Is Motion an Illusion According to Julian Barbour?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KendallAngel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
AI Thread Summary
Julian Barbour posits that motion is an illusion, likening it to a series of still images perceived by the brain, similar to a film played at 24 frames per second. He cites the disease 'Epekinesis' to illustrate his point, suggesting that it affects the perception of movement. However, critics argue that the ability to feel movement, even in the absence of perception, contradicts his theory, indicating that movement exists independently of perception. Many find Barbour's ideas unconvincing, viewing them as a convoluted rebranding of time rather than a genuine exploration of its nature. Overall, the discussion highlights significant skepticism regarding Barbour's conclusions on motion and time.
KendallAngel
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Julian Barbour argues that motion is a serie of still photographs, played at 24frames per second, that our brains interpret, the images you are watching now, seem to move, but nothing is moving.
He uses the disease called 'Epekinesis" as an example. But how can we feel movement even if we have that disease? this disease is clearly the impossibility to PERCEIVE movement, not the impossibility to MOVE, when we close our eyes, we continue to move, that is the proof that movement has nothing to do with that way he describes it, his logic fails here.

what do you think?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
KendallAngel said:
what do you think?
I think that Julian Barbour's book was a huge waste of time. I guess, since be believes time doesn't exist, he doesn't mind wasting it. I was very disappointed after reading it, for the reason you describe here and also for the fact that it seems that all of his stuff is simply time with another name and a weird description.
 
Thanks for answering, so basically his ideas doesn't deny time, but describes time in another useless way?
 
In my opinion, yes.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Is there time? Or is it just an illusion?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Julian Barbour on does time exist
4
Replies
164
Views
41K
B Any plausible explanation for dynamical length contraction?
2
Replies
83
Views
6K
Relativity & Fast-Moving Objects: Does Time Slow Down?
Replies
1
Views
1K
B My paraphrased explanation of the Twin Paradox
Replies
24
Views
4K
Time: An Illusion? - Julian Barbour's The End of Time
Replies
7
Views
4K
Light Plane Photography - Is my explanation correct?
Replies
14
Views
3K
B Alien Perception of Time: Can Time Go Backwards?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Progencell Stem Cell Therapy Aides Doctor Diagnosed with Parkinsons
Replies
1
Views
4K
Is Poincaré's Space Dilemma the Key to Understanding Gravity?
2
Replies
71
Views
17K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top