Re: Time is an illusion
- From: "Lefty" <Ye@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:50:20 -0700
________________________
At what "instant" would the mug not be moving if he dragged it across the
desk?
________________________
Difficult question if you think that time is quantized absolutely.
Very bad question to ask if you think that time is continuous. Would
probably be considered antagonistic.
If time ceases to exist relativistically, then quantized and continuous time
coexist comfortably, and so it is still a somewhat silly question.
I think that zeno's paradoxes assume continuity of time, but Planck seems to
be saying that time is absolutely granular on some small scale. There is a
bottom, and it does'nt get any smaller than that. Below Planck time, you
have nonexistence and it is absolute (nonrelativistic).
Did Planck assume that Planck Length could be taken as an absolute quantity,
simply because all human observers exist on the same scale, and therefore
relativistic effects are inconsequential ? Did Planck really believe that
the Planck Length is absolute (nonrelativsitic) ? Did Planck realize that a
quantization which is absolute introduces all kinds of crazy paradoxes ?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time is an illusion
- From: Nick
- Re: Time is an illusion
- References:
- Re: Time is an illusion
- From: LeoK
- Re: Time is an illusion
- From: Nick
- Re: Time is an illusion
- From: Traveler
- Re: Time is an illusion
- From: Nick
- Re: Time is an illusion
- Prev by Date: Shockley quotation
- Next by Date: Banach vs Hilbert Spaces: How the Split Originates
- Previous by thread: Re: Time is an illusion
- Next by thread: Re: Time is an illusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|