The Bricks in Space and Time...

[Scott Mayers]

Between the walls of the infinite and the infinitesimal (or Zero), we have the substance of matter and time itself to question. What would actually occur if you could 'freeze' time and space, as in a good Sci-fi movie?

This also asks what it would be like if we had say two distinct 'frozen' perfect images of an arrow. If you were told that one was 'in transit' in the direction of the arrow head or was just let go from being held in one spot, how could you tell them apart knowing only those images and a common background (fixed variable)?

[Age]

Between the walls of the infinite and the infinitesimal (or Zero), we have the substance of matter and time itself to question.

What is there really to question? There is 'matter', physical objects, and 'space', the distance between physical objects. There is no such thing as 'time' being any thing other than a human made up construct to measure the distance between the occurrence of physical objects at one particular moment to another particular moment.

What would actually occur if you could 'freeze' time and space, as in a good Sci-fi movie?

You could not 'freeze' time and you can not 'freeze' space also. As both are nothing more than the labels placed upon a human being concepts used with devised up and created tools to take measurements of the distances between events at particular moments or between particular objects.

If, however, all matter, which is just all physical objects, were 'frozen', in the sense of 'stopped from moving', then what would actually occur is all things would stop moving, obviously. Now, (IF there was one thing left in order to be able take measurements) there could NOT be any change from any measurement taken. Therefore, from the human being concept of "time" and "space" obviously nothing would change. Some might say "time" would stand still and "space" would stop moving also. But the Truth is there is NO such thing as "time" nor "space" other than they are only the names given to measured distances. The word 'space' just being the name given to the distance between physical objects, and, the word 'time' just being the name given to the distance between physical events, or the distance between the different placement of the same physical objects.

This also asks what it would be like if we had say two distinct 'frozen' perfect images of an arrow. If you were told that one was 'in transit' in the direction of the arrow head or was just let go from being held in one spot, how could you tell them apart knowing only those images and a common background (fixed variable)?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Just because one is TOLD some thing (like that a 'frozen' arrow is 'in transit') then that does NOT change what actually occurs. The Truth will always remain the same. For example no matter how many times you are told that the Universe began and that the Universe is finite, this does NOT change what the actual and real Truth IS. It really is that simple.

[Scott Mayers]

Between the walls of the infinite and the infinitesimal (or Zero), we have the substance of matter and time itself to question.

What is there really to question? There is 'matter', physical objects, and 'space', the distance between physical objects. There is no such thing as 'time' being any thing other than a human made up construct to measure the distance between the occurrence of physical objects at one particular moment to another particular moment.

What would actually occur if you could 'freeze' time and space, as in a good Sci-fi movie?

You could not 'freeze' time and you can not 'freeze' space also. As both are nothing more than the labels placed upon a human being concepts used with devised up and created tools to take measurements of the distances between events at particular moments or between particular objects.

If, however, all matter, which is just all physical objects, were 'frozen', in the sense of 'stopped from moving', then what would actually occur is all things would stop moving, obviously. Now, (IF there was one thing left in order to be able take measurements) there could NOT be any change from any measurement taken. Therefore, from the human being concept of "time" and "space" obviously nothing would change. Some might say "time" would stand still and "space" would stop moving also. But the Truth is there is NO such thing as "time" nor "space" other than they are only the names given to measured distances. The word 'space' just being the name given to the distance between physical objects, and, the word 'time' just being the name given to the distance between physical events, or the distance between the different placement of the same physical objects.

Thank you. Then we agree. I'm trying to get a concensus in the three related threads. While we might come from different specific views, we seem to be agreeing that certain things at least 'empirically' cannot be deduced even if the logic is valid and sound based on the minimal degree of our LOCAL senses.

This also asks what it would be like if we had say two distinct 'frozen' perfect images of an arrow. If you were told that one was 'in transit' in the direction of the arrow head or was just let go from being held in one spot, how could you tell them apart knowing only those images and a common background (fixed variable)?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Just because one is TOLD some thing (like that a 'frozen' arrow is 'in transit') then that does NOT change what actually occurs. The Truth will always remain the same. For example no matter how many times you are told that the Universe began and that the Universe is finite, this does NOT change what the actual and real Truth IS. It really is that simple.

