Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: 1) In fact yours is the metaphysical view since it depends on some defective philosophy/logic Hegel inflicted on humanity (which you have yet to justify). You certainly won't find physics or mathematics texts talking the way you do (unless, of course, their authors have also swallowed uncritically what they have read in Hegel and/or Engels). 2) As I noted, the doctrine of the 'unity of opposites' would make change impossible. Check out my proof at the above link. 3) This doctrine isn't of course physics, it's a left over from ancient and mystical ideas about how the 'gods' ran the universe (hence the use of the word 'struggle'). So, you're a fine one to accuse me of 'metaphysics'! Quote: But, as we have seen, your quirky version of Physics would either make motion impossible, or would undermine your claim that there is a 'contradiction' here (once again, a term the use of which you have yet to justify  you certainly won't find this word used in physics or mathematics texts  you have simply helped yourself to this word, and imposed it on the mathematics/physics). Quote: And, why have a degree in science (which I, too, suppose you to have) if in the end your interpretation of the mathematics involved implies that motion is impossible?  FW: Quote: But, your entire case depends on your odd interpretation of the mathematics involved. So, my degree in mathematics gives me the edge, if anything. That is, of course, quite apart from the fact that your degree in the natural sciences seems not to have stopped you adopting a 'theory' that implies motion is impossible. I'll stick to my alleged state of ignorance in that case... Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 01:05, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Like I said, you're repeating a metaphysical view of motion which requires to consider only (smooth function) x = f(t) and desperately tries to forget that x = f(t) is inherently accompanied by dx/dt = F(t). This isn't I, this isn't even physics. This is pure math.
In order to consider seriously your proposal you have to prove that a smooth function x = f(t) is not differentiable. Can you do that? I can give you one curious example, to play devil's advocate  x = t. This is not exactly a function not having first derivative but that would be rectilinear uniform motion. This kind of motion is akin to rest, however, let alone that it is an abstraction which never occurs in nature. I don't think it's of interest for the current discussion. More interesting is equation of the parabola x = t^2 which can bring us to Newton's second law. However, I don't think you would be able to prove that x = t^2 does not have first derivative (so that you can sustain your point of view).
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: Well, your 'smooth function' implies there is no contradiction here  unless, of course, you can do two things: 1) Justify the imposition of a term taken from a metaphysical theory Hegel cobbled together. And good luck with that one! [It's no surprise, therefore, that you keep ducking that challenge!] 2) Show that this 'smooth function' does not imply there is always a time interval during which the body in question moves. Finally, you have a cheek calling my view 'metaphysical' when you are quite happy to import into the discussion a term that you won't find in a single physics or mathematics textbook (or in published papers  except perhaps those written by theorists who have swallowed this quirky view you imported from Hegel), but which term originates in the mystical Christian and Hermetic doctrines in which Hegel's theory was deeply mired. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /magee.htm  FW: Quote: And what has this got to do with my argument? Quote: I think you are beginning to ramble. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Quote: At once  x = f(t) always implies dx/dt = F(t) and because dx and dt are nonzero, that implies two y's and two x's. In other words, if you don't observe the question onesidedly (metaphysically) but want to honestly describe all of its aspects, you must recognize the unity of x = f(t) and dx/dt = F(t); that is, the unity of opposites x vs. dx and t vs. dt.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: 1) In other words, for you, dt is a time interval, so there's no contradiction here, as I said. 2) You are looking at this only from the angle of your quirky physics  so if anyone is being 'onesided', it's you my confused friend. In contrast, I am looking at it from the angle of standard, nonquirky physics and mathematics, as well as philosophy and common understanding, so my view is manysided. I note also your failure to justify your imposition of the word 'contradiction', and your failure to quote a single physics and/or mathematics text (not written by individuals whose brain has been colonised by this Hermetic virus) that uses this word, or even implies this word, in relation to the mathematics of motion. Until you do, your claim to speak on behalf of physics will be seen for what it is: posturing. Here's a nice conundrum for you (and if we stick to your abstract one dimensional world)  this has been adapted from my site, hence the odd linenumbering: L35: Motion implies that a body is in one place and not in; that it is in one place and in another at once. L36: Let B be in motion and at X1. L37: L35 implies that B is also at some other point  say, X2. L38: But, L35 also implies that B is at X2 and at another place; hence it is also at X3. L39: Again, L35 implies that B is at X3, and at another place; hence it is also at X4. L40: Once more, L35 implies that B is at X4, and at another place; hence it is also at X5. By n successive applications of L35 it is possible to show that, as a result of the 'contradictory' nature of motion, B must be everywhere in its trajectory if it is anywhere, all at once. The only way to avoid such an outlandish conclusion would be to maintain that L35 implies that a moving body is in no more than two places at once. But even this won't help, for if a body is moving and in the second of those two