/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13532549

28KiB, 245x334, zeno_elea.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Parmenidean void

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 14:41:59 2021 No.13532549 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13532749 >>13532825 >>13533187 >>13533197

>motion requires a void
>you say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void
Well /sci/, how do you answer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 15:33:56 No.13532694 Report

Quoted By:

Bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 15:39:49 No.13532714 Report

Quoted By: >>13532813

Void is just a descriptor of nothing like the word nothing. The word exists but it describes nothing like nothing. Thus a void exists because its nothing and of course nothing can exist. Hope you understand OP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 15:54:50 No.13532749 Report

Quoted By: >>13532808 >>13533249

>>13532549
>a burger requires a patty
>therefore a patty can't exist without a burger

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:14:03 No.13532808 Report

Quoted By: >>13532966

>>13532749
The Pre-Socratics also stated that if the world or universe was a plenum (completely filled space) then "how would movement be possible?" since there would be no place that wasn't already taken up. Which is the reasoning for the existence of a void (empty space).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:16:16 No.13532813 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532714
>nothing can exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:17:49 No.13532822 Report

Quoted By:

Hey guys this stuff makes my head wobble
can you just post funny numbers please instead of the greeks?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:18:26 No.13532825 Report

Quoted By: >>13532836 >>13532840

>>13532549
A void exists because it is a subject which has a predicate which is not self-negating (a contradiction).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:21:34 No.13532836 Report

Quoted By: >>13532941

>>13532825
Could you explain this in simple terms?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:22:34 No.13532840 Report

Quoted By: >>13532941

>>13532825
>the existence of non-existence is not a contradiction

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:51:54 No.13532941 Report

Quoted By: >>13532960

>>13532836
Whenever we speak of something and state that exists, what we do not do is say that "X = X" which is the vacuous statement of the reflexivity of "=". Instead we equate a thing with qualities, e.g. The moon is a satellite and a satellite is a celestial object which orbits a planet, which can be expressed as moon = satellite. If we just said that the moon is the moon we would elucidate nothing of its existence. So when we say that a void exists we are giving the void a quality, which is empty space, void = empty space, so the void exists as an empty space.

>>13532840
You seem to think that the void is synonymous with non-existence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:57:08 No.13532960 Report

Quoted By: >>13533008

>>13532941
For objects that exist to move there has to be a space that is not occupied by anything that exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 16:58:17 No.13532966 Report

Quoted By: >>13532984 >>13533041

>>13532808
Choreographed motion. Wherever one replaces another, it too is replaced. Everything moves for one to.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 15-Puzzle.jpg, 173KiB, 519x521

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:02:03 No.13532984 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532966

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:06:52 No.13533008 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532960
Yes, according to some of the pre-socratics. However, I'm not sure how one would go about empirically proving that it is necessary, but I am just a layman trying to figure some things out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:11:52 No.13533031 Report

Quoted By: >>13533075 >>13533147 >>13533436

Here's the full argument:
>The atomistic void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult-to-answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void—which is nothing—but a nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was "You say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void."[40][41] The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:14:48 No.13533041 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532966
Is this supposed to be a refutation of their theory? Because what is in the space right of 14 and down from 12?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:17:46 No.13533055 Report

Quoted By: >>13533074 >>13533075

Motion requires not a void, but a really existent potency in an actual thing. See Aristotle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:23:05 No.13533074 Report

Quoted By: >>13533099

>>13533055
So two things can occupy the same space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:23:07 No.13533075 Report

Quoted By: >>13533078 >>13533099

>>13533031
What is in the space between particles?

>>13533055
>but a really existent potency in an actual thing.
???

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:24:28 No.13533078 Report

Quoted By: >>13533087

>>13533075
Exactly, if you say nothing then you're saying that nothing exists and must be made of particles

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:28:02 No.13533087 Report

Quoted By: >>13533094

>>13533078
>and must be made of particles
That does not follow from "nothing exists".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:29:10 No.13533094 Report

Quoted By: >>13533131

>>13533087
Democritus says that everything that exists is made of atoms (today we say waves or fundamental particles)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:30:06 No.13533099 Report

Quoted By: >>13533107

>>13533074
No, and I don't know what it has to do with my answer.
>>13533075
Read Aristotle. For example Peter is an actually existent thing, who is actually pale, but who has potency (i.e. a disposition grounded in the biological kind he belongs to) to become tanned if this potency is realized by relevant kind of triggers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:31:49 No.13533107 Report

Quoted By: >>13533127

>>13533099
You said motion doesn't require a void. So an atom can occupy the same coordinates as another atom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:37:46 No.13533127 Report

Quoted By: >>13533140

>>13533107
I don't see how it follows. It may require void in the sense that if there is no place whereto atom can be moved then it cannot be moved. But 1) it is not the sense of the word "void" Parmenides used; and 2) void itself isn't the principle of motion, actualization of atom's potency is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:39:24 No.13533131 Report

Quoted By: >>13533147

>>13533094
>The account of the formation of compound bodies ... makes it clear that this is a random event, due to the accident collisions of atoms as they fall through an infinite void

>Given that there are infinite compounds in an infinite void, all possible compounds will be formed

>Leucippus and his companion Democritus say that the elements are the full and the void, by which they mean what-is and what-is-not, with what is full and solid being what-is, and what is void and rarefied being what-is-not.

