Aristotle rears his ugly head, again
Time, motion and change. Aristotle calls time the number of motion. Whilst reading “The Fabric of the Cosmos” by Brian Greene, I stumbled upon a quote:
‘No one has as yet found the definitive, fundamental definition of time, but, undoubtledly, part of time’s role in the makeup of the cosmos is that it is the bookkeeper of change.’
Interesting. . .
Loading...
I like the Elegant Universe, as well.
Are things really discrete? As far I understand current cosmology there’s this underlying layer of bubbly strings and branes that are interwoven and form the carpet of existence.
Numbers are a favorite card to pull for this topic. “There are two things…TWO!” But, the number two is quite reliant on number one for existence and they all essentially require this act of counting to exist…and they are not independent beings. So, for me to say that two is a discrete quantity is challenging…I’d be like Winston Smith with the rats…I’d have a problem.
There is a strong inclination for me to deny that things are discrete in reality…They are discrete only notionally. We make them discrete.
The whee atomic bits interact with one another—you know, instantaneously across the universe. This copper pitcher next to me on the table is not truly other than that which surrounds it. Most of it is located in a semi-constant position, but that place is jiggling around on a jiggling table in nitrogen and oxygen and light and cosmic rays and background radiation and my body odor and my breath inside a house on some ground on rock in space in a…you get the idea.
It’s like a dead wasp wrapped in web in a web in a web in a web.
What do you think of this? I probably sound like some wierdo maybe or like Aristolean heretic, but I can’t help it.
Stouff - August 15, 2007 at 8:42 am
Jeff, as a disclaimer, you know I always think you sound like some weirdo, but that’s not the point.
As far as string-theory goes, I am completely unsold on the idea, as is about half the physics/cosmology educated people (of which I am not one). I think Bell’s Theorem of non-locality really speaks to your atomic bits interacting across the vast distances of the universe at superluminal speeds, which is interesting.
But as far as the discrete is concerned, I think that things are discrete in actuality and continuous (or continuously divisible) notionally only.
beitiathustra - August 16, 2007 at 8:15 am
I reread the Categories a bit. He states that numbers are discrete and that solids and space are continuous. Objects in space share a common boundary. In terms of field theory, I think it would be safe to say that the “waves” of one particle would interact with the “waves” of another and there is no specific point or plane where one could say there is a distinct separation. Therefore, I think in a certain in sense it is fair to say that all material things that exist are united and can be considered one.
Jeff - August 16, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I thought Ari defined time as “the measure of motion in regard to the before and after.” In our TAC discussion on the matter I became convinced that this definition, if it is a definition properly speaking, points to the change spacial relation as being fundamental to the existence time.
Norris Harrington - August 21, 2007 at 4:30 am