places, it would not now be in motion at this second location, unless it were in a third place at once (by L15 and L35). Once again, just as soon as a body is located in any one place it is at rest there, given this odd way of viewing things. [L15: If an object is located at a point it must be at rest at that point.] Without L15 (and hence L35), Engels's conclusions won't follow; so on this view, if a body is moving, it has to occupy at least two points at once, or it will be at rest. But, that is just what creates the problem. This follows from L17 (now encapsulated in L17b): L17: A moving body must both occupy and not occupy a point at once. L17b: A moving object must occupy at least two places at once. Of course, it could be argued that L17b is in fact true of the scenario depicted in L35L40  the said body does occupy at least two places at once namely X1 and X2. In that case, the above argument is misconceived. The above argument would indeed be misconceived if Engels had managed to show that a body can only be in at most two (but not in at least two) places at once, which he not only failed to do, he could not do: L17c: A moving object must occupy at most two places at once. That is because, between any two points there is a third point, and if the body is in X1 and X2 at once then it must also be in any point between X1 and X2 at once , say Xk. Once that is admitted, there seems to be no way to forestall the conclusion drawn above that if a moving body is anywhere it is everywhere, at once. [The same applies to the motion of the abstract 'centre of mass' of B.] On the other hand, the combination here of an "at least two places at once" with and an "at most two places at once" would be equivalent to an "exactly two places at once". L17d: A moving object must occupy exactly two places at once. L15: If an object is located at a point it must be at rest at that point. But, any attempt made by dialecticians to restrict a moving body to the occupancy of exactly two places at once would work only if that body came to rest at the second of those two points! L15 says quite clearly that if a body is located at a point (even if this is the second of these two points), it must be at rest at that point. In that case, the above escape route will only work if dialecticians reject their own characterisation of motion, which was partially captured by L15. [This option also falls foul of the intermediate points objection, above.] In that case, if L15 still stands, then at the second of these two proposed points (say, X2), a moving body must still be moving, and hence in and not in that second point, at once, too. It's worth underling this conclusion: if a body is located at a second point (say, X2), it will be at rest there, contrary to the assumption that it is moving. Conversely, if it is still in motion, it must be elsewhere also at once, and so on. Otherwise, the condition that a moving body must be both in a place and not in will have to be abandoned. So, dialecticians cannot afford to accept L17d. Consequently, the unacceptable outcome , which holds that as a result of the 'contradictory' nature of motion, a moving body must be everywhere along its trajectory, if it is anywhere, all at once  still follows. Again, it could be objected that when body B is in the second place, a new moment in time could begin. To be sure, this amendment avoids the disastrous implications recorded above. However, it only succeeds in doing so by introducing several new difficulties of its own, for this would mean that B would be in X2 at two moments, which would plainly entail that B was stationary! So, dialectical objects either do not move, or if they move, they not do not so much move as expand and fill their entire trajectory. Another, perhaps less well appreciated consequence of this view of motion and change  which, if anything, is even more absurd than the one outline above , is the following: If Engels were correct (in his characterisation of motion and change), we would have no right to say that a moving body was in the first of these Engelsian locations before it was in the second. L3: Motion involves a body being in one place and in another place at once, and being in one and the same place and not in it. This is because such a body, according to Engels, is in both places at once. Now, if the conclusions in the previous argument are valid (that is, if dialectical objects are anywhere in their trajectories, they are everywhere in them all at once), then it follows that no moving body can be said to be anywhere before it is anywhere else in its entire journey! That is because such bodies are everywhere all at once. If so they can't be anywhere first and then later somewhere else. In the dialectical universe, therefore, there is no before and no after! In that case, along the entire trajectory of a body's motion it would be impossible to say that that object was at the beginning of its journey before it was at the end! So, while you might foolishly think, for example, that you have to board an aeroplane (in order to go on your holidays) before you disembark at your destination, this 'pathbreaking' theory tells us you are mistaken, and that you must board the plane at the very same moment as you disembark at the 'end' of your journey! And the same applies to the 'Big Bang'. While we might think that this event took place billions of years ago, we are surely mistaken if this 'superscientific' theory is correct. That is because any two events in the entire history of the universe must have taken place at once, by the above argument. Naturally, this means that while you are reading this, the 'Big Bang' is in fact still taking place! To be sure, this is absurd, but that's Diabolical Logic for you! You can read other similar conundrums, and more besides, here: Essay Five: http://antidialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 09:24, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: MarxismLeninism Forum Commissar
Yikes! Not to get into this discussion, but just to clarify, if a point occupies no space, then I don't see how an infinite amount of points necessarily means being "everywhere".
