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

Some Points Concerning Dialectical Materialism

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 18 Jun 2012, 22:11
This reminds me of how I tried to explain to Rosa that Engels saying that the motion is the mode of existence of matter is the same thing as Einstein proclaiming mass-energy equivalence. She didn't get that either. Maybe you can clear that up? Because the way you combine physics and dialectics is really impressive.

Also OP clearly didn't understand anything about diamat if he claims that this is not it.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2012, 23:40
Yes, I believe I can shed some light on this. In fact, I have written several pieces about it and I'm sending you by PM links to two of them, specifically formatted for internet reading. Please take a look at these and if you have any questions and would like to talk further about it let me know.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 19 Jun 2012, 00:00
Do share with the class, though, if it's not too much of a bother.

In a separate topic, though, so as to avoid disrupting your current discussion.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 00:26
FW:

Quote:
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.


Well, I could say the same to you, but I am far too polite.

Anyway, your comment in fact shows Engels was mistaken (the calculus shows there is no contradiction here), so I do not know why you posted it.

FW:

Quote:
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.


I fail to see the contradiction here. You need to be clearer.

Anyway, how does motion 'resolve' this contradiction? Is it like solving a puzzle? If so, on your account, motion must be intelligent. Is it really?

But this can't be the case:

Quote:
When in motion a body is at one point x and yet it is at two points whose difference is dx.


If it were, there'd be two bodies, not one.

Anyway, how do you know a body in motion is in two places (I presume you mean in two places at once, as did Engels)?

Quote:
The same applies to time


But if so, my earlier point now stands:

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), and there would be no contradiction.

Mabool:

Quote:
This reminds me of how I tried to explain to Rosa that Engels saying that the motion is the mode of existence of matter is the same thing as Einstein proclaiming mass-energy equivalence. She didn't get that either. Maybe you can clear that up? Because the way you combine physics and dialectics is really impressive.


Well, you certainly failed to be clear on this, so we both 'didn't get it'.

Quote:
Also OP clearly didn't understand anything about diamat if he claims that this is not it


If so, he's in good company, since no one seems to know what diamat is -- or if they do they have kept that fact well hidden.
"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 19 Jun 2012, 01:05
Start here: "how do you know a body in motion is in two places". The body in motion is characterized by dx which is a difference of two places -- one located at x1 and the other located at x2. This is what physics says, not I.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 01:25
FW:

Quote:
Start here: "how do you know a body in motion is in two places". The body in motion is characterized by dx which is a difference of two places -- one located at x1 and the other located at x2. This is what physics says, not I.


In fact, I asked this question:

Quote:
Anyway, how do you know a body in motion is in two places (I presume you mean in two places at once, as did Engels)?


If you didn't mean this, I then posted this comment (which you just ignored):

Quote:
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), and there would be no contradiction.


Now, if a body is in two places at two different times, which seems to be what you are saying in your own confused way, then there is no contradiction. [Or, if there is, you need to explain what it is.]

On the other hand, if you are saying that a body in motion is in two places at the same time (which is what Engels is asserting), then my objections (posted earlier) still stand.

Moreover, you failed to explain why this is a contradiction:

Quote:
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.


Engels certainly thinks his version is a contradiction (but he also failed to say why it was), but yours differs from his account, and we still do not know why yours is a contradiction -- you seem reluctant to say.

Alas, physics can't help you out here, comrade.

And we are still waiting for you to explain how motion can 'resolve' a contradiction.

Physics is no help here, either!
"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 19 Jun 2012, 01:39
On the contrary, we're only taliking physics here and that is what helps. Is it clear now that when a moving body is in x, it is also in two places, signified by dx?
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 04:42
FW, I see you are ignoring those questions you can't answer -- as I said, Physics is no use when you are tyrying to do philosophy.

[I am resiting the temptation to suggest you are out of your depth when it comes to philosophy, but, alas, the case for the defense gets weaker with each of your posts!]

Quote:
On the contrary, we're only taliking physics here and that is what helps. Is it clear now that when a moving body is in x, it is also in two places, signified by dx?


I note you still can't explain why this is a contradiction, or tell us whether or not this is what you mean:

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), hence there would be no contradiction.

If not, what do you mean, and why is it a contradiction?

Why so shy? Don't you know how to defend your ideas or explain yourself?

If you can't explain yourself, at least have the courage to admit it.

And we are still waiting for you to explain how motion can 'resolve' a contradiction.

