The discussion revolves around the definition of the position of an object, exploring its theoretical and practical implications. Participants examine the concept from various angles, including spatial coordinates, interactions, and philosophical considerations regarding observation and measurement.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of position, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about the role of interaction, observation, and theoretical frameworks in understanding the concept.
Some discussions touch on the limitations of definitions based on observation and interaction, as well as the implications of using coordinates versus more general descriptions of position.
I only believe that an observer or position detector will give the trajectory as predicted by laws of motion . Think of position as just a value given by a position detector with respect to time. Then there will be no meaning of position without observerrenormalize said:Your reasoning is still unclear to me. Can you answer this: do you, or do you not, believe that a random planetoid in the asteroid-belt follows a well-defined orbital trajectory as a function of time, regardless of whether that particular body has ever been observed by anyone or anything (such as astronomers, space probes or even aliens)?
That is literally the opposite of what I asked. This thread is going nowhere. Thread locked.quantum philosopher said:OK now I will be very specific . Define what is position (in any way that you want)