After all, we're talking about abstractions, which implies a calculation, an observation. I'm way over my head here; it's just a question that came up. "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
Praxi:
Quote: If a point occupies no space, it can't move, can it? That is partly why FW's concentration on the centre of mass won't work, either. Mathematical points can't move! What does move is an object, and it does so by occupying successive regions of space. FW's concentrarion on points, not regions, partly hides this fact. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Again, you're repeating your metaphysical belief. Thus, instead of writing so many sentences you could've only said: My metaphysical belief stands firm in the face of any scientific facts, undeniable as they may be, you can present. Otherwise, you coulld not have ignored the evident mathematical fact that x and dx as well as t and dt in x = t^2 are inseparable. Like I said, math requres it, forget even physics.
Instead of addressing these contradictory elements (x vs. dx and t vs. dt), the actual math attributes of motion, you're repeating your metaphysical L's, imposing on motion onesidedness foreign to it. You think, by repeating your L's which stand in the face of the obvious facts of mathematics, these L's can somehow turn into the magical true description of motion. They can't. We're not going to destroy math to make it fit your definitions.
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: MarxismLeninism Forum Commissar
OK, help me out here.
When you study an object and its motion, you assign a location, right? This means giving it a "point" (an abstraction), which in your abstract model, doesn't occupy space, right? I mean, I take it we're talking about contradictions/insufficiencies in this Cartesian mode of graphing and calculating motion. (If I'm not too lost here). "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
This is funny you talk like that, provided you have a degree in natural sciences (noth just a math degree) because then you would wipe out whole areas of physics such as classical thermodynamics or statistical physics. For instance, recall what ideal gas is. You mean to tell us that the constituents of ideal gas, having no volume in space, being just material points, do not move? What is pressure then? How is to account for Boltzmann's statistics? And so on and so forth.
This is not a serious conversation to deny the use of a material poitn (a mathematical abstraction) as a tool for describing motion. Like I said, we're not going to destroy science to make it fit into your limited way of understanding it.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
Praxi:
Quote: Well, in an abstract world, or even the real world, mathematical points can't occupy another point. They allow us to depict the motion of real objects Quote: There are 'contradictions' in the Cartesian (mathematical) world only if we try to impose on it extraneous factors. Remember, objects move in this (Cartesian) world, in the sense that we use it to depict movement. The (Cartesian) points themselves do not move. FW's argument is based on the old, obsolescent, pre1860 view of 'moving points' (hence his use of 'dx' all the time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_calculus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Weierstrass  FW: Quote: It is alas a consequence of you importing the confused metaphysical ideas you lifted uncritically from Hegel/Engels, and pretending they represent standard physics (which we can now all see for ourselves, since even now you have yet to quote a single physics book that talks the way you do); it isn't a consequence of physics or the calculus. As I have pointed out several times. Quote: In which case, you'll find it easy to explain how a mathematical point can move. Does it push all the other mathematical points out of the way, or merge with them?  Sorry, I missed this: Quote: So, you keep saying, but you have yet to show how my view is 'metaphysical', which is especially rich when you are the one who is trying to impose on physics a view concocted by that arch metaphysician and mystic, Hegel. Quote: But, as we have seen, even in your quirky, Hegelian world, dt is a temporal interval, in which case your 'contradiction' vanishes. Quote: Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why this is a 'contradiction' (silly of me to keep asking, since you plainly can't do this!)  or refer us to one, just one, physics and/or mathematics text/paper that talks the way you do (which hasn't been written by someone whose brain has been hijacked by Hegel). You think, by repeating your L's which stand in the face of the obvious facts of mathematics, these L's can somehow turn into the magical true description of motion. They can't. We're not going to destroy math to make it fit your definitions. In fact they show that there is no 'before' or 'after' in your quirky world  and that dialectical objects fill their entire trajectory. No wonder you keep ignoring the details of my argument. You have no answer except to appeal to your quirky view of physics  which not one single physics text accepts. Odd that... Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 10:16, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: MarxismLeninism Forum Commissar Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: Yeah, but what does that mean? If they occupy no space, then they're infinitely small, so any one point can have an infinite number of points, since any location, any point can be subdivided infinitely. And what do you mean by mathematical points in the real world? Quote: Then I guess we might ask if motion is already an extraneous factor. BTW, cheers for the links. I know about the first one, but not the second one. Quote: But didn't you say that they depict movement? In an ideal gas, we have mathematical points that DO move, but because we're abstracting molecules away from their size, not their motion. "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
Aha, wikipedia (especially the first link) is a serious source to prove your point? No wonder such a muddled thinking. Last I heard, infinitesimal calculus is still taught in colleges and universities, Weierstrass theorem notwithstanding, not to say about electrodynamics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical physics etc., all modeling motion via material points having no volume and not interracting with each other. This is how, say, pV = nRT is introduced to freshmen all across the universities in the civilized world. Later, it is specified into the van der Waals equation but in most cases the pV = nRT is a good approximation to the relationship between p, V and T in the real world, despite it arriving from the use of material points and their motion. The whole classical or statistical mechanics is based on using moving material points. This should not be even an issue of discussion, so much elementarry it really is. How can there be a normal discussion if we should waste time on such basic notions?