This is one of Zeno's paradoxes. He didn't have the invention of photographs of his day and explained in similar to this. I also didn't want to spoil your interpretation of the last conclusion you drew above that relates. That if we were literally to be 'frozen', or, to take an infinitesimally small interval of time where we are in time or space, nothing could 'exist', yet, the paradox here presents a problem. How then does DIFFERENT information at a single point in present space or time exist?

So now imagine we have two photographs of the arrow (not actually a 'frozen' reality because cameras only take a small interval of time greater than zero), where both the pictures were purposely taken in your presence with the two distinct events: (1) where one on a ladder holds the arrow horizontally and drops it with, say a solid color backdrop. (2) where one shoots an arrow.

If the camera in each instance were to take both event's images at a very very small time interval, one of the pictures represents the arrow in flight (horizontally) and the other is falling down (vertically). The pictures, for all practical limitations of our human interpretation would not be able to differentiate between the two.

Do you concur? And if so, as Zeno (and Aristotle following him) thought, there had to be something INTRINSIC in the two different cases OF the arrow itself that differed. What this says is that if you were to continue to make the arrow smaller and smaller, but not absolutely nothing, the same identity of two distinct point identical in spacial and time features HOLD information different IN them.

What do you think this is?

[hint: I believe this may be what made Einstein figure something interesting out!]

[Age]

Between the walls of the infinite and the infinitesimal (or Zero), we have the substance of matter and time itself to question.

What is there really to question? There is 'matter', physical objects, and 'space', the distance between physical objects. There is no such thing as 'time' being any thing other than a human made up construct to measure the distance between the occurrence of physical objects at one particular moment to another particular moment.

What would actually occur if you could 'freeze' time and space, as in a good Sci-fi movie?

You could not 'freeze' time and you can not 'freeze' space also. As both are nothing more than the labels placed upon a human being concepts used with devised up and created tools to take measurements of the distances between events at particular moments or between particular objects.

If, however, all matter, which is just all physical objects, were 'frozen', in the sense of 'stopped from moving', then what would actually occur is all things would stop moving, obviously. Now, (IF there was one thing left in order to be able take measurements) there could NOT be any change from any measurement taken. Therefore, from the human being concept of "time" and "space" obviously nothing would change. Some might say "time" would stand still and "space" would stop moving also. But the Truth is there is NO such thing as "time" nor "space" other than they are only the names given to measured distances. The word 'space' just being the name given to the distance between physical objects, and, the word 'time' just being the name given to the distance between physical events, or the distance between the different placement of the same physical objects.

Thank you. Then we agree. I'm trying to get a concensus in the three related threads. While we might come from different specific views, we seem to be agreeing that certain things at least 'empirically' cannot be deduced even if the logic is valid and sound based on the minimal degree of our LOCAL senses.

This also asks what it would be like if we had say two distinct 'frozen' perfect images of an arrow. If you were told that one was 'in transit' in the direction of the arrow head or was just let go from being held in one spot, how could you tell them apart knowing only those images and a common background (fixed variable)?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Just because one is TOLD some thing (like that a 'frozen' arrow is 'in transit') then that does NOT change what actually occurs. The Truth will always remain the same. For example no matter how many times you are told that the Universe began and that the Universe is finite, this does NOT change what the actual and real Truth IS. It really is that simple.

This is one of Zeno's paradoxes.

You will have to bear with me here. I do not yet know who/what a zeno is nor what zeno's paradoxes are.

I just read one of those, so called, "paradoxes" about an "achilles" and a "tortoise". The only reason this is called a "paradox", that I can see, is because of two words in the conclusion. Change these two words and the "paradox" does not exist anymore, to me anyway. But maybe I am missing some thing. I only had a quick glance at the wikipedia's version of it, which itself could obviously be flawed. If anyone would like to tell me how and why this is supposedly a paradox, then I would be most interested.

He didn't have the invention of photographs of his day and explained in similar to this. I also didn't want to spoil your interpretation of the last conclusion you drew above that relates. That if we were literally to be 'frozen', or, to take an infinitesimally small interval of time where we are in time or space, nothing could 'exist', yet, the paradox here presents a problem. How then does DIFFERENT information at a single point in present space or time exist?

