Cosmo16
- 140
- 0
hey, just wondering if anyone had seen anything on this theory.
Link
Link
The discussion revolves around the philosophical ideas of Peter Lynds regarding time and their implications for established scientific concepts. Participants explore the intersection of philosophy and science, particularly in relation to Zeno's paradoxes and the block universe model.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of Lynds' ideas or the resolution of Zeno's paradoxes. Multiple competing views remain regarding the philosophical implications of time and the block universe model.
There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of terms like "unchanging" in the context of the block universe, as well as unresolved questions about the support for various claims made about Zeno's paradoxes.
Cosmo16 said:hey, just wondering if anyone had seen anything on this theory.
Link
On your page you say "There seems to be a large body of opinion that Zeno's paradoxes are solved by Einstein's Special theory of relativity"--who says this? I have always seen people say that the solution to Zeno's paradox is just the fact that, in calculus, an infinite series can have a finite sum.chronon said:Yes. Peter Lynds had some interesting philosophical ideas about time. Unfortunately neither Lynds nor the media which picked this up seemed to know the difference between philosophy and science, and its presented as overturning a lot of established science (which it doesn't). I've written more about this at http://www.chronon.org/Articles/ZenoLynds.html
"Unchanging" does not necessarily mean that a thing stays the same at multiple points in time, it can also just mean that the thing exists timelessly--for example, mathematical objects such as the real number line or the Mandelbrot set can be said to be unchanging, that doesn't imply there is a time dimension in the mathematical world. So why can't we say that spacetime is unchanging in the same sense that the real number line is unchanging?It might also be argued by analogy with the claim by some people that the so-called 'block universe model', i.e. a 4-dimensional model of physical reality, incorporating time as well as space, is static or unchanging. This claim however involves thecommon mistake of failing to recognize that unless there is another time dimension, it simply doesn't make sense to say that the block universe is static, for there is no 'external' time interval over which it remains the same.
Well now you come to mention it, maybe the support for this idea isn't so large. However, I do remember searching around quite a few newsgroups and forums when I wrote it, and this seemed a fairly common response. e.g.JesseM said:On your page you say "There seems to be a large body of opinion that Zeno's paradoxes are solved by Einstein's Special theory of relativity"--who says this? I have always seen people say that the solution to Zeno's paradox is just the fact that, in calculus, an infinite series can have a finite sum.
Thanks for telling me about that, it seems that different browsers look for the code in different places, and I've attempted to deal with this now.JesseM said:By the way chronon, the java applets on your website all fail to load on my browser,
Most of them work for me now, but the http://www.chronon.org/Applets/view4.html still doesn't.chronon said:Thanks for telling me about that, it seems that different browsers look for the code in different places, and I've attempted to deal with this now.