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
Praxi:
Quote: Mathematical points do not occupy a space, they define it. You are confusing mathematics with the science of space. Quote: I don't think I used that phrase. Quote: We use the Cartesian system to account for motion, so it's not part of the formal structure of that system. Hence, nothing extraneous has been added to it. On the other hand, if we impose such factors on the formal structure of the Cartesian system, which is what FW, I think, is doing, then no wonder it generates paradox. FW confuses the mathematical with the physical picture  hence he goes very quiet when asked how a mathematical point can move. [Incidentally, this is integral to Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics.] Quote: We use mathematical points, as part of a set or rules, to account for motion. But, the points themselves do not move. They do not exist in the real world, so how can they move?  FW: Quote: This was for the benefit of Praxicoide, not you. I could quote all manner of books and research papers to this end, but they aren't on the internet. By way of contrast, you can't quote a single physics/mathematics text/paper (not written by a Hegelfan) that supports your quirky view of physics. Quote: Again, in which case, you'll find it easy to explain how a mathematical point can move. [As opposed to the mathematics being used to explain how objects (ideal or not) move.] Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 10:37, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Modeling gas by a multitude of material points, calling it ideal gas is one of the first abstractions a student of science encounters. Further down the line more and more abstractions such as generalized coordinates q's and p's are introduced, spaces of infinite dimensions, Hilbert space, continuous basis on that space, space other than Hilberts space, based on peculiar inner vector product definitions and so on. Science is an intellectual pursuit using abstract notions as a tool to model and describe natural phenomena. Math in the natural sciences is only a tool. It can function without this tool but it makes life easier, abstractions make reaching successful descriptions of nature more compactly and conveniently and really help the thought process. By using abstract notions one is spared of the confusion of constantly asking questions extraneous to the topic at hand, such as, how shall we describe the motion of a body which actually consists of an infinite number of points. Shall we write infinite number of equations, otherwise, the description of its motion won't be full? No, scientists have a clear understanding that such an approach is fruitless and therefore is a nonissue in science. It is resolved in one stroke  present the body as a material point by observing, say, its center of mass and proceed with the important aspects of studying its motion.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: The short version of the above: "I can't explain how a mathematical point can move." No surprise there then... And what happened to this comment: Quote: Now, you seem to be saying the opposite. No surprise there either. Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 10:44, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
All this conversation is about describing motion. Motion can and is described as the motion of material points all the time. Like I said, the entire classical mechanics is based on such description of material points. I gave more than one example of whole areas of science using material points to describe motion. Now, I see that scientific approach seems quirky to you and only your metaphysical way appears to be the only correct way of describing motion. That is typical for a metaphysical thinker stuck in his or her own fixed universe of notions.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: So, you still can't tell us how a mathematical point (like the centre of mass) can move. Just be honest and admit it. [Or, shut me up and tell us how it can move.] Quote: Namecalling is all you are left with. Which is a little rich given the fact you are stuck in an 18th century view of mathematics and have allowed the confused, metaphysical ideas of that Christian mystic, Hegel, to colonise your brain. Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 22 Jun 2012, 10:51, edited 1 time in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Says who that I can't explain how a material point moves? I have given you the attributes of motion of a material point and that is the explanation. If you don't get it, then it would be even harder for you to understand why Newton's second law is called equation of motion. Since you like textbooks, crack any elementary physics textbook to convince yourself, if you don' t trust me.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: You certainly have said it moves, but what we lack is how it can move. Does it push all the other points out of the way, merge with them, slide over them? Does it do so in an metaabstract world? Does it occupy points as it moves? But what are these points it occupies? How do you occupy a point; it's not a region (or even a volume interval) so it can contain nothing. Further mathematical points? Can they move, too. If so how? Quote: I've no doubt an elementary physics text might talk as if mathematical points can move, but I'd like to see you quote a single, standard mathematics book that speaks this way. But, even if you could find one, that won't tell us how such points can move. And while we are at it, you seem quite happy to refer me to texts that tell us such points can move, so why not now refer us to a single text that talks the way you do about 'contradictions'. Why so shy? If this were standard maths/physics, there'd be hundreds of them. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."

Alternative Display:
Mobile view

