Posted on 10/31/2001 9:45:37 AM PST by sourcery
*Zeno didn't show that anything was quantized.*
I didn't say he did. I said he showed that if space isn't quantized then time isn't either. He started by assuming space isn't quantized, and the contradiction he reaches trades on the assumption that time is quantized, that you can't have arbitrarily small time increments. Because if you could, then there is no contradiction since the infinitely many DECREASING time intervals can still be completed in a finite time.
*He tacitly assumed that a length in space was infinitely divisible, i.e. non-quantized and argued that before you could get halfway along the length, you would have to previously get a quarter of the way, and before that ... *
What I said. There is no problem with going smaller and smaller fractions of the way if you can take smaller and smaller fractions of time to do it.
*The conclusion he drew was not that space was quantized (that there was a smallest distance, an indivisible atom of space), but that motion was impossible and change must therefore be an illusion.*
His argument shows you can't have both discrete time and continuous space. I never said he concluded space was quantized; it is possible to reject discrete time instead of rejecting continuous space. There are two ways to reject discrete time: with continuous time, which Zeno could not imagine but which was the "solution" to Zeno's paradox supported by physicists before 1900, OR by rejecting time as a separate concept altogether, which was Zeno's way and which agrees with the spacetime view of physics pioneered by Einstein.
*You have scant evidence for passing judgment on my level of mathematical knowledge. Of course some series converge and others do not. My point, which I admit not spelling out, was that a unit distance could be divided into a half, a quarter, etc. (a series which converges) but it can also be laid out such that before I get halfway I have to get a third of the way, a fourth, a fifth, etc. This second way of dividing a line does not lead to a converging series. *
Your mathematical argument is faulty. After you have gone 1/3 of the way you do not have to then go 1/2 of the way -- you have already done most of the first half. The series you are actually considering is (1-1/2), (1/2-1/3), (1/3-1/4), (1/4-1/5),... = 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20 + ... which does indeed converge to 1.
*I conclude from that that the distinction between converging and non-converging series has no crucial application to resolving Zeno's paradoxes. *
The application is in the very concept that a series with infinitely many terms can converge to a finite limit. Zeno could not imagine continuous time in which infinitely many (but decreasing in duration) instants could occur in a finite time. This was not necessarily a mistake on his part, he may have simply rejected this concept of time on intuitive grounds, an intuition which cannot be said to be incorrect. The two alternatives to continuous time are discrete space or illusory time, both of which are supported by 20th-century physics (quantum mechanics and relativity, respectively).
OK--so if the bubbles are space itself, what's INSIDE the bubbles--pixie dust?
Sounds like these little bubbles are just minature versions of our universe--a kind of globular affair that curves in on itself with "nothing" either inside or outside it.
"Nothing"--a tough idea to conceptualize in a reified setting.
It's exactly the three-dimensional concept that makes it troublesome. If the "bubbles" exist in the water of space-time, this bubble image implies a three-dimensional globe with the interior volume actually creating the bubble-image rather than a solid. billiard-ball image.
If this is the case, then that interior volume of "nothing" eludes reification.
The implication of "nothingness" in the bubble's interior implies that no space-time event can occur in this non-space.
It's a conundrum. Perhaps only conceived in the abstract world of higher mathematics.
This makes sense. The "bubble" here is not the conventional bubble that comes from the bubble-pipe and floats in the air or the kind that comes up from the bubbler in the fish-tank.
Sounds like the image used in physics of the expanding space-time universe that "bubbles" like the raisin cake cooking in the oven--the cake dough expands but keeps its weight/density while all the raisins in it simultaneously move away from each other.
IOW, there is no "empty" volume as in the center of the conventional iridescent bubble floating through the air.
Think I've got it. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.