Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Some Points Concerning Dialectical Materialism

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 30 May 2012, 02:04
Hi Everyone,

This is my first post in this forum. I just signed up because I came by chance upon an argument by Rosa Lichtenstein regarding this quote from Engels F., Anti-During, International Publishers, New York, 1987, Chapter XII, p.111:

Quote:
Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the same moment of time both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it.


Rosa Lichtenstein's objection consists in rejection of the validity of the statement that a body in motion can be both in one place and in another place. However, when a body is in motion its velocity is not zero and therefore (in common notation) v = dx/dt =/= 0 and therefore, although infinitesimal, dx =/= 0. Thus, in order for a body to be in motion, it must be both in one place and in another place, otherwise dx will not be non-zero. If a body is only at one place x, as Rosa Lichtenstein considers it should be, that is if dx = 0 at all times, then that body is not in motion but is at rest with velocity v = 0.

Of course, one may argue about dt not being zero and therefore "one and the same moment" would refer to a time interval, rather than to a given point of time. The dt =/= 0 is, however, inevitable from the definition of velocity which must be non-zero if the body is moving.

The main observation, however, remains -- when a body is moving it must be both in one place and in another place. It can never be in only one place.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 30 May 2012, 05:07
There's another point which seems to be of concern to Rosa Lichtenstein, regarding the duration of a "nodal point" in, say, phase transformations. May I remind her that, for instance, classical thermodynamics is only concerned with the possibility for a reaction to take place and is never concerned with the time it takes for that reaction to take place. When calculating the change of the Gibbs free energy, deltaG, of a reaction, one, applying classical thermodynamics, only needs to know what the sign of that deltaG is, never asking anything connected with time or time intervals. If that sign is negative, then the reaction can take place. It is of no concern to classical thermodynamics whether it will take one second or a million years for that reaction to occur but only whether or not it can occur at all, whether or not it can occur in principle. Positive deltaG indicates that such reaction will never take place, no matter what time one devotes in waiting for it to happen. There is another theoretical branch, different from classical thermodynamics, called kinetics (for instance, chemical kinetics), which deals with the rate of reactions. That important discipline studies ways to speed up possible reactions that ordinarily would need, say, hundreds or millions of years to proceed, to see them taking place in minutes, if not seconds. That is achieved by using the so-called catalysts which decrease the activation energies of these possible reactions. Catalysts have no effect on reactions which are impossible.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2292
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2012, 01:06
Engel's explaination is mostly philosophical. There is no possibility for a body to be in two places at the same moment. That's why Engels said that it was also "in one and the same place". However, you can imagine that Engels dialectics are related to the string theory.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 31 May 2012, 01:53
As was shown above, Engel's conclusion is not just philosophical. It has a deep physical meaning. A moving body, indeed, has a position in space but, unlike a body at rest, it is also characterized by dx =/= 0. In other words, a moving body is also both in one place and in another place. In short, motion is not just a compilation of states of rest but also has a qualitative side, in addition to what a resting body has. It cannot be emphasized more that misunderstanding of this particular point has plunged physics into the deep crisis it finds itself nowadays.

String theories are irrelevant not only with regard to this discussion but also in their own right. That is something to discuss elsewhere, however.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2292
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2012, 04:18
Engels explains exactly the contrary: motion is not an extra because even "resting bodies" are submitted to contradiction. Motion is therefore "objectively present in things" and "constantly originates and resolves itself". Engels criticizes metaphysical pholosophies because they divide rest and motion, and therefore they are not able to understand how things can change. Motion and rest are nothing more than the result of contradiction at a given time.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 31 May 2012, 04:36
What you're saying is not supported by the already mentioned physical facts and, of course, is not what Engels explains. A body at rest is only characterized by a position x = const in space at time t. A body in motion, on the other hand, is characterized, in addition, by dx =/= 0 for the duration dt. Body at rest does not possess that characteristics. Therefore, motion cannot be described only by states of rest, there is more to it, in conflict with it resting, and that is why motion itself is a contradiction, as Engels explains.

Mind you, Engels, correctly, doesn't say that rest is a contradiction, which seems you haven't noticed when insisting that "even "resting bodies" are submitted to contradiction". Motion is what Engels is concerned with, not rest.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2292
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2012, 14:29
In French we have a word for that: charabia. Would you say gibberish? Engels is concerned with Dühring's metaphysical philosophy. He explains that there is no absolute rest and therefore, your idea that motion would be something more is metaphysical. Motion is in everything, while rest, as Engels said, is a state of equilibrium, but only temporary. Therefore you didn't understood anything to dialectical materialism.


Motion and equilibrium. Equilibrium is inseparable from motion. [In margin: “Equilibrium=predominance of attraction over repulsion."] In the motion of the heavenly bodies there is motion in equilibrium and equilibrium in motion (relative). But all specifically relative motion, i.e., here all separate motion of individual bodies on one of the heavenly bodies in motion, is an effort to establish relative rest, equilibrium. The possibility of bodies being at relative rest, the possibility of temporary states of equilibrium, is ‘the essential condition for the differentiation of matter and hence for life. On the sun there is no equilibrium of the various substances, only of the mass as a whole, or at any rate only a very restricted one, determined by considerable differences of density; on the surface there is eternal motion and unrest, dissociation. On the moon, equilibrium appears to prevail exclusively, without any relative motion-death (moon=negativity). On the earth motion has become differentiated into interchange of motion and equilibrium: the individual motion strives towards equilibrium, the motion as a whole once more destroys the individual equilibrium. The rock comes to rest, but weathering, the action of the ocean surf, of rivers and glacier ice continually destroy the equilibrium. Evaporation and rain, wind, heat, electric and magnetic phenomena offer the same spectacle. Finally, in the living organism we see continual motion of all the smallest particles as well as of the larger organs, resulting in the continual equilibrium of the total organism during the normal period of life, which yet always remains in motion, the living unity of motion and equilibrium.

All equilibrium is only relative and temporary.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 31 May 2012, 16:03
I have not expressed disagreement with what you posted, have I? However, we are not discussing equilibrium here. We are discussing the essence of motion which should not be perceived just as a body being at rest at the different points of its trajectory. Motion is more than that. When a body moves it is not the same as saying that the body is actually at rest at every point of its trajectory. There is more to that and Engels quite correctly (physically correctly, not only philosophically) explains that when a body moves it is "in one and the same place and also not in it". That statement is expressed in the formal language of physics as: a moving body is characterized by x as well as by dx; a body at rest is only characterized by x. Thus, motion is the permanent resolution of these two contradicting attributes of a moving body, the x and the dx, as it were.

By the way, in an abstract sense rest can be absolute because a body at rest with a reference frame is characterized by one only x = const for any moment of time and that is an absolute condition with regard to that body and that particular rest frame. Notice, in the abstract sense we're applying here, the body is at rest with the reference frame, not in equilibrium with the reference frame. Motion, even in abstract sense (that is, when a body moves with respect to a reference frame), is itself a contradiction, just as Engels explains, because even in abstract sense a material point moving with respect to a reference frame has a position which is characterized by both x and dx (which is a contradiction), while a material point at rest with that reference frame is only characterized by x.

Thus, Engels is correct even in the most abstract sense of defining motion, when a body is reduced to a material point and no effect of other bodies, such as the planets of the universe, on it is considered (otherwise, indeed, there is no absolute rest in the real nature).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jun 2012, 10:30
Future World, firstly, as the forums' leading quack, I strongly recommend that you stop reading stuff written by Rosa Lichtenstein, for the sake of your mental and physical health. Secondly, you seem to have forgotten about the denominator in dx/dt, dt, only when dx =/= 0 while dt = 0 can you say that the object is at two places at once, and you will get v = ∞, and that's called teleporting. If the particle does not teleport, its location is just x at t and x + dx at t + dt.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 07 Jun 2012, 15:47
@James Kennedy, I didn't forget dt -- see my first post.

Your explanation only proves that there cannot be dt = 0 when describing a moving body. A photograph of a body, showing it at x = const does not tell you whether or not that body is moving. There's more to a moving body.

Thus, a moving body is observed at time t and not quite -- another contradiction. The question, however, concerned the position of the moving body, which, indeed is characterized by both x and dx and not only by x.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Jun 2012, 01:44
Future World wrote:
Your explanation only proves that there cannot be dt = 0 when describing a moving body. A photograph of a body, showing it at x = const does not tell you whether or not that body is moving. There's more to a moving body.

Thus, a moving body is observed at time t and not quite -- another contradiction. The question, however, concerned the position of the moving body, which, indeed is characterized by both x and dx and not only by x.

Of course you cannot describe motion with only one point, represented by the picture of the body at x in your case, because velocity is dx/dt, the change in location over the change in time, and to describe any kind of change, you need at least two points, i.e. x at t and x + dx at t + dt.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 09 Jun 2012, 04:59
That's correct. That's the point I'm making which Rosa Lichtenstein should heed if she really cares to understand Engels' thought.

Now, maybe we can move on to the next point -- the duration of the "nodal point". My second post here touches on it. Is there anything to be added to what has already been said there?
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 17 Jun 2012, 19:27
Future World:

Quote:
Rosa Lichtenstein's objection consists in rejection of the validity of the statement that a body in motion can be both in one place and in another place. However, when a body is in motion its velocity is not zero and therefore (in common notation) v = dx/dt =/= 0 and therefore, although infinitesimal, dx =/= 0. Thus, in order for a body to be in motion, it must be both in one place and in another place, otherwise dx will not be non-zero. If a body is only at one place x, as Rosa Lichtenstein considers it should be, that is if dx = 0 at all times, then that body is not in motion but is at rest with velocity v = 0.


Well, this isn't my objection (and I note you do not quote me to this effect). My objection is far more complex than this. Here, in fact, is just one of my core objections to Engels and Hegel:

Quote:
From this point on it will be assumed that the difficulties with Engels's account noted in the previous section can be resolved, and that there exists some way of reading his words that implies a contradiction, and which succeeds in distinguishing moving from motionless bodies.

Perhaps the following will suffice:

L10: For some body b, at some time t, and for two places p and q, b is at p at t and not at p at t, and b is at q at t, and p is not the same place as q.

This looks pretty contradictory. With suitable conventions about the use of variables we could abbreviate L10 a little to yield this slightly neater version:

L11: For some b, for some t, for two places p and q, b is at p at t and not at p at t, and b is at q at t.

This latest set of problems revolves around the supposed reference of the "t" variable in L11 above.

It's always possible to argue that L11 really amounts to the following:

L12: For some b, during interval T, and for two 'instants' t1 and t2 [where both t1 and t2 belong to T, such that t2 > t1], and for two places p and q, b is at p at t1, but not at p at t2, and b is at q at t2.

[In the above, t1 and t2 are themselves taken to be sets of nested sub-intervals, which can be put into an isomorphism with suitably chosen intervals of real numbers; hence the 'scare' quotes around the word "instant" in L12.]

Clearly, the implication here is that the unanalysed variable "t" in L11 actually picks out a time interval T (as opposed to a temporal instant) -- brought out in L12 -- during which the supposed movement takes place. This would licence a finer-grained discrimination among T's sub-intervals (i.e., t1 and t2) during which this occurs. Two possible translations of L12 in less formal language might read as follows:

L12a: A body b, observed over the course of a second, is located at point p in the first millisecond, and is located at q a millisecond later.

L12b: A body b, observed over the course of a millisecond, is located at point p in the first nanosecond, and is located at q a nanosecond later.

And so on…

Indeed, this is how motion is normally conceived: as change of place in time -- i.e., with time having advanced while it occurs. If this were not so (i.e., if L12 is rejected), then L11 would imply that the supposed change of place must have occurred outside of time -- or, worse, that it happened independently of the passage of time --, which is either incomprehensible, or it would imply that, for parts of their trajectory, moving objects (no matter of how low their speed) moved with an infinite velocity! This was in fact pointed out earlier.

And yet, how else are we to understand Engels's claim that a moving body is actually in two places at once? On that basis, a moving body would move from one place to the next outside of time -- that is, with time having advanced not one instant. In that case, a moving body would be in one place at one instant, and it would move to another place with no lapse of time; such motion would thus take place outside of time (which is tantamount to saying it does not happen, or does not exist).