As we can now see, Physics is no help here, otherwise you'd have answered this by now.
"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 19 Jun 2012, 04:49
I'll get to resolving the contradiction later but first things first. Again, is it clear now that when a moving body is in x, it is also in two places, signified by dx?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 19 Jun 2012, 04:55
Both of you, stop reiterating the same sentences. Either address each other, or don't post until you can
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 19 Jun 2012, 05:03
The answer to the last question is crucial for the exchange to proceed. This is the main point Rosa Lichtenstein fails to comprehend which generates all further errors in her analysis. Thus, it seems inevitable that we should pause here until understanding is reached.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 10:43
FW:

Quote:
I'll get to resolving the contradiction later but first things first. Again, is it clear now that when a moving body is in x, it is also in two places, signified by dx?


At the risk of offending Praxi here: is this at the same time or at two different times?

Quote:
The answer to the last question is crucial for the exchange to proceed. This is the main point Rosa Lichtenstein fails to comprehend which generates all further errors in her analysis. Thus, it seems inevitable that we should pause here until understanding is reached.


in fact, you have yet to reveal a single error in my 'analysis', all the while failing to show where yours generates the 'contradiction' Hegel and Engels need.
"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 19 Jun 2012, 13:27
You continuously require a body in motion to be observed metaphysically -- only in a given place at a given time. As you have been shown more than once, however, physics disallows such limited description of the motion of a body. A body in motion is, contradictorily, in one place as well as in two places. Likewise, regarding time, a body in motion, when observed at a given time, contradictorily, is also observed at two different times. According to physics there is no such thing as a moving body in a given place at a given time, solely.

Now, focus on this single error in your understanding, which I have already pinpointed; at that, more than once, and try to correct it.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 16:16
FW:

Quote:
You continuously require a body in motion to be observed metaphysically -- only in a given place at a given time. As you have been shown more than once, however, physics disallows such limited description of the motion of a body. A body in motion is, contradictorily, in one place as well as in two places. Likewise, regarding time, a body in motion, when observed at a given time, contradictorily, is also observed at two different times. According to physics there is no such thing as a moving body in a given place at a given time, solely.


Not so, I also asked you earlier if the time you spoke of was in fact a temporal interval, which query you refused to answer (so I had to speculate about your meaning). We can now see that you really mean two different times, not the same time. In which case, you have yet to explain the/your alleged contradiction here. Of course, if you don't mean this, then it's not too clear what you do mean.

Moreover, in view of the fact that you wish to impose Hegel's a priori, dogmatic 'theory' on nature, yours, my fine friend, is the metaphysical view here.

Quote:
A body in motion is, contradictorily, in one place as well as in two places


In which case, it must have split!

Anyway, there is nothing contradictory about a body being in two places. For, example, unless you are a mathematical point, your body is in many places all at once, and quite often stationary with respect to a suitably chosen frame of reference. So, if there is a 'contradiction' here, it has nothing to do with motion.

Moreover, if the (moving) body you mentioned is in the following two places: <x(1), y(1), z(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2)> all at once (which is what you seem to be saying), then you have no way of characterising its motion. That's because there is no way you can say it's in the first of these places before it's in the second -- unless, of course, you add a fourth coordinate, as follows <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(2)> -- [t(2) > t(1)].

In that case, you would be able say it was in the first before it was in the second.

But your 'theory' seems to be, or to imply, this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(1)> -- or, worse, this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(?)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(?)>.

If you mean this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(1)>, the body in question can't have moved!

On the other hand, if you mean this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(?)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(?)>, then your 'theory' is far too confused for it to be assessed for its truth or its falsehood.

If you want to say that the body in question was in the first place before it was in the second (which you will have to do if it is moving), you need to be able to say that it was in the first earlier than it was in the second, and hence the t co-ordinate has to change. If you refuse to say that, or you refuse to assign a different t co-ordinate, you forfeit the right to say the body in question is moving.

Of course, you might not want to use a t co-ordinate. Fine, no problem with that. In which case, how are you going to be able to say the body in question was in the first location before it was in the second? On your account you can't. Hence, and once more, your 'moving' body is in fact stationary.

[As I said, physics will not help you here, you need to make sense, and to do that you need to use language carefully, and that brings in philosophy.]

So, your revisionist account of Hegel and Engels's 'theory' is actually worse than theirs, since your version would freeze frame everything!

Quote:
According to physics there is no such thing as a moving body in a given place at a given time, solely


Er..., no; according to your quirky view of physics, you mean.