I'm certain that is not what he was saying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:41:11 No.13533140 Report

Quoted By: >>13533162 >>13533165

>>13533127
Did the void not actualize the atom's potency? If not, what did?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:43:02 No.13533147 Report

Quoted By: >>13533169

>>13533131
>with what is full and solid being what-is, and what is void and rarefied being what-is-not
Exactly and hence Zeno's challenge >>13533031

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:46:53 No.13533162 Report

Quoted By: >>13533182

>>13533140
the higgs field

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:47:19 No.13533165 Report

Quoted By: >>13533182

>>13533140
Another actual thing that moved that atom. There is no such thing as "void" in the sense Pre-Socratics used it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:47:52 No.13533169 Report

Quoted By: >>13533183 >>13533212

>>13533147
And the solution to Zeno's challenge is to say that nothing can exist and that nothing != non-existence, or to say that nothing = non-existence and void != nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:50:20 No.13533182 Report

Quoted By: >>13533247

>>13533162
Maybe. I know nothing about it.

>>13533165
You seem to be very general with what that thing is. Suppose that we consider motion to be necessary, then there must've been an external force which actualized the atom's potency which can be arrived at through some science or logic. Do you have an answer to what that necessary force is and why it is true?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:50:24 No.13533183 Report

Quoted By: >>13533199

>>13533169
>nothing can exist
Do you know how retarded you sound?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:50:43 No.13533187 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532549
>motion requires a void
How do you prove this axiom?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:53:02 No.13533197 Report

Quoted By: >>13533205

>>13532549
A void is an empty space. Space is still something, just a vacuum. Retard. Pointless pseudointellectual dribbel dreamed up by 4th graders trying to be """"""""""""deep""""""""""""" shut the FUCK up and leave my board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:53:24 No.13533199 Report

Quoted By: >>13533209 >>13533242

>>13533183
Are you unable to understand the reasoning I am using here? Are you just going to rely on the dictionary definition of 'nothing' to make your points since you do not have any practice in this kind of logic? If we suppose that 'nothing' exists then it is a solution to Zeno's problem, but if we want the definition of nothing to be non-existence then my latter proposition suffices as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:55:00 No.13533205 Report

Quoted By: >>13533210

>>13533197
Are you calling Zeno a pseudointellectual 4th grader?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:55:10 No.13533206 Report

Quoted By:

I reject the first premise, which is retarded and based on nothing besides some ancient faggot who pulled it out of his ass, and move on.
arguments without a valid premise can be dismissed with no effort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:55:45 No.13533209 Report

Quoted By: >>13533220

>>13533199
Nothing wouldn't have any dimension and does not satisfy the apparent contradiction of void needed for motion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:56:10 No.13533210 Report

Quoted By: >>13533215

>>13533205
yeah

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:56:21 No.13533212 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533169
>nothing != non-existence
So if you have a piece of nothing then it contains something that exists?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:57:15 No.13533215 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533210
Not him, but yeah.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:58:41 No.13533220 Report

Quoted By: >>13533685

>>13533209
>Nothing wouldn't have any dimension
Proof?

>the apparent contradiction of void
There is none.

>So if you have a piece of nothing then it contains something that exists?
Are you supposing that nothing is tangible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:59:24 No.13533225 Report

Quoted By:

Damn philosophers are really stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 17:59:58 No.13533228 Report

Quoted By: >>13533233

void = { }

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:01:03 No.13533233 Report

Quoted By: >>13533385

>>13533228
{{}}
The void within the void.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:03:39 No.13533242 Report

Quoted By: >>13533272 >>13533703

>>13533199
A void is the absence of anything that exists, by definition it is non-existence. If it wasn't non-existence it would have some property of existence and hence wouldn't be a void. There'd be something about the void that makes it a thing that exists and so another thing can't also occupy that exact same place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:05:22 No.13533247 Report

Quoted By: >>13533265

>>13533182
>Suppose that we consider motion to be necessary
I have no idea what are you trying to say with this.
>there must've been an external force which actualized the atom's potency which can be arrived at through some science or logic
That is right.
>Do you have an answer to what that necessary force is and why it is true
Again, i don't understand what you mean with "necessary force". Atom is moved if something else makes it move: what this "something else" ranges over depends on your underlying ontological theory. One can say that it is some another atom, that it is some another physical "object" (in the broadest sense), or that atom is moved as part of some substance (that is the position Aristotle holds). I don't know what do you mean by "why is true". Why is true that motion exists? Because our basic experience says us so. Why should we trust our basic experiences? It is a tough question, and to answer it we should have go deep into phenomenology, and I'm too lazy to do it here. Are you asking why if something has potency then it must be actualized by some external actualizer? This question is properly treated by Aristotle in his "Physics" and "Metaphysics", and honestly I am too lazy to retell his arguments in the full detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:06:37 No.13533249 Report

