Is Motion an Illusion According to Julian Barbour?

[KendallAngel]

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?

 

[Dale]

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.

 

[KendallAngel]

Thanks for answering, so basically his ideas doesn't deny time, but describes time in another useless way?

 

[Dale]

In my opinion, yes.