Indeed, we would now have no right to say that such a body was in the first of these Engelsian locations before it was in the second. [That is because "before" implies an earlier time, which has just been ruled out.] By a suitable induction clause, along the entire trajectory of a body's motion it would not, therefore, be possible to say that a moving body was at the beginning of a journey before it was at the end! [The reasons for saying this will be provided on request.]

Despite this it would seem that this latest difficulty can only be neutralised by means of the adoption of an implausible stipulation to the effect that whereas time is not composed of an infinite series of embedded sub-intervals -- characterised by suitably defined nested sets of real numbers --, location is.

This would further mean that while we may divide the position a body occupies as it moves along as finely as we wish -- so that no matter to what extent we slice a body's location, we would always be able to distinguish two contiguous points allowing us to say that a moving body was in both of these places at the same time --, while we can do that with respect to location, we cannot do the same with respect to time.

Clearly, this is an inconsistent approach to the divisibility of time and space -- wherein we are allowed to divide one of these (space) as much as we like while this is disallowed of the other (time). [It could even be argued that this is where the alleged 'contradiction' originally arose -- it was introduced into this 'problem' right at the start by this inconsistent (implicit) assumption, so no wonder it emerged at a later point -- no puns intended.]

This protocol might at first sight seem to neutralise an earlier objection (i.e., that even though a moving body might be in two places, we could always set up a one-one relation between the latter and two separate instants in time, because time and space can be represented as equally fine-grained), but, plainly, it only achieves this by stipulating (without any justification) that the successful mapping of places onto (nested intervals of) real numbers (to give them the required density and continuity) is denied of temporal intervals.

So, there seem to be three distinct possibilities with these two distinct variables (concerning location and time):

(1) Both time and place are infinitely divisible.

(2) Infinite divisibility is true of location only.

(3) Infinite divisibility is true of either but not both (i.e., it is true of time but not place, or it is true of place but not time).

Naturally, these are not the only alternatives, but they seem to be the only three that are relevant to matters in hand.

Of course, one particular classical response to this dilemma ran along the lines that the infinite divisibility of time and place implies that an allegedly moving body is in fact at rest at some point; so, if we could specify a time at which an object was located at some point, and only that point at that time, it must be at rest at that point at that time. [This seems to be how Zeno at least argued.]

Nevertheless, it seemed equally clear to others that moving bodies cannot be depicted in this way, and that motion must be an 'intrinsic' (or even an 'inherent' property) of moving bodies (that is, we cannot depict moving bodies in a way that would imply they are stationary), so that at all times a moving body must be in motion, allowing it to be in and not in any given location at one and the same time. [This seems to be Hegel's view of the matter -- but good luck to anyone trying to find anything that clear in anything he wrote about this!]

If so, one or more of the above options must be rejected. To that end, it seems that for the latter set of individuals 1) and 3) must be dropped, leaving only 2):

(2) Infinite divisibility is true of location only.

However, it's worth pointing out that the paradoxical conclusions classically associated with these three alternatives only arise if other, less well appreciated assumptions are either left out of the picture or are totally ignored -- i.e., in addition to those alluded to above concerning the continuity of space and the (assumed) discrete nature of time. As it turns out, the precise form taken by several of these suppressed and unacknowledged premisses depends on what view is taken of the allegedly 'real' meaning of the words like "motion" and "place".


The above is taken from Essay Five at my site (where I detail several other fatal objections to Engels and Hegel).

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm

FW:

Quote:
The main observation, however, remains -- when a body is moving it must be both in one place and in another place. It can never be in only one place.


But, only if you are prepared to impose on nature the asymmetrical conditions noted above.

FW:

Quote:
May I remind her that, for instance, classical thermodynamics is only concerned with the possibility for a reaction to take place and is never concerned with the time it takes for that reaction to take place. When calculating the change of the Gibbs free energy, deltaG, of a reaction, one, applying classical thermodynamics, only needs to know what the sign of that deltaG is, never asking anything connected with time or time intervals. If that sign is negative, then the reaction can take place. It is of no concern to classical thermodynamics whether it will take one second or a million years for that reaction to occur but only whether or not it can occur at all, whether or not it can occur in principle. Positive deltaG indicates that such reaction will never take place, no matter what time one devotes in waiting for it to happen. There is another theoretical branch, different from classical thermodynamics, called kinetics (for instance, chemical kinetics), which deals with the rate of reactions. That important discipline studies ways to speed up possible reactions that ordinarily would need, say, hundreds or millions of years to proceed, to see them taking place in minutes, if not seconds. That is achieved by using the so-called catalysts which decrease the activation energies of these possible reactions. Catalysts have no effect on reactions which are impossible.


Thanks for the reminder, but I was aware of this. Now, if physicists came out with vague and ill-defined claims like this:

Quote:
"The transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Dialectics of Nature.]

"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations, in which, at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap; for example, in the case of heated or cooled water, where boiling-point and freezing-point are the nodes at which -- under normal pressure -- the leap to a new state of aggregation takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." [Anti-Dühring, p.56. Bold emphasis added.]

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring." [Ibid., pp.82-83. Bold emphasis added.]

"We have already seen earlier, when discussing world schematism, that in connection with this Hegelian nodal line of measure relations -- in which quantitative change suddenly passes at certain points into qualitative transformation -- Herr Dühring had a little accident: in a weak moment he himself recognised and made use of this line. We gave there one of the best-known examples -- that of the change of the aggregate states of water, which under normal atmospheric pressure changes at 0°C from the liquid into the solid state, and at 100°C from the liquid into the gaseous state, so that at both these turning-points the merely quantitative change of temperature brings about a qualitative change in the condition of the water." [Ibid., p.160. Bold emphasis added.]

"It is said, natura non facit saltum [there are no leaps in nature]; and ordinary thinking when it has to grasp a coming-to-be or a ceasing-to-be, fancies it has done so by representing it as a gradual emergence or disappearance. But we have seen that the alterations of being in general are not only the transition of one magnitude into another, but a transition from quality into quantity and vice versa, a becoming-other which is an interruption of gradualness and the production of something qualitatively different from the reality which preceded it. Water, in cooling, does not gradually harden as if it thickened like porridge, gradually solidifying until it reached the consistency of ice; it suddenly solidifies, all at once. It can remain quite fluid even at freezing point if it is standing undisturbed, and then a slight shock will bring it into the solid state." [Hegel Science of Logic, p.370, §776. Bold emphasis added.]

"The 'nodal line of measure relations'... -- transitions of quantity into quality.... Gradualness and leaps. And again...that gradualness explains nothing without leaps." [Lenin Philosophical Notebooks, p.123. Bold emphasis added. Lenin added in the margin here: "Leaps! Leaps! Leaps!"]


Then we'd rightly ask them to be more precise.

We are left in the dark what these "qualities" are (except, Hegel's definition, which he derived from Aristotle, in fact rules out the boiling/freezing water example!) nor are we told how long these 'nodes' last.

Because of this, dialecticians find they can apply this 'law' in an entirely subjective manner in relation to what is supposed to be an objective law.

So, it is apposite to point out what I have about these vague 'nodes/leaps' and 'qualities'.

It is also quite plain that you are basing your criticisms on introductory essays I have written (where I am forced to be superficial), rather than on my full essays, which is about as sensible as criticising Das Kapital having only read Wages, Price and Profit!

James Kennedy:

Quote:
Future World, firstly, as the forums' leading quack, I strongly recommend that you stop reading stuff written by Rosa Lichtenstein, for the sake of your mental and physical health.


Clearly, too late in your case.


FW:

Quote:
That's correct. That's the point I'm making which Rosa Lichtenstein should heed if she really cares to understand Engels' thought.


In fact, as we have seen: if we want to understand motion (or anything scientific or philosophical) Hegel's and Engels's works are the last place we should be looking.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2012, 05:59
To characterize a moving body t is not enough because for a moving body dt =/= 0, as was pointed out. Therefore, a moving body is characterized by both t and non-zero dt, and not only by t, as was already explained. Thus, implications that if we don’t only observe a moving body at time t then “the supposed change of place must have occurred outside of time -- or, worse, that it happened independently of the passage of time” do not follow. Once this already explained fact (that motion is characterized by both t and non-zero dt, and not only by t), all the rest of the lengthy text becomes redundant. It would be desirable to read the arguments that have already been presented to release the opponent from the necessity to repeat them.

As for the “nodal points”, what I said was regarding the objection concerning their duration. Is it now understood that duration isn’t of concern regarding these nodes?
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2012, 13:05
FW:

Quote:
To characterize a moving body t is not enough because for a moving body dt =/= 0, as was pointed out. Therefore, a moving body is characterized by both t and non-zero dt, and not only by t, as was already explained. Thus, implications that if we don’t only observe a moving body at time t then “the supposed change of place must have occurred outside of time -- or, worse, that it happened independently of the passage of time” do not follow. Once this already explained fact (that motion is characterized by both t and non-zero dt, and not only by t), all the rest of the lengthy text becomes redundant. It would be desirable to read the arguments that have already been presented to release the opponent from the necessity to repeat them.


In which case, your dt is a time interval. I dealt with that in my reply.

But, what about this?

Quote:
Thus, implications that if we don’t only observe a moving body at time t then “the supposed change of place must have occurred outside of time -- or, worse, that it happened independently of the passage of time” do not follow.


Well, that comment of mine was in response to what Engels argued (to whom you suggested I look for inspiration), not you:

Quote:
"[A]s soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence…[t]hen we immediately become involved in contradictions. Motion itself is a contradiction; even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body being both in one place and in another place at one and the same moment of time, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continual assertion and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is."


Anti-Duhring, p.152. Bold added.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... g/ch10.htm

Here, he is quite clear: a body is "both in one place and in another place at one and the same moment of time, being in one and the same place and also not in it", that is, it moves with no time having lapsed.

If he had meant this:

E1: For some b, for two instants t(1) and t(2), b is at p at t(1) and not at p at t(2), and b is at q at t(2).

where t(1) and t(2) both belong to some time interval T (such that dt =/= 0), there would be no contradiction. His 'contradiction' depends on the time difference between t(1) and t(2) being zero.

Which is why he argued elsewhere as follows:

Quote:
How are these forms of calculus used? In a given problem, for example, I have two variables, x and y, neither of which can vary without the other also varying in a ratio determined by the facts of the case. I differentiate x and y, i.e., I take x and y as so infinitely small that in comparison with any real quantity, however small, they disappear, that nothing is left of x and y but their reciprocal relation without any, so to speak, material basis, a quantitative ratio in which there is no quantity. Therefore, dy/dx, the ratio between the differentials of x and y, is dx equal to 0/0 but 0/0 taken as the expression of y/x. I only mention in passing that this ratio between two quantities which have disappeared, caught at the moment of their disappearance, is a contradiction; however, it cannot disturb us any more than it has disturbed the whole of mathematics for almost two hundred years. And now, what have I done but negate x and y, though not in such a way that I need not bother about them any more, not in the way that metaphysics negates, but in the way that corresponds with the facts of the case? In place of x and y, therefore, I have their negation, dx and dy, in the formulas or equations before me. I continue then to operate with these formulas, treating dx and dy as quantities which are real, though subject to certain exceptional laws, and at a certain point I negate the negation, i.e., I integrate the differential formula, and in place of dx and dy again get the real quantities x and y, and am then not where I was at the beginning, but by using this method I have solved the problem on which ordinary geometry and algebra might perhaps have broken their jaws in vain.


Anti-Dühring, p.175. [I have used the Foreign Languages edition.]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... g/ch11.htm

As he notes, it is the alleged "disappearance" of these 'quantities' (when they equal zero, when dy/dx or dx/dt =0) that creates/constitutes the 'contradiction'.

And why he asserted:

Quote:
even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body being both in one place and in another place at one and the same moment of time, being in one and the same place and also not in it.


Bold added.

According to him, a moving body is in one place and not in it at the same time. In other words it has moved while time hasn't.

FW:

Quote:
It would be desirable to read the arguments that have already been presented to release the opponent from the necessity to repeat them


Which is good advice; I suggest you take it.

FW:

Quote:
As for the “nodal points”, what I said was regarding the objection concerning their duration. Is it now understood that duration isn’t of concern regarding these nodes?


Not at all. What on earth makes you say that? The notion is just as vague now as it was when that non-scientist, Hegel, dreamt it up.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2012, 16:05
Non-zero dt and t are indelible and in contradiction for a body in motion as are the non-zero dx and x. This is what you have to understand first, before dwelling into what Engels or anybody else says about motion.

Also, when talking about phase change, thermodynamics does not consider the time it takes for that change to take place. Where is the time factor in Gibbs-Thomsom isotherm?
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2012, 17:55
FW:

Quote:
Non-zero dt and t are indelible and in contradiction for a body in motion as are the non-zero dx and x. This is what you have to understand first, before dwelling into what Engels or anybody else says about motion.


1) What do you mean by 'indelible'? That they can't be rubbed out, removed or washed away?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indelible

But nothing is easier. Just use the delete key.

2) Assuming you mean that they can't be ignored or explained away (or that this is a necessary truth of some sort), how do you know? Are you imposing a certain view on nature?

Quote:
"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels Anti-Duhring, p.13. Bold emphasis added.]


Quote:
"A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice...." [George Novack The Origin of Materialism, p.17. Bold emphasis added.]


3. In my posts here, and in my essays at my site, I am discussing classical dialectical materialism, not your revisionist version (which would imply there is no contradiction in motion).

4. I agree with you that dt=/= 0, but Engels doesn't as my last post shows.

FW:

Quote:
Also, when talking about phase change, thermodynamics does not consider the time it takes for that change to take place. Where is the time factor in Gibbs-Thomsom isotherm?


I have already said I take your point, but there is a specific time reference in Engels's 'Law', as I pointed out earlier -- a node is a change in the rate of change of a body's qualitative development. In which case, it is pertinent to ask for it to be defined. Otherwise the application of this allegedly 'objective' law is entirely subjective.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2012, 18:05
What I'm saying refers to a natural property of motion of a body. A moving body cannot be characterized by t (or x) only, neither can it be characterized by dt (or dx) only. Both dt (dx) and t (x) characterize the motion of the body. This physical fact you have to understand first.

Also, you have to understand first that thermodynamic description of phase changes does not involve time.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2012, 20:01
FW:

Quote:
What I'm saying refers to a natural property of motion of a body. A moving body cannot be characterized by t (or x) only, neither can it be characterized by dt (or dx) only. Both dt (dx) and t (x) characterize the motion of the body. This physical fact you have to understand first.


Where did I suggest otherwise?

The point is however that Engels's characterisation of motion is defective.

I can't say whether or not yours is since it seems rather vague, but from what I can determine, it doesn't seem to imply a contradiction.

But, since we are supposed to be discussing Engels's theory, not yours, my comments still stand.

Quote:
Also, you have to understand first that thermodynamic description of phase changes does not involve time.


Which, alas, means that Engels's 'Law' does not apply -- since his 'leaps' and 'nodes' do require some reference to time.

[You have yet to explain "quality" though...]
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2012, 21:09
This is exactly my point. We’re not discussing my theory. What we’re discussing are fundamental facts of physics which you have to understand prior to attempting to understand philosophical theories involving them. Nothing in these fundamental physical facts should remain vague for you because they are strictly defined physically. Thus, you should also leave the feeling that you have not suggested otherwise while, in fact, you have.

During motion, the position of a body in physical terms is defined by x and yet it is not defined by x but is defined by dx. When in motion a body is at one point x and yet it is at two points whose difference is dx. The same applies to time – you can define the body in motion at time t and yet there is a difference of two times, dt, which also characterizes temporally a body in motion. These are obviously contradictory conditions of motion, coexisting. Motion is a constant resolution of these contradictions. This is what physics says, which, of course, can be clothed in philosophical lingo, if one needs to.
» Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
cron