Re: Have you ever wondered.....


"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:427e6850$0$50180$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
> news:SsadndrwSOViyebfRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

> >
> > Positions don't change, locations do.
> >
> OK, rephrase:
> -If we compare two states, all we can compare is locations
> of objects, which we have seen.
> If these locations have changed we call that change motion.
> This concept 'motion' is purely a result of the intellectual
> process which compares the *seen* positions.

You're terribly confused. Motion occurs naturally. Whether it's observed or not, motion
is a natural phenomenon. Therefore, to say that it's purely the result of an intellectual
process is just nonsense. We may need to employ intellect in order to observe motion, but
to claim what you have is pure fantasy.


> >
> > Motion is not the result of an intellectual process. Motion is a physical
> > process the
> > observation of which requires an intellectual process.
> >
> That's what I say.

No, you said that motion is a concept, and you also say that it's purely the result of an
intellectual process. Here's your claim: "This concept 'motion' is purely a result of the
intellectual process..........." Your complete misuse of terms is what leads to the
fantastic notion that motion is not observable. Tell me, is motion a natural phenomenon
or not? Is motion physical?

>We see locations of objects and compare
> these locations afterwards. If the locations have changed
> we call such changes of locations 'motion'.
> Motion happens, only all we see is states.

Therefore, despite your utter confusion about what constitutes observation, motion is
physical, is that correct?

BTW, you won't find one credible scientist to agree that the natural phenomenon of motion
is not observable.

>
> >> We don't *see* the motion, we *see* locations.
> >
> > We see states, we observe motion.
> >
> That's what I say. The data we use out of the
> seen states is the locations of the object.

No, you said that we don't see motion. I say that motion is observable.

>
> >> Motion is an emerging concept, it is not *seen*.
> >
> > No, it's observed.
> >
> Right. What we see is locations. The intellectual process
> finishes the observation and concludes that there has been
> motion, according to yur defintion of 'observe'.

OK, so what's your point? Is motion physical or not? Yes or no?

>
> >> You want to call all of the process, from 'see positions'
> >> to 'have processed the seen states' observation.
> >
> > You're the one who keeps using variations of the word *see* to try to
> > sqeeze your argument
> > into words that work.
> >
> I think you misunderstand what I say. I don't try to
> contradict you, I merely try to summarize what you
> say. You seem to have the notion that anything I say
> should be refuted at once.

And you do it wrongly. Stop wasting energy on this semantical rediculousness and just
answer the question......is motion physical or not?

>
> > There's a difference between the physiological
> > process of sight,
> > and the complete process of observation.
> >
> That's exactly what I say.

That's a lie.

>
> [snip]
> > I asked you a simple question whcih you've chosen to snip. Simply put, is
> > motion a
> > physical process, yes or no?
> >
> If we apply your definition of 'physical', i.e. 'observable',
> and if we apply your definition of 'observe', i.e.
> 'conclusion after application of a deductive intellectual
> process on collected data on phenomena', then motion
> is a physical process.
> (my definitions differ, but my conclusion is the same:
> motion is a process. According to my definitions any
> process is physical, so motion is a physical process.)

Not an answer. In your opinion, according to your definitions, is motion physical or not?
Yes or no?

>
> Also, if we apply your definitions of 'physical' and
> 'observe', then time is physical according to your own
> definitions:

Not at all. We infer time. We create it out of an observation of a process. The
observation of motion is the intellectual comparison of two states. The inference of time
is no such thing. The inference of time is the observation of motion and the simple
assertion of the notion of time.

> we apply a deductive intellectual process on collected
> data on the progression of a process, and conclude that
> there is ordering in the states, which we call time.

You can call it splat rays from Mars for all I care, but it's the observation of the
physical process of motion, or a physical process equivalent to motion.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> -If we compare two states, all we can compare is positions, ... >> If these positions have changed we call that change motion. ... > Motion is not the result of an intellectual process. ... process on collected data on phenomena', ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... They don't depict motion. ... > -If we compare two states, all we can compare is positions, ... Motion is not the result of an intellectual process. ... Motion is a physical process the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... Which represent pictures. ... They don't depict motion. ... the intellectual process of comparing ... -If we compare two states, all we can compare is positions, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> -If we compare two states, all we can compare is locations ... >> If these locations have changed we call that change motion. ... intellectual process which compares the *seen* locations. ... It is customary to give phenomena in physics a name. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> The comparison of two states is an intellectual process. ... > The events of history occurr, and they occurr in a specific order. ... It *is* the ordering of states(ordering as noun, not as verb). ... > observation of motion includes the ordering of events. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)