Wait, I not well veresed with potential and actual in infinity, is pi a potential or actual infinity. — BB100
Why does dividing things by three, into thirds, create an "infinite" number of threes after the decimal point, as if we can never get to an actual third of something? — Harry Hindu
When you glance at your speedometer and it reads 60 mph, indeed that is based on an approximation made over a small interval of time. So you do have a point, although a rather insignificant one. — jgill
Physics can differentiate the two at time t by different motion vectors, speed and direction; by momentum too for that matter. — jorndoe
What single word would you suggest be used in this context, rather than instantaneous? — jgill
Numbers represent potentials, not actuals. Why does dividing things by three, into thirds, create an "infinite" number of threes after the decimal point, as if we can never get to an actual third of something? — Harry Hindu
The problem is that there is no such thing as motion at time t — Metaphysician Undercover
I can't understand how people would so miss the point, and would take the above rhetorical question . . . — bongo fury
Thanks for the excellent clarification.I've never read much of Harry's stuff (on the suspicion that more is less) but, for the second time this weekend, I do applaud him for going against the flow, and I must say I can't understand how people would so miss the point, and would take the above rhetorical question as anything but a defense of mathematical practice against philosophical over-thinking. He was just saying, see how the fact that we can divide one by 3 despite the potentially infinite recurring decimal (Achilles can catch up) means we don't have to (in this case anyway) take infinity as a thing.
Wasn't he? — bongo fury
speaking of things at time t does not mean removal of context. — jorndoe
It's not like we have something appearing and vanishing at t, whether talking averages or differential calculus.
How/can you differentiate things at t in the two mentioned scenarios...? — jorndoe
We agree that an object has a location at a particular time.
We agree that the location does not change at an instant. — Banno
What is hard to see is how those who do not ascribe a velocity at a particular time can do any basic mechanics. — Banno
Time t has no context — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that "time t" is not real — Metaphysician Undercover
- tell me the answer, and how you arrived at it. — Banno
How do you work out the velocity at t2 if the velocity at t1 is always zero? :rofl: — Banno
If we only want to speak of intervals, non-zero durations, then what about the starts and ends thereof?
Are we going to toss it all out...? — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.