina
    There is no motion other than that which causes motion in all matter
    You mean a priori force?
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top