In reply to a post by longedge:

"What if you are born in the moment between 23:59 hrs and 00:00 hrs"

Next time, ask him when your birthday is if your head pops out just before midnight and your feet come out just after midnight

In reply to a post by billford:

For a shutter to open and close the blades (or blinds) have to move so, philosophically, you have a bit of a problem...

Indeed: when does non-movement become movement or movement become non-movement?

In the case of the opening shutter (the object in question) one could say a force applied to the non-moving object causes it to move and thus the object is dependant on something other than itself for it's activity. However despite the application of a force the beginning of it's movement can not happen when it's not moving, i.e. in a static state - a non-mover, nor can the movement begin when it's moving, i.e. a mover on the path that it will follow in the future - both obviously impossible. One could say that it begins moving in an instantaneous moment following the application of a force but unfortunately such an instantaneous moment does not exist since it has no duration.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Indeed: when does non-movement become movement

When kinetic energy becomes non-zero.

or movement become non-movement?

When kinetic energy becomes zero.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

However despite the application of a force the beginning of it's movement can not happen when it's not moving, i.e. in a static state - a non-mover, nor can the movement begin when it's moving, i.e. a mover on the path that it will follow in the future - both obviously impossible.

Rubbish.

One could say that it begins moving in an instantaneous moment following the application of a force but unfortunately such an instantaneous moment does not exist since it has no duration.

Rubbish squared.


eta- go away and study some physics, and the basis of differential calculus wouldn't hurt either. If you prefer philosophy, stick to dancing angels and heads of pins

Edited by billford (Mon 18-Dec-17 17:37:46)

In reply to a post by billford:

You could film the operation of an "ordinary" camera, using a higher speed one, and easily see this transition. And, in principle although not in practice, this can be repeated forever using higher and higher speed systems.

If I understand you correctly that would ultimately require an infinitely fast system to capture an event that has an infinity short duration and that would take for ever (eternity) to achieve with such progressively "higher speed systems"? Perhaps that could be rephrased as it will take for ever (eternity) to realise zero time...certainly impractical and definitely impossible.

I think you're getting confused between what a system is doing (eg the position and momentum of a moving body) and the precision with which you can measure what its doing (where it is and how fast it's going).

Essentially, the indeterminacy (uncertainty) principle.

It may be possible to predict or deduce those two variables to a high degree of accuracy, but if you try to measure them then the more accurately you know one of them the less idea you have about the other. In the limit, if you could measure exactly the position of a moving body you would have absolutely no idea how fast it was going or in which direction. This doesn't mean that either its position or velocity didn't have very precise values, just that you can't accurately measure them both.

It's too near my dinnertime to type out an explanation, have a read.

In reply to a post by billford:

I think you're getting confused between what a system is doing (eg the position and momentum of a moving body) and the precision with which you can measure what its doing (where it is and how fast it's going).

Essentially, the indeterminacy (uncertainty) principle.

It's too near my dinnertime to type out an explanation, have a read.

Thanks for your very informative replies and I will certainly seriously consider your suggestions, however I have a problem with the notion of what constitutes a body either moving or not moving. Is such an object composed of a collection of immutable extremely small particles? If it is then such particles (the building blocks of what we call "matter") must have dimensions in order to differentiate them from mere open space which is dimensionless. Since such particles have dimensions that means they must be capable of being subdivided ad infinitum and are thus not immutable. Scientific theories about the natures of matter, space and time are articulated only provisionally so I don't think we can hold steadfast to any one particular view of reality.

Anyway this has gone too far away from a discussion about photography - I hope you enjoyed your dinner

Edited by 4M2 (Mon 18-Dec-17 19:38:51)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Since such particles have dimensions that means they must be capable of being subdivided ad infinitum and are thus not immutable.

I think I've fallen into the trap of feeding a troll

If a tree falls in a forest are YOU an actual, living person?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

If a tree falls in a forest are YOU an actual, living person?

If I take a photograph of the tree whilst it is standing and then a fraction of a second later take another photograph of the tree whilst it is falling then during that short period I would have been living. Since it is not possible to photograph (or observe) the moment the tree begins to fall, because a moment has no duration, there can be no cognition of an actual "living" me at that same moment. Or is the cognition of a "me" (self awareness) beyond all considerations of time? A living "me" does require the concept of a continuum of time though...

I didn't mention photographs therefore I can only assume that you are an AI with bad programming.