I do NOT understand the question you are asking here. Is there a word missing or some thing not exactly right in this question?

If yes, then please rephrase the question.
If no, then what do you mean by 'DIFFERENT information'?

To me:
There is only one NOW, which is eternal.
There is NO "present" space and time, as though the word "present" means in relation to "another present" in space or time. The only one "present" NOW is in 'constant-change', or in a 'constant state of change (or flux)', with NO separation whatsoever.
There is ONE information, only, existing in the eternal NOW. This information may appear DIFFERENT but that is only because of how different brains, perceive different things, and thus hold different information. This one only information is in constant-change also, just like EVERY thing else is in the Universe.

But maybe my view and meaning of "different information" is nothing like what your view and meaning here are. I will await your clarification.

So now imagine we have two photographs of the arrow (not actually a 'frozen' reality because cameras only take a small interval of time greater than zero), where both the pictures were purposely taken in your presence with the two distinct events: (1) where one on a ladder holds the arrow horizontally and drops it with, say a solid color backdrop. (2) where one shoots an arrow.

If the camera in each instance were to take both event's images at a very very small time interval, one of the pictures represents the arrow in flight (horizontally) and the other is falling down (vertically). The pictures, for all practical limitations of our human interpretation would not be able to differentiate between the two.

Do you concur?

I would not say that I would NOT be able to differentiate between the two. I would have to LOOK AT the pictures FIRST before I could concur or not concur. And depending on what the pictures SHOWED me, then that would influence my response. After all different pictures, from different angles, or perspectives, might produce and show different outcomes, or show DIFFERENT information. There could be some slight fuzziness, for example, that would SHOW a direction the arrow is moving in (vertically or horizontally or not), which I would NOT know until I LOOKED AT the pictures PRIOR.

(This fits in with "logik's" discussion about how, if I recall correctly, there is some computer program that can differentiate between two DIFFERENT images. IF, however, that program could differentiate if an arrow is flying down or vertically, from an arrow falling forwards or horizontally, I have NO idea. But this is a side issue.)

And if so, as Zeno (and Aristotle following him) thought, there had to be something INTRINSIC in the two different cases OF the arrow itself that differed.

I do NOT see how just because human interpretation could NOT differentiate between a falling arrow from a flying arrow in two pictures how this translates to there HAS TO BE something INTRINSIC in the two different cases OF the arrow itself that differed. What has human 'interpretation' got to do with there is something INTRINSIC in things or not?

If there is something INTRINSIC in things, then there IS. Human 'interpretation' has NO bearing on that fact.

What this says is that if you were to continue to make the arrow smaller and smaller, but not absolutely nothing, the same identity of two distinct point identical in spacial and time features HOLD information different IN them.

If there is DIFFERENT information INTRINSIC in ALL things, then that is NOT really the issue is it. 'Information', itself, is only grasped by an observer. Human beings are the only 'known, by them anyway, source that can obtain and grasp such information, in such a way. That is the way the human brain works. It can obtain, by grasping, and holding onto information, far more than any other known animal can. But, as I am pretty sure "logik" will concur, in the days of when this is written, computers ALSO can obtain, grasp, and hold onto, information, and much better and more so than human beings can, some might say. A human brain and a computer, after all, work in exactly the same way. One is just progressively becoming much better than the other one at doing this obtaining (DIFFERENT) information.

What do you think this is?

Absolutely EVERY thing can be sized down to its most fundamental particle level. Within absolutely EVERY fundamental particle is information, which tells 'it' 'how to behave', for lack of better wording. This 'information', causing the smallest of particles to act in certain ways, controls/causes/creates HOW absolutely EVERY thing, from the smallest all the way up to the largest, works and behaves. This phenomena is SEEN EVERYWHERE in the Universe in and from ALL things.

(By the way I still have not decided if this embedded/encrypted "information" within ALL things is better being called information or knowledge. From what someone was writing in this forum a little while ago, I have yet to start thinking about if 'knowledge' or 'information' is a better word to use in relation to what actually causes/creates dna and/or subatomic particles to do what they do. This is not an issue but just another side note for Me to recap on.)