Quote:
Now, focus on this single error in your understanding, which I have already pinpointed; at that, more than once, and try to correct it.


As we have seen, it's not my 'understanding' that is in error, but yours.

So, now we have established that, care to explain how motion can 'resolve' this non-contradiction of yours?
"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 19 Jun 2012, 19:52
I don't want to say anything. Again, this is not my theory at all but is what physics of a moving body is. You may save all that lengthy text by which you try to avoid looking at physical facts by simply considering them honestly.

Physics implies nothing of the kind you're trying to impose on it. For instance, we obviously are not talking about the position of a body along the three Cartesian axes but we're considering only its position along the x-axis. We, of course, are not talking about all the points of the body, which are at different x-axis values but are considering the x-axis position of the center of the mass of the body etc. All you're trying to do is to flood the conversation with irrelevant sentences only with the aim to avoid an honest look at what physics really provides as description of the motion of a body. Read again my previous text which summarizes my trying to explain repeatedly in various ways the simple fact that physics disallows you to observe, as you do, motion as a compilation of states of rest.

EDIT:

Quote:
"In which case, it must have split!"


Not at all. The body in question is a single body in motion and yet it is characterized by two spatial (x and dx) and two temporal (t and dt) parameters. It is not true that these couples characterize two bodies.



Quote:
"Anyway, there is nothing contradictory about a body being in two places. For, example, unless you are a mathematical point, your body is in many places all at once, and quite often stationary with respect to a suitably chosen frame of reference. So, if there is a 'contradiction' here, it has nothing to do with motion.
Moreover, if the (moving) body you mentioned is in the following two places: <x(1), y(1), z(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2)> all at once (which is what you seem to be saying), then you have no way of characterising its motion. That's because there is no way you can say it's in the first of these places before it's in the second -- unless, of course, you add a fourth coordinate, as follows <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(2)> -- [t(2) > t(1)]."


You'd better avoid this method of obfuscation. We're only considering x-axis values of the (for convenience) center of mass of the body. Again, not I, physics says that the center of mass of a moving body is in x and yet in dx (meaning at x1 and x2, because dx is x2 - x1) which is at time t and yet at time dt (wich is at time t1 and t2, because dt is t2 - t1). This, according to physics, doesn't at all mean that it is in the first place before it is in the second. Physics, not I, says that the moving body is in one place (x) and, contradictorily, in two places (dx). Otherwise, it would not be characterized by both x and dx at the inseparable times t and dt.



Quote:
"But your 'theory' seems to be, or to imply, this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(1)> -- or, worse, this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(?)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(?)>.
If you mean this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(1)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(1)>, the body in question can't have moved!
On the other hand, if you mean this: <x(1), y(1), z(1), t(?)> and <(x(2), y(2), z(2), t(?)>, then your 'theory' is far too confused for it to be assessed for its truth or its falsehood.
If you want to say that the body in question was in the first place before it was in the second (which you will have to do if it is moving), you need to be able to say that it was in the first earlier than it was in the second, and hence the t co-ordinate has to change. If you refuse to say that, or you refuse to assign a different t co-ordinate, you forfeit the right to say the body in question is moving."


I mean nothing of the kind, you know it well and therefore you should avoid such method of obfuscation to gain advantage in a discussion.



Quote:
"Of course, you might not want to use a t co-ordinate. Fine, no problem with that. In which case, how are you going to be able to say the body in question was in the first location before it was in the second? On your account you can't. Hence, and once more, your 'moving' body is in fact stationary."


Like I explained multiple times, physics does not dismember the position of the body in this way but observes the x and dx in unity, as well as it observes t and dt in unity. Your proposed dismemberment is what metaphysics does, not the physics of moving bodies.


Quote:
"[As I said, physics will not help you here, you need to make sense, and to do that you need to use language carefully, and that brings in philosophy.]
So, your revisionist account of Hegel and Engels's 'theory' is actually worse than theirs, since your version would freeze frame everything!"


I already said and I'll repeat -- don't bring in philosophy. Observe motion physically because it is the only way to understand what motion really is in its unity of opposites.



Quote:
"According to physics there is no such thing as a moving body in a given place at a given time, solely
Er..., no; according to your quirky view of physics, you mean."


No it's not my way to observe that a body is characterized by x and dx in unity as well as by t and dt in unity. That's physics. Nothing to do with me.



