Is a "smallest distance" self-contradictory?

[Kharakov]

A minimum possible velocity change would guarantee anything that had a velocity change of less than the minimum would experience the minimum velocity change.

You could have a different protocol in place, one based on probabilities, somewhat like in QM. Sometimes the galaxy hit by a particle having the minimum momentum m would get no increase in its own momentum and at other times it would get an increase of just m, so that overall, on average, there'd be no long term increase of momentum for the whole system, only short-lived fluctuations around the minimal value.
EB

I wondered if untermensche would bring that up. Keep in mind I've mentioned minimum momentum, but it's actually minimum velocity we are talking about- now I'm just assuming rest mass or rest mass equivalence.

If an astronomical body gets hit by another large body going the minimum velocity almost right angles to it, then you have a body that is going below the minimum velocity towards the other body. If the momentum at "almost right angles to it" is significant, you can't just sweep it under the rug with QM weirdness. You can't just say "sometimes it contributes, sometimes it doesn't, it averages out over all interactions".

If something is going diagonally at the "minimum velocity", because it can go the minimum velocity in any available direction, then it is going less then the minimum velocity in a direction 45 degrees away from the direction of travel. This is a logical impossibility. So you either claim that time passes differently if something is traveling 45 degrees off of another thing's path, or you just accept there isn't a minimum velocity.

You might need some aftershave.... or you can just sweep it under the rug as another "universal weirdness- somehow things have minimum velocities, but also don't when they travel at angles to eachother, things are just quantum man... quantum consciousness man... it's like, aware, so it calculates angles man... "

 

[ryan]

You could have a different protocol in place, one based on probabilities, somewhat like in QM. Sometimes the galaxy hit by a particle having the minimum momentum m would get no increase in its own momentum and at other times it would get an increase of just m, so that overall, on average, there'd be no long term increase of momentum for the whole system, only short-lived fluctuations around the minimal value.
EB

I wondered if untermensche would bring that up. Keep in mind I've mentioned minimum momentum, but it's actually minimum velocity we are talking about- now I'm just assuming rest mass or rest mass equivalence.

If an astronomical body gets hit by another large body going the minimum velocity almost right angles to it, then you have a body that is going below the minimum velocity towards the other body. If the momentum at "almost right angles to it" is significant, you can't just sweep it under the rug with QM weirdness. You can't just say "sometimes it contributes, sometimes it doesn't, it averages out over all interactions".

If something is going diagonally at the "minimum velocity", because it can go the minimum velocity in any available direction, then it is going less then the minimum velocity in a direction 45 degrees away from the direction of travel. This is a logical impossibility. So you either claim that time passes differently if something is traveling 45 degrees off of another thing's path, or you just accept there isn't a minimum velocity.

You might need some aftershave.... or you can just sweep it under the rug as another "universal weirdness- somehow things have minimum velocities, but also don't when they travel at angles to eachother, things are just quantum man... quantum consciousness man... it's like, aware, so it calculates angles man... "

QM can be tricky. If you take an electron and rotate its axis of spin 45 degrees, then there is a 25% chance it will emit a photon. And if it does emit a photon, it is a photon equal to the energy you would get if you rotated the electron 180°. The degrees rotated is in equal parts equal to the probability of the electron emitting a photon. So rotate the electron 90°, and you will get a photon 50% of the time and so on.

The momentum or energy you put in at the quantum scale is not always going to be the same as you get out. Over time it averages out according to the conservation laws.

 

[Kharakov]

It is impossible for there to be movement and not a smallest possible movement.

So, show it, don't claim it (yeah, right... who do I think I'm talking to?). Use logic and the language of precision: mathematics. It's not magic- it's language. Use it. If you don't speak it, then you can't make precise claims about reality.

Might be why your statements are consistently incorrect (lack of ability to use mathematical language).


Why does there have to be a smallest possible movement in continuous reality?

 

[untermensche]

It is impossible for there to be movement and not a smallest possible movement.

So, show it, don't claim it (yeah, right... who do I think I'm talking to?). Use logic and the language of precision: mathematics. It's not magic- it's language. Use it. If you don't speak it, then you can't make precise claims about reality.

Might be why your statements are consistently incorrect (lack of ability to use mathematical language).


