Logically thinking it should be discrete, otherwise movement of a point in space would be impossible since the point would be stuck in an infinite endless loop, as stated by Zeno's paradox. And yes, there is a mathematical solution to that, but in that solution we are ignoring the factor of time, wouldn't time go on endlessly before it can even move? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. Aren't we missing a major piece somewhere cutting the link between what we think, the math and reality?
>>13749138>wouldn't time go on endlessly before it can even move?why?
there is an infinite number of positions to move through but luckily also an infinite number of time slots to fit those movements into so its all goodeverythings continuous and its all good bro
>>13749182We are summing small of amounts of time infinitely.
>>13749196but the infinite sum of those durations is finite
>>13749190>>13749201But how does that transition even possibly happen in the first place.
>>13749221That still doesn't answer how and at what point it happens.
>>13749209take an elementary set theory or a calculus class you fucking retardhow are you even gonna get to real analysis like that you dumb not-even-undergrad fuck
>>13749138The sum of the infinite series of time is finite. Time is illusory for a different reason.
>>13749138When making a qtddtot, please label it in the first post. Why don't we feel the acceleration from the Earth rotating? It seems that the rough estimate in the equate should be about 1.2 ft/s East and at different latitudes it would decrease.
>>13749240I meant how does it start moving at all, at what scale does movement even start and when, it doesn't make sense if there is no small discrete unit involved, and the sum only tell us "yes" but nothing more.>>13749242Yes it is finite, but again we are summing time on infinitely. It doesn't explain how it happens in a continuous case.
>>13749138Spacetime is one thing not two separate entities, if one's discrete so is the other, they only appear to be different because massive and massless particles interact different with itAlso, locality is probably an emergent property so the whole notion of movement in the classical sense may be misguided, now if you factor in the uncertainty principle then position itself is not something clearly defined but rather spread out so the problem of having to infinitely divide each motion disappears
>>13749138okay kid you want the secret?the arrow paradox isn't applicable to our universe due to how electrons and photons and resultingly everything else implictly working this way.You've probably heard of wavefunction collapse right? What drives this function is the fact that we actually can't measure particles without destroying them, and we can't observe the position of an electron, just the entire 'shell'. Both of these phenomenon are basically down to the fact the particles macro interactions happen at the rate of time. spin for example is an instant phenomenon and we know this because permanent magnetism arises from aligned spin in the right atomic configurations. There is no magnetic field particle, its literally a field with field lines that update their position in spacetime at the speed of light. So the 'truth' is that most of this world actually exists at the speed of time, and time really exists where entropy is taking place. This isn't instantly obvious to us because we are in a densely complicated portion, compressed by gas here on this giant spinning rock.Plank figured out that the universe's 'tick rate' if you will is the speed of light. All the base units in science are based off the speed of light. Congratulations, if you read all of this and understood it you are now not retarded.
>>13749138Is this the kind of debate that will solve the real problems, like hunger in Africa or the discrimination of women at the workplace?
>>13749286This is a different question though but, is the reason why we can't measure particles related to their constant movements? And destroying it means it would collapse on itself if we were to remove all the energy from it in order to observe it?I would appreciate it if you could recommend some books to read about this.>>13749308Those debates are on >>>/pol/
>>13749286>There is no magnetic field particleMagnetic monopoles will be proven to exist soon
>>13749138a second does take forever to pass because of an infinite endless loop, but we still experience it as only 1 seconddmt elves are bored as fuck tho
>>13749337>is the reason why we can't measure particles related to their constant movements? Not really, its kinda just how the world works. A photon hitting an atom will have a certian chance to be absorbed, reflected, or a number of other effects. If the photon misses, from the atoms relative point of view its the same as the photon not existing at all. >And destroying it means it would collapse on itself if we were to remove all the energy from it in order to observe it?Its really the same concept as, you cant touch something without actually touching it, you've basically figured this out>I would appreciate it if you could recommend some books to read about this.meh I don't read books, I read papers and articles about experiments. Ive learned all of this because I was disappointed with how I was taught a lot of QM and other low level shit. And as an EE it was pissing me off not really understanding what I thought I learned.
>>13749286So what you are saying is that magnetion is made of field particles, also known as a fluxions. What do they subdivide into? Do they have some quark/charm analogy to regular atoms?
>>13749138Problem of perceptions and problem of conceptions are something people don't normally deal with, but it's an objection that's been raised all over the world. Particularly in the west we have Hume who famously shows us criticism to classical aristotelian causality where discreet units hold power over causality and advances another model of causality based around human habits. Hume doesn't deny causality but rather pushes forward another explanation for causality. What does that have to do with discreet units? It's a more subtle understanding of discreet that Hume unknowingly attacks. The classical power of discreet is removed almost completely although he doesn't recognize it. The classical understanding of discreet request one to be an individual possessing powers over itself and others. But Hume removes those two power with his understanding of causality.We have hints here/there on what the world/reality might be. IMO, it's neither discreet nor continuous, it's something else more akin to a relational reality that sits somewhere between the two but is neither.
>>13750240I should say that Human causality isn't popular because it goes against popular Aristotelian philosophy that had dominated the western world. So I don't think many would even understand the implications of Humean understanding of causality as it applies to our Greek understanding of discreets
>>13749138>Zeno's paradoxTake a class on real analysis right now