Quote:
"Now, focus on this single error in your understanding, which I have already pinpointed; at that, more than once, and try to correct it.
As we have seen, it's not my 'understanding' that is in error, but yours.
So, now we have established that, care to explain how motion can 'resolve' this non-contradiction of yours?"


Quite the contrary. You are the one who still fails to observe the unity of the two contradictory parameters x and dx and of the two contradictory parameters t and dt when describing the motion of a body. How this contradiction is resolved is a next step which we cannot get into before the first step is accomplished -- understanding the united and yet contradictory nature of the parameters characterizing motion.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2012, 23:40
FW, thanks for at least attempting to engage with what I have said.

I can't reply tonight, or in the next few days. I will return late on Thursday, all being well, and will respond then to what you have posted.
"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 19 Jun 2012, 23:46
Think it this way. Observe a smooth function y = f(t). For every t there’s a value y of this function. However, at every t there is also a value of the first derivative dy/dt of this function. This is an undeniable mathematical fact.

You can now plot dy/dt as a function of t and it will not be true that each point of that new dy/dt = F(t) function corresponds to only one t and only one y of the y = f(t) function. Every point on the dy/dt = F(t) will, undoubtedly, correspond to two t’s and two y’s of the y = f(t) function. This is an inherent property of the dy/dt = F(t), derived from y = f(t). That’s also an undeniable mathematical fact.

Now, you can talk all you want that each one single point on the y = f(t) function corresponds to only one single t but in talking that way you cannot make the fact disappear that there is also an inevitable dy/dt = F(t), each point of which corresponds to two t’s and two y’s of the y = f(t) function.

The coexistence of y = f(x) and dy/dt = F(t) is an undeniable mathematical fact (which in this particular case has a clear physical content). This fact of inevitable coexistence you’re trying to swipe under the rug and are foisting a discussion only about y = f(x), as if dy/dt = F(t) doesn’t exist. This is your mistake expressed now in mathematical terms. You have to correct that mistake in order to understand further what the resolution of the above inherent contradiction is.

EDIT:

Sorry, didn't see your previous post which apparently had appeared while I was typing. Of course, I will wait till you return and we will take it from there. There's no rush.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 20 Jun 2012, 03:36
Please don't double post. You can always hit "edit" on your previous reply and add what you forgot.

Also, I took the liberty of adding quote boxes to the quoted texts in your reply for clarity's sake. You can do that easily by highlighting the appropriate text and hitting the "quote" button on your reply (or manually by bookending [ quote] and [ /quote] tags, without the spaces).

Thank you.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 22 Jun 2012, 00:09
FW:

Quote:
I don't want to say anything. Again, this is not my theory at all but is what physics of a moving body is. You may save all that lengthy text by which you try to avoid looking at physical facts by simply considering them honestly.


Once more, this is not 'the physics of a moving body', but your attempt to express your own interpretation of it in ordinary language -- and it doesn't work, since you have skewed the result. And that is because you are operating with the mistaken belief that we have something/anything to learn from Hegel, and/or Engels in this area. And you can't even get these two right!

Quote:
You may save all that lengthy text by which you try to avoid looking at physical facts by simply considering them honestly.


Unfortunately, I have to go to such lengths since I am struggling to understand what you are trying to say in your own enigmatic way. You certainly don't seem to be able to tell us with any clarity what you do mean. So, if you want my replies to be shorter, you need to be clearer.

Quote:
For instance, we obviously are not talking about the position of a body along the three Cartesian axes but we're considering only its position along the x-axis.


In other words, you are talking about motion in an abstract universe, not the real world; great start!

Quote:
We, of course, are not talking about all the points of the body, which are at different x-axis values but are considering the x-axis position of the center of the mass of the body etc.


Which centre of mass moves all the time, even when that body is stationary. But even if it didn't, you are now talking about a mathematical point, and one that does not exist in the real world. We can certainly calculate the centre of mass, but nature can't -- unless you believe that nature is intelligent, just like you seem to believe that motion is intelligent and can 'resolve' contradictions.

But, my point still stands. Bodies (which is what you were originally talking about, not moving mathematical points, and which is what both Hegel and Engels were talking about) can certainly occupy many points at once, and be stationary with respect to an inertial frame. So, if there is a 'contradiction' here it has nothing to do with motion, but is the result of ambiguities in the language you chose to use.

Quote:
All you're trying to do is to flood the conversation with irrelevant sentences only with the aim to avoid an honest look at what physics really provides as description of the motion of a body.


Not, so, I have at least forced you to be clearer, even if in the end it is still not too clear what you are banging on about. Perhaps at the end of this even you will be able to understand what you mean. One can only hope.

Quote:
Read again my previous text which summarizes my trying to explain repeatedly in various ways the simple fact that physics disallows you to observe, as you do, motion as a compilation of states of rest.


Well, it's certainly an empirical matter whether motion is in fact a succession of states of rest; you can't decide this on the basis of some mathematics you barely seem to understand. [For example, you seem to think "dx" is a location; it is in fact a left over from the Leibnizian analysis (now 300 years out-of-date), where it is treated as part of a quotient, when, in the modern view, it is an expression of the functional relation between time and position.]

Be this as it may, there is nothing in my post to suggest I think that "motion [is] a compilation of states of rest". What I am not trying to do is express my own theory of motion (which I do not have, nor do I want one), but encourage you to be clear about what you mean. One minute you seem to regard the time variable as an instant (an abstraction -- when the body in question is in two places at once), the next (no pun intended) you seem to regard it as an interval (when you say that dt =/= 0). If the latter is the case, then there is no contradiction. If the former, then you have no way of saying that the body was in the first location before it was in the second, which, of course, implies it is not moving. [But see below.]

And I am having to go into such detail again, since, even now, your idiosyncratic view of physics is as clear as non-dialectical mud.

Quote:
Not at all. The body in question is a single body in motion and yet it is characterized by two spatial (x and dx) and two temporal (t and dt) parameters. It is not true that these couples characterize two bodies.


Maybe your mathematics needs to catch up with your use of ordinary English then, for if a body is in two places at once, it has either expanded or it has split. Perhaps you mean something different by 'body', or 'place', or even 'motion'? If so, what?

Quote:
You'd better avoid this method of obfuscation.


My responses to you are determined by your refusal to be clear about what you mean. There is one solution to this quandary: you need to at least try to make yourself comprehensible.

Quote:
We're only considering x-axis values of the (for convenience) center of mass of the body. Again, not I, physics says that the center of mass of a moving body is in x and yet in dx (meaning at x1 and x2, because dx is x2 - x1) which is at time t and yet at time dt (which is at time t1 and t2, because dt is t2 - t1). This, according to physics, doesn't at all mean that it is in the first place before it is in the second. Physics, not I, says that the moving body is in one place (x) and, contradictorily, in two places (dx). Otherwise, it would not be characterized by both x and dx at the inseparable times t and dt.


At last! A ray of clarity, since from the above you regard dt (which, according to you, is t(2)-t(1)) as an interval in time, in which case there is no 'contradiction'.

But wait!

Alas, we now slip right back into dialectical fog again:

Quote:
This, according to physics, doesn't at all mean that it is in the first place before it is in the second.


Then it can't have moved. [But, see below.]

Unless, as I said before, you mean something different by 'move'. As I also said earlier, Physics can't help you out here. When you try to translate your quirky view of 'motion' into language that is comprehensible, you end up with the result that this 'moving' body is in fact stationary!

Quote:
Physics, not I, says that the moving body is in one place (x) and, contradictorily, in two places (dx). Otherwise, it would not be characterized by both x and dx at the inseparable times t and dt.


Well, you keep telling us what 'Physics says' (but I'd like to see a standard treatment of the physics and/or the mathematics of motion that sees things this way; certainly in the course of my mathematics degree, I didn't come across one such, and haven't in the twenty years since), but, if you are right then it is quite plain that 'Physics' (as you see it) doesn't actually study motion, but 'motion' (a term we do not yet understand), which implies that 'moving' bodies are in fact stationary! [But, see below.]

Quote:
I mean nothing of the kind, you know it well and therefore you should avoid such method of obfuscation to gain advantage in a discussion.


1) May I remind you that you were the one who opened this thread with an incorrect interpretation of my views, and which you didn't even bother to support with a single quotation. So, you have no right to lecture me, sonny Jim.

2) Once more, I am forced to try to spell out the implications of your confused view of motion (or, rather, 'motion') until you find some way of expressing yourself in language that is free from ambiguity. Are you capable of doing that? [Alas, from what we have seen up to now, a favourable answer to that question is now in considerable doubt.]

Quote:
Like I explained multiple times, physics does not dismember the position of the body in this way but observes the x and dx in unity, as well as it observes t and dt in unity. Your proposed dismemberment is what metaphysics does, not the physics of moving bodies.... No it's not my way to observe that a body is characterized by x and dx in unity as well as by t and dt in unity. That's physics. Nothing to do with me.