[hint: I believe this may be what made Einstein figure something interesting out!]

I am very interested to hear what you believe in relation to this, because I have NO idea at all if what I have been babbling on about has any thing at all to do with what you have been thinking about.

[Age]

Sorry I forgot to read the so called "arrow paradox".

There is NO instant of time. There is NO (duration-less) instant of time. There is NO 'no motion'. So, there is NO real issue here.

There is, HOWEVER, continual motion and change, which happens in the eternal-NOW. There is NO way to stop change. So, although human beings can perceive an instant, without change, really there is NONE.

Also, in that other so called "dichotomy paradox" there is NO issue also. This is AGAIN because it is only because of the way it is written that may have caused some confusion in some people here.

There are other so called "paradoxes" on that same page, which again it is the way they are written that is what is misleading people to see things that are NOT really there.

However, in stating that I do NOT see any problems nor issues at all in these "paradoxes", that in of itself does NOT mean that I am NOT seeing some thing that is there. I am completely prepared to LOOK AT any thing that is presented to me that shows otherwise.

[Scott Mayers]

Sorry I forgot to read the so called "arrow paradox".

There is NO instant of time. There is NO (duration-less) instant of time. There is NO 'no motion'. So, there is NO real issue here.

There is, HOWEVER, continual motion and change, which happens in the eternal-NOW. There is NO way to stop change. So, although human beings can perceive an instant, without change, really there is NONE.

Also, in that other so called "dichotomy paradox" there is NO issue also. This is AGAIN because it is only because of the way it is written that may have caused some confusion in some people here.

There are other so called "paradoxes" on that same page, which again it is the way they are written that is what is misleading people to see things that are NOT really there.

However, in stating that I do NOT see any problems nor issues at all in these "paradoxes", that in of itself does NOT mean that I am NOT seeing some thing that is there. I am completely prepared to LOOK AT any thing that is presented to me that shows otherwise.

I will leave the post before this alone for now. I started to and then saved it as a draft instead because it is more connected with the thread on the wall version.

As to this, you DO follow by your reasoning that each point and place in time is constantly changing. Thus you have come to what I agree to on this. But the paradox was also about the quantity of information in a given volume (like that of the arrow itself) in two distinctly different inertial spaces. Einstein likely used the paradox to realize that for the information in the identical same place to exist when they differ in speeds at a time zero, requires altering the shape at least by appearance of that object to account for the difference in information.

When we imagine a slow shutter speed taking the pictures, we can tell the difference of a moving arrow and one not because one is blurred while the other isn't. So the solution was not as simple as you might think. But now imagine continuing to look closer and/or shrink the arrow to a point. The contents of one point identical to another in spacial meaning would differ in content. So there lies the paradox: without finding some new theory to 'find' extra space for the extra information we assume cannot occupy the same volume, we lose the meaning of 'conservation' we expected.

So the APPEARANCE is something we expect to indicate the reality. Yet AT EACH POINT in space, for something moving at speed X versus Speed not-X requires not only the appearance of it to differ but the REALITY of each point to hold different information. That's the paradox. Even WHEN the appearance is held constant, the information about what we see can differ in content.

[Scott Mayers]

"Movement is Impossible" Paradox

This one is sometimes called "The Stadium". I'll use the definition summary quote from Joseph Mazur's book called, "Zeno's Paradox: Unraveling the Ancient Mystery behind the Science of Space and Time" (or The Motion Paradox by an older published title....something that tricked me into buying the damn book twice for not noticing the tiny notice to that fact!)

The Stadium -- That half a given period of time is equal to the whole of it; because equal motions must equal equal times, and yet the time occupied in passing the same number of equal objects varies according as the objects are moving or stationary. The fallacy lies in the assumption that a moving body passes moving and stationary objects with equal velocity.

This is 'true' but misses the point that, which I pointed above in the last post, if true, the quantitative information at any 'equal' point (or volume of space) has different information (like velocity differences EVEN in the SAME direction). Thus how can the conservation of the quantity represented by 'mass' remain steady? It can't....and why Einstein proposed his theories. An arrow moving at a slower speed in the same direction at different speeds has a real difference in its linear measure in the direction of its movement.