You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Michael

Comments

Even if we only define three coordinates between A and B it must still pass through the space between those coordinates. There are an infinite number ...
February 18, 2017 at 15:51
Not really. I'm using the term "sequentially" in the sense that before it can reach the half way point in must reach the quarter point, and so on. And...
February 18, 2017 at 15:47
Of course it has to pass through them in order. It doesn't pass the half way point then the quarter way point then the three-quarter way point and the...
February 18, 2017 at 15:39
What I'm saying is that continuous motion between one place and another is possible if and only if it is possible to sequentially pass through each co...
February 18, 2017 at 15:21
An object cannot move sequentially through every rationally-numbered coordinate between two points for the same reason that we cannot count sequential...
February 18, 2017 at 13:53
Then leaving aside the fundamental logical problem as explained above, this would entail that the only way an object can sequentially move through eve...
February 18, 2017 at 09:09
And so what is the first potential rationally-numbered coordinate that an object must pass through in its movement from A to B? Your talk about how ac...
February 18, 2017 at 08:51
It was explicitly mentioned several times, and implied any time it wasn't, that the counting is sequential, given that it's an analogy to the movement...
February 18, 2017 at 08:42
To count the rationals in sequential order I first have to count the first rational. If there's no first rational between 1 and 2 then how do I sequen...
February 18, 2017 at 01:26
No, when I say that the task is to count the rational numbers between 1 and 2 I'm not talking about the task to move from point A to point B; I'm talk...
February 18, 2017 at 01:20
My coordinate system only uses the rational numbers. So I ask again; what coordinate does it pass through first?
February 18, 2017 at 01:12
I'm not claiming anything. I'm asking you for the first rational number I would count if my task was to sequentially count every rational number betwe...
February 18, 2017 at 01:12
The task is to count every rational number between 1 and 2. And so by the same token, assume that I overlay a region of space with a coordinate system...
February 18, 2017 at 01:11
I can't choose any I want. I have to count every rational number (in sequential order) between 1 and 2. I'm not allowed to just skip ahead to some arb...
February 18, 2017 at 01:08
If space is continuous then we can plot infinitely many points in it, so I don't understand your objection. And I don't understand your distintion bet...
February 18, 2017 at 00:56
I ask again; if I'm to count every rational number between 1 and 2, which number do I start with? Or more relevantly, if I'm to pass through every rat...
February 18, 2017 at 00:48
But the task is to count every rational number between 1 and 2. There is if motion is continuous, which is a premise of the argument that gives rise t...
February 18, 2017 at 00:46
It's not whatever I want. The task is to count all the rational numbers between 1 and 2. I can't skip any.
February 18, 2017 at 00:43
So what would be the first number we count after 1?
February 18, 2017 at 00:36
No it isn't. The paradox is about moving from one point to another, which is analogous to counting from one number to another. It's got nothing to do ...
February 18, 2017 at 00:33
For the same reason that it's impossible to sequentially count the rational numbers from 1 to 2. Does your demonstration that the sum of an infinite s...
February 18, 2017 at 00:20
That's not the argument. The argument is "if space is infinitely divisible and if no distance can be travelled instantaneously then it takes an infini...
February 17, 2017 at 22:48
That it's the smallest measurable length is not that it's the smallest length.
February 17, 2017 at 22:44
As I said before, this reasoning begs the question by assuming from the start that it takes a finite time amount of time to travel a certain distance,...
February 17, 2017 at 22:40
A line, not a number line. The conclusion of the paradox is that it doesn't take a finite time to traverse an infinitely divisible line. It takes an i...
February 17, 2017 at 22:34
That would be a solution, but I believe the best theories suggest that space is continuous, not discrete, and so there isn't a smallest point. Given t...
February 17, 2017 at 22:27
I'm not talking about a number line. I'm talking about actual space. If there are an infinite number of points then there are two points, so this does...
February 17, 2017 at 22:18
Everything responds to its environment. The sea that responds to a strong wind; the metal that responds to magnets; the plates on the table that respo...
February 17, 2017 at 16:54
The paradox is that if distance is infinitely divisible and if instantaneous travel between one point and the next is impossible (reasonable premises,...
February 17, 2017 at 10:21
There's no necessary reason to think that the mathematics of limits addresses the (meta)physical problem. Plenty of philosophers think it's a mistaken...
February 17, 2017 at 10:02
It seems to me that we quite often talk about inappropriate consensual behaviour between teachers and students. Even when the student is an eager part...
February 17, 2017 at 09:56
Let's consider this another way: "In high school this female student had a male teacher - grandfather age actually (his wife was dead) - who used to s...
February 17, 2017 at 09:48
I'm sure this argument begs the question. Zeno's tries to show that motion is impossible. You can't refute it argumentatively1 by setting up an argume...
February 17, 2017 at 09:06
Only if the causal theory of reference is correct. The irony here is that this proof against us being brains in a vat was a disproof of realism, as re...
February 16, 2017 at 15:00
But then if we admit to wanting a Democratic or Republican judge, are we admitting that the law/Constitution isn't on our side and that we need someon...
February 16, 2017 at 14:33
See, these very claims are metaphysical issues that need to be argued. Not everyone is a realist. But if you take your view, wouldn't it then be self-...
February 16, 2017 at 14:32
See, that's your problem. ;)
February 16, 2017 at 14:18
Isn't it? Seems like if we can make jokes about babies in blenders ('cause I know a few!) then making a joke about Leavers being racists is pretty tam...
February 16, 2017 at 14:12
It's a strange thing that Supreme Court nominees are a partisan issue. It should be that judges just determine what the law (and Constitution) is, not...
February 16, 2017 at 14:08
Eh, thought it sounded too harsh.
February 16, 2017 at 12:59
Shortsighted racists? Although that's just leavers in general. ;)
February 16, 2017 at 12:56
I'm Next Generation Left. Also: /uploads/files/yj/ss94d00p4s18d8wr.png Closer to the centre than I would have thought. Ah, I border Average Citizen an...
February 16, 2017 at 11:45
Unless they would have voted for UKIP. ;)
February 16, 2017 at 11:12
Doesn't matter. One vote won't make a difference.
February 16, 2017 at 11:02
It's not clear to me what you mean by saying that the Earth is that which appears or disappears depending on the perceiver opening or closing his eyes...
February 16, 2017 at 09:25
It might be that the Earth just is the phenomenal thing and not the noumenal thing. So although there was indeed something that existed prior to human...
February 16, 2017 at 09:14
Isn't it ironic then that Trump is uncomfortable (and more vocally so) with American exceptionalism, too?
February 15, 2017 at 12:14
quine's claim here is misleading. Carnap didn't accept realist ontology but realist language. As explained here:
February 15, 2017 at 11:14
Well, according to this, "real computers have limited physical resources, so they are only linear bounded automaton complete. In contrast, a universal...
February 14, 2017 at 13:16
The word "savage" doesn't appear in there at all.
February 14, 2017 at 12:46