Quoted By:

>>13532749
This dick in your mouth sir

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:12:17 No.13533265 Report

Quoted By: >>13533315

>>13533247
>I have no idea what are you trying to say with this.
By this I mean that it would be impossible for motion to not exist. That if an atom exists then it must necessarily be in motion. But what actualized the atom's potential to move? The external actualizer, but what is it?

>honestly I am too lazy to retell his arguments in the full detail.
That is fine. I only wanted to know your position on the actualization of a potential.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:15:15 No.13533272 Report

Quoted By: >>13533312

Can anyone answer this >>13533242

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:25:45 No.13533312 Report

Quoted By: >>13533316

>>13533272
how do I answer someones statement?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:26:45 No.13533315 Report

Quoted By: >>13533318

>>13533265
>By this I mean that it would be impossible for motion to not exist
It is impossible for motion to exist exactly because there are movable objects (i. e. objects, that have potency to be moved and abilities to move).
>That if an atom exists then it must necessarily be in motion
Not necessarily in motion, but necessarily movable. It is not hard to imagine a world with a lot of movable things that do not actually move and thus the world is completely "frozen".
>But what actualized the atom's potential to move
Taken proximately, it is some other thing that has ability to move atoms: other atoms, fields, waves, humans. Remotely and ultimately, it is some unmoved mover (purely actual object, that has no potency to undergo movement, but only potencies to move other things), or at least so Aristotle argues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:27:00 No.13533316 Report

Quoted By: >>13533488

>>13533312
Well it's a contradiction of our experience of reality that motion exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:27:50 No.13533318 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533315
>to exist
*no to exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 18:46:26 No.13533385 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533233
A self-contained set?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 19:01:49 No.13533436 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533031
The illusion of movement in reality is similar to the illusion of moment on a digital screen.

Although it looks like a car is driving across a screen, its really just a play of lights flickering on and off from a static position. This is also what we see when we see an arrow fly through air in the real world; Not an object traversing a space but a potentiality for an objecting to exist morphing along different points, but the points are all made of the same thing, 4-D space-time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 19:17:35 No.13533488 Report

Quoted By: >>13533511

>>13533316
except there is a difference between the concepts of void and space? and everything they said isn't a contradiction and based of the actual definition of the noun "void".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 19:25:41 No.13533511 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533488
what's the difference between space and non-existence? space by definition contains nothing, which means it doesn't contain anything that exists. Therefore it doesn't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:02:07 No.13533646 Report

Quoted By:

proof philosophy is worthless

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:08:37 No.13533661 Report

Quoted By:

get with the times grandpa

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:18:46 No.13533685 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533220
Proof that nothing wouldn't have any dimension? Are you retarded? Why would nothing have any properties at all? And as for the spaciousness of nothing, this is also an impossibility. Any bit of nothing would be completely indeterminate from any other bit. There would be no extension to any of it. No relation between it or anything else.
Void is not void if that is what you mean by no contradiction, then I agree.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:22:12 No.13533692 Report

Quoted By: >>13533703

Take this shit to /lit/ retards. If you're gonna argue here, you'd better back it up with mathematics instead of vague bullshit semantics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:24:58 No.13533703 Report

Quoted By: >>13533718

>>13533692
refute this >>13533242

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:27:28 No.13533718 Report

Quoted By: >>13533759

>>13533703
I don't care to read what you're arguing about but space in physics isn't void or whatever bullshit term you're using. It's usually a manifold with some properties (like a metric tensor)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:38:55 No.13533759 Report

Quoted By: >>13533775 >>13533786 >>13534190

>>13533718
the point is that two things that exist can't be in the same place at the same time. They require an absence of existence to move into, but if an absence of existence exists then nothing can move there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:44:24 No.13533775 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533759
That is vague bullshit too. Trajectories of particles are just paths on the manifold.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 20:48:28 No.13533786 Report

Quoted By: >>13533825

>>13533759
>the point is that two things that exist can't be in the same place at the same time
Why not? Why can't a particle occupy a space? Space is the absence of particles and thus particles can move into that space. Why can't the absence of particles exist? Who says everything has to be particles?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 21:05:14 No.13533825 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533786
because then they'd be one thing that exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Aug 2021 23:01:21 No.13534190 Report

Quoted By:

>>13533759
This is just inaccurate. They would move along with eachother like a flow loop. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches