|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 1, 2023 10:14:10 GMT
Since Galileo "X is moving" is fair only if there exists at least imaginary point Y such that the measurement between them /i.e. the algebraic sum of changes of distances between them/ demonstrates X moves toward Y or backward Y, or circled around Y.
Actions are different, presumably not all the actions are movements, however there are theories for which it's not like that: any action at least can be described as a certain movement.
So here is a question that has two ways to attempt to solve it: (1) are there non-relative actions? and (2) can each action be described as a movement?
Assuming the method of preference the existential over the generalized forms, a I can say that (A) there exist relative actions, and that (B) lack of space&time would give us an answer, but here are another problems arises that (i) doubtfully 0d realities exist, and (ii) any 1d or more realities suppose movement in the most common interpretations of them.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:16:01 GMT
The wave is its own interval as one peak has a gap before another peak. The same occurs for a rising and setting sun, the sun rises, sets (gap), then rises again. Intervals are change. Time occurs through the observation of change, time is change. It might be my fault, but you didn't get the message – we're unable to say if time is charge. "Time is change" is Leibniz. "Absolute time" is Newton. I think Newton has more right path here, because Newton declares – what is more important – independence of time. In Leibniz scenario, on the other hand, "time" is abstraction, a function of objects. But that breaks the floor out of out thinking – we've come to some kind of a materialism sanctuary. Leibniz thought has double flaws, since he doesn't accept objects as matter. Then his "time" is functionally subjective. Newtonian is if here's an absolute time, then objects don't create time, they are able to change. Let's look closer to this last one: if an object changes, then either at least a part of an object A changes, or at least a part of A has been moved. Having no potential ability of changing (replacement or movement) cause troubles of monistic representations of the reality (and then no movement), or to be possesed by something else i.e. being related to something else, that is a potential act. Of course we cannot register absolute time without any changes, while this view seems to be the most logically adequate. It is absolute that there is change and the observation of absolutes changes...this is a paradox. Leibniz's and Newton's interpretations are two sides of the same coin of physics.
|
|