bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Agreed.
It is time that messes everybody up because when you eliminate time, you eliminate science.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
We are talking about mathematics here so a point exists on a line since if a point does not exist on a location on a line then we are dealing with two segments of the line. What is the size of a point?
Moreover, we use mathematics to describe reality so we are having a problem if the mathematical tool that we use is ill-defined.
On top of this if a point does not exist then the line does not exist so continuum.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:32 pm
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Does "now" have an extension or it is a point?
I have answered this question, with the following text. I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Read a book.
You don't care what anyone says, you might do better to consult something else.
I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Does "now" have an extension or it is a point?
I have answered this question, with the following text. I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Read a book.
You don't care what anyone says, you might do better to consult something else.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:30 pm
Does "now" have an extension or it is a point?
I have answered this question, with the following text. I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Read a book.
You don't care what anyone says, you might do better to consult something else.
So now has an extension to you?
Extension is concerned with matter and space.
When is "now"?
I have answered this question, with the following text. I find it odd that bahman asks this question because the mere fact that he acknowledges that his argument relies on a point without extension completely wipes our what he is saying.
In his world, for an object to achieve movement it has to occupy a series of points. The problem for bahman is that on object has to have extension and dimension and a point has none,
He needs to realise that motion is not impossible, nor "discrete" (whatever that is", not segmented. Motion is smooth it is not imaginary. It is the "points" that are imaginary.
It is his model that is at fault; not reality.
Read a book.
You don't care what anyone says, you might do better to consult something else.
So now has an extension to you?
Extension is concerned with matter and space.
When is "now"?
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:49 pm
So now has an extension to you?
Extension is concerned with matter and space.
When is "now"?
Now is a point to me. How about you?
Answer the question!
There is no now, as now is a smooth and non discrete continuum. There is no "point" in time that can be called "now".
Everything is in motion.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:53 pm
I want to show that the continuum is ill-defined.
How would you do that?
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
The size of a point is non-contrbutary here. The size of a point is not the definition of a point, just as the sizee of a ladder does not define what a ladder is. The size of a point is very small, but irrelevant to showing that anything is ill-defined.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
We are talking about mathematics here so a point exists on a line since if a point does not exist on a location on a line then we are dealing with two segments of the line. What is the size of a point?
Moreover, we use mathematics to describe reality so we are having a problem if the mathematical tool that we use is ill-defined.
On top of this if a point does not exist then the line does not exist so continuum.
If a point does not exist there cannot be any lines. Do you think that it is the case that lines do not exist?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:54 pm
Extension is concerned with matter and space.
When is "now"?
Now is a point to me. How about you?
Answer the question!
Now is the point at the time at which an event occurs.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:13 pm
There is no now, as now is a smooth and non discrete continuum. There is no "point" in time that can be called "now".
Oh, so now is a smooth continuum. How long is now? That is the time that is believed to have an extension, as you believe is a continuum, not now. How about the time? Is time like a line or do you believe that line is also not real?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:13 pm
Everything is in motion.
simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:32 pm
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.
If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
We are talking about mathematics here so a point exists on a line since if a point does not exist on a location on a line then we are dealing with two segments of the line. What is the size of a point?
Moreover, we use mathematics to describe reality so we are having a problem if the mathematical tool that we use is ill-defined.
On top of this if a point does not exist then the line does not exist so continuum.
If a point does not exist there cannot be any lines.
People believe that line is made of points. Points however have zero size so you cannot make a line with them.
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:21 pm
Do you think that it is the case that lines do not exist?
The size of a point is non-contrbutary here. The size of a point is not the definition of a point, just as the sizee of a ladder does not define what a ladder is. The size of a point is very small, but irrelevant to showing that anything is ill-defined.
No, it is very important to know what is the size of a point is. Any geometric entity is defined by a set of numbers, length, height, etc.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
The size of a point is non-contrbutary here. The size of a point is not the definition of a point, just as the sizee of a ladder does not define what a ladder is. The size of a point is very small, but irrelevant to showing that anything is ill-defined.
No, it is very important to know what is the size of a point is. Any geometric entity is defined by a set of numbers, length, height, etc.
