Re: this is the time to pray

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:01:41 GMT

Herbert wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > Huh?!? By this "infinite" logic, you therefore can't shoot a tortoise
with
> > an arrow...also, the same logic extends to everything...you can't ever
get
> > anywhere...or touch anything...all movement should take forever to get
> > where it wants to go...or, in other words, it never, ever gets
> > there...well, that can't be right surely? We _KNOW_ that doesn't happen
> > looking around and seeing the world...
> >
> > Answer: Rather simple, really...the universe is NOT analogue, it's
discrete
> > or digital...there is a "smallest distance" - called "Planck
distance" -
> > and "smallest time" - called "Planck time" - and so forth...the
universe is
> > not analogue but divided into "quanta"...discrete "blocks"...
>
> You don't need to make time discrete just because the human brain
> has a problem with infinity.

I agree; But I'm not "making" time discrete...it _IS_ discrete...that is a
physical fact...I haven't named this after Planck (indeed, I only
discovered the name "Planck" _BECAUSE_ these things were named after
him...similar to "Hooke's Law" or "Kepler's Law", which is normally how
people get to hear about the less popularly known scientists...indeed, one
assumes the whole point of "naming things after people" is as much
"tribute" as "credit")...physicists do so...

> Your statement:
> The arrow is behind the target. At the time when the arrow reaches the
> position of the target, the target already has move a little further.
>
> Your (false) conclusion:
> The arrow never reaches the target when the time is continuos.

Wrong; When the _distance_ is "infinite"...

You don't even understand the premise properly...there's no way your
"analysis" could relate to anything I've said...

> Let's reformulate your statement:
> For any time t1 at which the arrow is behind the target there
> exist a time t2>t1 at which the arrow still is behind the target.
>
> Now it's clear that the statement can't be uses as a reason for time
> being discrete.

But time _IS_ discrete...that is a known observable fact...if your
"mathematical model" ain't telling you that, then your mathematical model
is what's flawed, not reality...reality, by definition, cannot be the
problem...only your brain and bad attitude could be the problem here...

> A third formulation of the statement:
>
> Let t0 be the time when the arrow hits the target. For any
> time t1<t0 there exist a time t2 with t1<t2<t0 at which the
> arrow still is behind the target.
>
> Now we have limited the infinity to t2 - t0, so it's no longer
> any problem for our brain.

This had absolutely nothing to do with any "problem with our brain"...

Spacetime is "discrete"...fact...I was reporting these facts...

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

"The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and
space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the
'quantum of length', the smallest measurement of length with any meaning."

"The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed
of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the
'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning,
and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any
meaning."

Hence, you might be able to mathematically write a smaller distance than
1.6 * 10^-35 metres...or come up with some time less than 10^-43
seconds...but this is a failure of your _approximation_ in the
"mathematical model" you're using of assuming what's mathematically
possible is what's physically possible...

But, as noted above, this would have "no meaning"...it does NOT exist in
physical reality...

Arguments based on continuous mathematics are, thus, simply confusing the
notation for what is being notated...

> Now suppose you are making a movie of the flying arrow. The
> first picture is taken at t1 (t1<t0). The following pictures
> at t(n)= t(n-1) + (t(0)-t(n-1))/2.
>
> Now, if time is continuous, you can make a move in which
> each picture is taken at a later time as the previous
> picture and you can watch the movie as long as you like,
> the arrow will never hit the target in this movie. But
> if time is discrete, you are not able to make such a movie,
> the arrow will hit the target in the movie at some time.
>
> But independent of the movie, the arrow will hit the
> target, whether the time is continuous or discrete.

You're applying what you know of the universe from your "common sense" of
seeing it in operation...hence, yes, _OF COURSE_ the arrow hits...that's
the whole point...space and time _ARE_ discrete (observed fact)...you're
trying to apply some "reverse anthropic principle" here...which, by
definition, is guaranteed to prove reality correct...

But this is NOT a mathematical observation...it is a _physical
reality_...indeed, maths ceases to be a valid "model" to use for spacetime
in terms of "time" and "distance" at the Planck length and Planck time...I
quote the source above that this is without "any meaning"...

Another way to put it: You cannot ever create a "movie" with more than
10^43 "frames per second", where every frame is unqiuely different to all
other frames...this is a _physical_ impossibility...

> There is an other nice example where the brain has a problem
> with infinity:
>
> You are visiting your uncle and as a thanks you can
> choose between two envelopes. Each envelope contains
> money, but in one is twice as much as in the other.
> You select one, open it and, let's say, you find
> 100 EURO. Now you know in the other envelope is either
> 50 or 200 EURO. Before you leave, your uncle makes you
> an offer: if you give him back the 100 EURO, you can
> take the other envelope. Now, is it better to take
> the 100 EURO or the other envelope (you give 100 EURO
> and will get to 50% 50 EURO and to 50% 200 EURO
> which makes an average of 125 EURO).

As a rule, I never gamble on anything but certainties or near certainties
(just like bookmakers and casinoes operate too ;)...hence, I'd take the
money and leave...that's nothing to do with "probabilities"...I'm lucky
enough to be given the opportunity to get any "money for nothing" at
all...I'm not going to succumb to any temptation of greed...

This, of course, is quite irrelevent, anyway...this is not about being
unable to comprehend "infinity" (and, sorry, I'm highly, highly amused by
this implicit claim you seem to be making that you "understand it
completely" or something...yeah, right...where's you keeping your perpetual
motion device, oh great omniscient Herb? ;)...it was a statement about
_physical reality_...and that's it...this is how things _observably_ are
so...it is quite irrelevent what "theory" you might be postulating in your
mind to the contrary...you'd simply be wrong to suggest otherwise...

Beth :)

Quantcast