Why does there have to be a smallest possible movement in continuous reality?

First of all, it could never be proven or demonstrated in any way that there is no shortest possible distance something could move.

No mathematics demonstrates it.

The mathematics of "continuous reality" does not explain how something goes from zero to some positive movement without making an initial shortest possible movement.

 

[Kharakov]

The momentum or energy you put in at the quantum scale is not always going to be the same as you get out. Over time it averages out according to the conservation laws.

You don't know what energy "you put in" at the quantum scale. Doesn't mean there isn't a definite amount.

Take these 2 examples: an electron is moving towards a target at 99.99999% the velocity of light, relative to the target (it is not going to miss, and it is going to impart definite momentum to the target- it's way above the quantum level of energy).

The target is next to another object of the same mass, and they are each in Lagrangian-like positions relative to one another and any other bodies, and they are at rest relative to one another. After the interaction with the electron, the target object will be moving relative to the other object (in non quantum woo scenarios...).

with quantum woo and min velocity:

Both objects are 10^-5 grams:

The one object will have a velocity relative to the other object that is greater than the alleged minimum velocity.

Both objects are 10^20 grams:

The one object will have a velocity relative to the other object that is less than the alleged minimum velocity.

So we have 2 cases: one in which a light object gains a definite amount of momentum, and one in which a heavy object gains an uncertain amount of momentum due to quantum woo.

Let's hit 10^42 light objects with the relativistic electrons. The whole system has gained a specific amount of momentum over time.

Let's hit 10^42 heavy objects with the relativistic electrons. The whole system has gained a smaller percent of momentum over time according to the quantum woo (in which an electron only has a chance of imparting momentum, that is spread out over many collisions). Energy is lost when something hits an object above a certain energy threshold (which is why black holes don't form...... ).

In this scenario, larger objects cancel out more energy than smaller objects. I'm not going to bother visualizing this woo any further... any takers?


With just minimum velocity (no quantum woo):

Both objects are 10^-5 grams:

The one object will have a velocity relative to the other object that is greater than the alleged minimum velocity. It acts classically.

Both objects are 10^20 grams:

The one object will have a velocity relative to the other object that is less than the alleged minimum velocity, so it will instead be moving at the alleged minimum velocity, which means it has gained energy.

In this scenario, large objects gaining momentum under the minimum gain more momentum than exists in the system. Runaway energy production with large objects. A large enough solar sail could gain infinite energy once it hits a certain velocity so that photons from the solar wind barely hit it. We can create a new big bang by sending solar sails out into the universe!@!@$ Free energy!@@!$

with no quantum woo and no minimum velocity:

Objects behave normally. Energy is conserved. People panic. The universe will be cold in dark billions of years after they die. Maybe as cold and dark as my soul. I doubt it. But maybe. It's a possibility.

 

[Kharakov]

So, show it, don't claim it (yeah, right... who do I think I'm talking to?). Use logic and the language of precision: mathematics. It's not magic- it's language. Use it. If you don't speak it, then you can't make precise claims about reality.

Might be why your statements are consistently incorrect (lack of ability to use mathematical language).


Why does there have to be a smallest possible movement in continuous reality?

First of all, it could never be proven or demonstrated in any way that there is no shortest possible distance something could move.

It can be inferred, not deducted. We can't prove that Maxwell's demon isn't tricking us into thinking the universe exists, but we can readily infer that it isn't. Of course, we can just redefine universe too, but that's sort of bullshit.

No mathematics demonstrates it.

Use math as a language to describe what you're attempting to describe. Mathematics is the language of precision- and you're making very precise claims. You need to use the only language capable of dealing with the claims you are making.

The mathematics of "continuous reality" does not explain how something goes from zero to some positive movement without making an initial shortest possible movement.

Actually it does. Continuous reality implies, as everyone except you appears to know, that any length can be subdivided into smaller lengths.

So, anyway. If you have any logical, coherent, mathematically sound reason for your claims (I know you don't), I am sure everyone is waiting with baited breath.

 

[Learner]

If I understand it right - we know the train can "also go backwards", so there must be a borderline to distinguish between forwards and backwards (real world logic ) meaning either there is no real infinite subdivisions from stationary before counting back or paradoxically never reaching the point with mathematical subdivisions to go backwards. I agree with untermensche.