Once again, you report your quirky view of Physics as if it were the 'official' position. I don't buy it, especially when your view would freeze frame 'moving' bodies -- either that, or you'd have Physics studying 'motion' (a term that is still in need of explanation) as opposed to motion.

Quote:
I already said and I'll repeat -- don't bring in philosophy.


But, Hegel and Engels introduced Philosophy into the discussion, so pick a fight with them, not me! Neither of them were Physicists or Mathematicians (and if we go by what they wrote, they weren't too good at either).

And, as we have also seen, one of the reasons why you are struggling to make yourself comprehensible is that you refuse to introduce philosophical clarity into your discussion.

Quote:
Observe motion physically because it is the only way to understand what motion really is in its unity of opposites.


1) Well, since the doctrine of the 'unity of opposites' would in fact mean that motion and change were impossible (on that see the link below), I'm not too sure it's wise to bring it into this debate. You have enough problems on your plate as it is.

viewtopic.php?f=107&t=49251

2) In fact, observation of moving bodies shows that they are in one place before they are in the next. Now, if your quirky view of Physics tells you otherwise, then may I suggest you revise it in the light of experience. [Which is what normal Physics has always done; can't speak about your non-standard version, though!]

Quote:
Think it this way. Observe a smooth function y = f(t). For every t there’s a value y of this function. However, at every t there is also a value of the first derivative dy/dt of this function. This is an undeniable mathematical fact.

You can now plot dy/dt as a function of t and it will not be true that each point of that new dy/dt = F(t) function corresponds to only one t and only one y of the y = f(t) function. Every point on the dy/dt = F(t) will, undoubtedly, correspond to two t’s and two y’s of the y = f(t) function. This is an inherent property of the dy/dt = F(t), derived from y = f(t). That’s also an undeniable mathematical fact.

Now, you can talk all you want that each one single point on the y = f(t) function corresponds to only one single t but in talking that way you cannot make the fact disappear that there is also an inevitable dy/dt = F(t), each point of which corresponds to two t’s and two y’s of the y = f(t) function.

The coexistence of y = f(x) and dy/dt = F(t) is an undeniable mathematical fact (which in this particular case has a clear physical content). This fact of inevitable coexistence you’re trying to swipe under the rug and are foisting a discussion only about y = f(x), as if dy/dt = F(t) doesn’t exist. This is your mistake expressed now in mathematical terms. You have to correct that mistake in order to understand further what the resolution of the above inherent contradiction is.


I'm glad to see you have moved into function notation, which might help prevent you from interpreting dx as some sort of location, but I fail to see how the above helps, especially when you seem to contradict yourself:

Quote:
that each point of that new dy/dt = F(t) function corresponds to only one t and only one y of the y = f(t) function. Every point on the dy/dt = F(t) will, undoubtedly, correspond to two t’s and two y’s of the y = f(t) function.


As I noted above, one minute you see the t variable as an instant (and thus an abstraction in which nothing can move), then next as an interval, in which there can be no contradiction.

Quote:
Quite the contrary. You are the one who still fails to observe the unity of the two contradictory parameters x and dx and of the two contradictory parameters t and dt when describing the motion of a body. How this contradiction is resolved is a next step which we cannot get into before the first step is accomplished -- understanding the united and yet contradictory nature of the parameters characterizing motion.


But you have yet to tell us why this is a 'contradiction'.

And, that is where you have smuggled some defective philosophy/logic into the discussion, without justifying it. This is no surprise, either, since Hegel and Engels also failed to justify this move (as, indeed, has every dialectician since). Perhaps you can do better?

We'll see...
"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 22 Jun 2012, 00:37
The problem is that you're repeating your metaphysical argument over and over again, requiting to dismember the unity of the opposites, so clearly evident in my last math example. Science is an abstract pursuit which does not mean that its results do not apply to real bodies. So, try to use the abstract language of science in argumentation, a language which should have certainly been the machinery you were taught during the years of obtaining your science (I suppose) degree. Why have a degree in science (as I suppose you do) and then forget it in a conversations such as this one?

EDIT: When I say degree in science I mean degree in some of the natural sciences. Degree in mathematics when discussing the matters at hand isn't enough. It helps, but education in natural sciences where math is only a tool, is a must.
Last edited by Future World on 22 Jun 2012, 00:58, edited 1 time in total.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.