 

[Kharakov]

So, just toss out relativity? Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Juma]

The distance travelled when moving from one chess square to the next is equal to the size if the square. Not the distance vetween the squares.

What is its size of the object that moves? Use 2d if you can just to make it easier.

? Sorry but I dont understand the question.

 

[Juma]

The distance travelled when moving from one chess square to the next is equal to the size if the square. Not the distance vetween the squares.

Ryan could be very nearly right if his explanation wasn't so confused but, you, Juma, are very seriously confused.

To travel from one square to any one of its four immediate neighbours, a Tower moves exactly 1 square according to the rules of the game of chess. So, the distance has to be 1. To move on to the next square in line, it moves exactly two squares overall so the distance travelled in this case is 2. And so on.

Your mistake is that you are mixing chess and real space. If you play chess, what matters are the rules of the game, not actual real space, although, clearly, players have to comply with the physical laws of the physical universe when moving their pieces. But there is a contradiction in insisting on talking of the chess board as a 'discrete space' if you want in fact to measure distances as physical distances.

You could be coherent still if you measured the distance between two squares as the number of moves required to go from one to the other. That would be a very different kind of distance, though, and I think it would more intuitive to talk in this case of the "speed" of the piece: slow for pawns and Kings, fast for Towers, Bishops and Queens, with the knights in between.
EB

Your, and ryans, error seems to be that you beg the question: you assume that the smallest distance is a point.
What I try to explain is that if space is discrete the smallest part will be like som kind of voxel. A volume pixel with some size.
Distance could be measured as you say in mutiple of this voxel diameter and since a meter will correspond to a number of such voxels there will be a conversion factor between the two thus giving us a number for meter/voxel which is exactly the distance between two voxels.

 

[ryan]

What is its size of the object that moves? Use 2d if you can just to make it easier.

? Sorry but I dont understand the question.

nm

Your, and ryans, error seems to be that you beg the question: you assume that the smallest distance is a point.
What I try to explain is that if space is discrete the smallest part will be like som kind of voxel. A volume pixel with some size.
Distance could be measured as you say in mutiple of this voxel diameter and since a meter will correspond to a number of such voxels there will be a conversion factor between the two thus giving us a number for meter/voxel which is exactly the distance between two voxels.

It's quite simple. An object either passes through space or it doesn't to get to the next voxel. If it passes through space, then that space can be divided because it progresses through it. If it has to jump from one voxel to the other because there is no space to go through, then you did not travel through space.

 

[DBT]

Two or more object traveling through space together in formation are stationary in relation to each other. If there are no reference points in space, the objects cannot be said to be moving....

 

[ryan]

Two or more object traveling through space together in formation are stationary in relation to each other. If there are no reference points in space, the objects cannot be said to be moving....

Is this post for me or ...

 

[DBT]

Two or more object traveling through space together in formation are stationary in relation to each other. If there are no reference points in space, the objects cannot be said to be moving....

Is this post for me or ...

Just a passing comment. Not directed at anyone.

 

[untermensche]

First of all, it could never be proven or demonstrated in any way that there is no shortest possible distance something could move.

It can be inferred, not deducted.

It can only be imagined whole. There is no logic to lead one to think it could ever be something real.

Mathematics is the language of precision- and you're making very precise claims. You need to use the only language capable of dealing with the claims you are making.

Mathematics does not describe all things. It really describes little of human interest. Some people have an interest in it but that is no more significant than some people being interested in college football.

What is the mathematics of the wetness of water? What is the mathematics of the softness of the skin? What is the mathematics of an idea?

Mathematics can only be used where specific data can be collected.

Where no data collection is possible we must try to use something else.

There are no points in nature. All things that actually exist have dimension and specific properties.

A movement must have dimension. It must have a length.

If a movement has a length then in a universe with specific properties a minimum length of movement must exist.

Otherwise you are saying the properties of the universe are not specified, they are arbitrary.

Nothing about the real universe shoots off into infinity. Nothing can be infinitely large or small. That is an absurd unsupported notion. A silly notion.

The mathematics of "continuous reality" does not explain how something goes from zero to some positive movement without making an initial shortest possible movement.

Actually it does.

The mathematics cannot take anything from zero to some positive movement without making an initial movement of some length.

You cannot make a movement of zero length. That is not a movement.

 

[Kharakov]

It can be inferred, not deducted.

It can only be imagined whole. There is no logic to lead one to think it could ever be something real.

So inference is not logical? You can't prove a glass of water exists anywhere but in your imagination, but it certainly helps to infer that it does before you pour it on someone's head.

Mathematics is the language of precision- and you're making very precise claims. You need to use the only language capable of dealing with the claims you are making.

Mathematics does not describe all things. It really describes little of human interest. Some people have an interest in it but that is no more significant than some people being interested in college football.

College football they would not be watching without mathematics, in many cases.

What is the mathematics of the wetness of water?

Fluid dynamics? It's a huge field, and has direct (scientific/engineering) impacts on almost every human life around the globe.

What is the mathematics of an idea?

It's called Wu.

Mathematics can only be used where specific data can be collected.

No, it can describe systems for which we lack specific data, such as QM systems.

There are no points in nature. All things that actually exist have dimension and specific properties.

There are lines, points, etc. in nature. Keep in mind these are words used to describe specific locations. I just mentioned Lagrangian points, which are spread out over space.

A movement must have dimension. It must have a length.

Sure.

If a movement has a length then in a universe with specific properties a minimum length of movement must exist.

If one of those specific properties is "minimum length of movement". I'm not aware of any evidence that a minimum length of movement exists, and I'm aware of several arguments against non-continuous spacetime.

The mathematics cannot take anything from zero to some positive movement without making an initial movement of some length.

Length * time. An initial movement over a length (untermeter), that takes a period of time (an ubersecond).

Of course, in continuous reality, we can divide an untermeter in half, and divide or multiply an ubersecond by 2. You still need to show that reality is not continuous, which is your fundamental claim.

 

[untermensche]

So inference is not logical?

There is no logical inference in this case.

What is the mathematics of the wetness of water?

Fluid dynamics? It's a huge field, and has direct (scientific/engineering) impacts on almost every human life around the globe.

Try again. That is a series of models that describe how liquids behave.

You will not find "wetness" anywhere in it.

What is the mathematics of an idea?

It's called Wu.

Exactly.

The modern world might exist because of mathematics but if one is in it mathematics is not very important. It is not necessary at all. Many people function just fine who can do no mathematics. They use a calculator to add and subtract.

Mathematics can only be used where specific data can be collected.

No, it can describe systems for which we lack specific data, such as QM systems.

Exactly how is something modeled in the absence of data? Please be very specific I find the idea absurd.

The mathematics cannot take anything from zero to some positive movement without making an initial movement of some length.

Length * time. An initial movement over a length (untermeter), that takes a period of time (an ubersecond).

Of course, in continuous reality, we can divide an untermeter in half, and divide or multiply an ubersecond by 2. You still need to show that reality is not continuous, which is your fundamental claim.

You haven't explained anything with this or addressed the point with it.

It is a trip to left field.

 

[Kharakov]

There is no logical inference in this case.

Really? You can't infer that the universe is smooth because all the information we have points to a smooth spacetime? Weird... are you a solipsist because you can't prove anyone else exists?

Try again. That is a series of models that describe how liquids behave.

You want the mathematics of qualia? Not going to happen. Of course mathematics can't describe the flavor of a strawberry, although sweetness and tartness of the experience of tasting a strawberry can be quantified by excitation of neurons. Not that it gives an exact description of the qualia.

However, in the case of movement, which this conversation is about, the only pertinent topic related to water is fluid dynamics, not "what the qualia of wetness is". So... as usual, swing and a miss.

The modern world might exist because of mathematics but if one is in it mathematics is not very important. It is not necessary at all. Many people function just fine who can do no mathematics. They use a calculator to add and subtract.

They depend upon discretized information (mathematics) for just about every aspect of their life. To actually describe what is going on, or to understand a majority of modern science and engineerinng beyond a rudimentary level, one must at least be proficient in mathematics.

Is your point that the "underman", the guy who doesn't understand math, is unable to contribute much of value to certain very important aspects of scientific discourse, and cannot understand concepts such as smooth reality, the necessity of continuous spacetime to explain what we've observed, etc.?

Mathematics can only be used where specific data can be collected.

No, it can describe systems for which we lack specific data, such as QM systems.

Exactly how is something modeled in the absence of data? Please be very specific I find the idea absurd.

Probabilistically. We don't know exactly where a photon will end up, but we know the most likely places, and over time, we know the pattern of distribution will be a specific one based on the energy level of the photon, possible paths it could take, etc...

You haven't explained anything with this or addressed the point with it.

Why don't you replace the "You" with "I" and make that your signature?

Seriously. For your ludicrous claims, you need to prove spacetime is quantized, rather than smooth, and all evidence points towards it being smooth. Thus the "inference" rather than "deduction".

 

[untermensche]

Really? You can't infer that the universe is smooth because all the information we have points to a smooth spacetime?

There is no evidence that spacetime can meaningfully be divided infinitely.

Infinite divisions are purely a speculative affair without any evidence to support them.

You want the mathematics of qualia? Not going to happen. Of course mathematics can't describe the flavor of a strawberry, although sweetness and tartness of the experience of tasting a strawberry can be quantified by excitation of neurons. Not that it gives an exact description of the qualia.

Exactly!

For some things that are of great interest mathematics is useless, meaningless. It is also useless here.

They depend upon discretized information (mathematics) for just about every aspect of their life. To actually describe what is going on, or to understand a majority of modern science and engineerinng beyond a rudimentary level, one must at least be proficient in mathematics.

No they don't.

They use the tools mathematics provides without a care of the mathematics behind it.

You do not need to know any mathematics to use a cell phone or drive a car.

Exactly how is something modeled in the absence of data? Please be very specific I find the idea absurd.

Probabilistically. We don't know exactly where a photon will end up, but we know the most likely places, and over time, we know the pattern of distribution will be a specific one based on the energy level of the photon, possible paths it could take, etc...

You don't seem to know what it means for there to be an absence of data.

If you are talking about a proton there is all kinds of data. Nothing has been derived in the absence of data.

 

[Kharakov]

There is no evidence that spacetime can meaningfully be divided infinitely.

Meaningfully being the key word. So what if there is no point to dividing it infinitely? The point is to know the universe, not say "well, that's meaningless, even if it is true, so it doesn't exist because I don't want it to."

Infinite divisions are purely a speculative affair without any evidence to support them.

So we either have some complex discrete framework that follows all sorts of rules so it looks like a simple, continuous universe or we have a simple, continuous universe.

You want the mathematics of qualia? Not going to happen. Of course mathematics can't describe the flavor of a strawberry, although sweetness and tartness of the experience of tasting a strawberry can be quantified by excitation of neurons. Not that it gives an exact description of the qualia.

Exactly! For some things that are of great interest mathematics is useless, meaningless.

No, it's not. Intensity can be expressed mathematically. The intensity of the brain's electromagnetic field, blood flow, or whatever might reflect the intensity of the experience. Machines used to measure the brain's field or blood flow are designed using mathematics.

It is also useless here.

Actually, without mathematics, it's pretty hard to describe natural continuity and infinites. In fact, it's possibly impossible to understand them without mathematics (which might be your problem).

They depend upon discretized information (mathematics) for just about every aspect of their life. To actually describe what is going on, or to understand a majority of modern science and engineerinng beyond a rudimentary level, one must at least be proficient in mathematics.

No they don't. They use the tools mathematics provides without a care of the mathematics behind it. You do not need to know any mathematics to use a cell phone or drive a car.

Umm, they depend on mathematics for all those things, even if they don't understand the mathematical underpinnings of device design. To understand the design (well) they must be mathematically proficient. To understand what is going on in a CPU, they must be mathematically proficient. etc.

Exactly how is something modeled in the absence of data? Please be very specific I find the idea absurd.

Probabilistically. We don't know exactly where a photon will end up, but we know the most likely places, and over time, we know the pattern of distribution will be a specific one based on the energy level of the photon, possible paths it could take, etc...

You don't seem to know what it means for there to be an absence of data.

You said absence of specific data in the original post. In QM, there is not specific momentum and/or position data for subatomic particles, and we can't access it, however we can model QM interactions despite the lack of data.