Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Philosophy Explorer]

"Grandpa, Grandpa. I'm all confused."

Grandpa: (groan) "Yes, what is it?"

Grandson: "In today's class we analyzed the flight of an arrow with snapshots. Now the arrow moves in flight towards its target, but those snapshots don't show any movement which is a paradox. And I know none of those snapshots will show any movement no matter how many snapshots are taken. And if you say that all you need to do is measure the time between snapshots, that will mean there are gaps between snapshots and there are no movements in those gaps. Grandpa, grandpa I'm so confused."

Grandpa: "Why don't you ask your teacher these questions? That's what he gets paid for."

Can you help Grandpa out of this jam?

[Thinking critical]

"Grandpa, Grandpa. I'm all confused."

Grandpa: (groan) "Yes, what is it?"

Grandson: "In today's class we analyzed the flight of an arrow with snapshots. Now the arrow moves in flight towards its target, but those snapshots don't show any movement which is a paradox. And I know none of those snapshots will show any movement no matter how many snapshots are taken. And if you say that all you need to do is measure the time between snapshots, that will mean there are gaps between snapshots and there are no movements in those gaps. Grandpa, grandpa I'm so confused."

Grandpa: "Why don't you ask your teacher these questions? That's what he gets paid for."

Can you help Grandpa out of this jam?

How is this a time paradox? This is relativity, if snapshots showed a stationary object as a point of reference, movement could be measured relative to the stationary object.

[Philosophy Explorer]

To TC,

The paradox still stands because the gaps still remain between the snapshots. You would need to take an infinity of snapshots to eliminate those gaps between snapshots which is impossible to do in this scenario. So we have a situation of movement and nonmovement in this scenario, a paradox.

Edit: maybe I should explain why I titled this thread "A time paradox" instead of "A movement paradox." Well time is a good eyecatcher and it is intricately tied up with movement. You should compare this thread with Zeno's paradoxes, i.e. the one about the arrow (the significant difference is that in Zeno's day, there were no cameras to take snapshots).

[Thinking critical]

To TC,

The paradox still stands because the gaps still remain between the snapshots. You would need to take an infinity of snapshots to eliminate those gaps between snapshots which is impossible to do in this scenario. So we have a situation of movement and nonmovement in this scenario, a paradox.

Edit: maybe I should explain why I titled this thread "A time paradox" instead of "A movement paradox." Well time is a good eyecatcher and it is intricately tied up with movement. You should compare this thread with Zeno's paradoxes, i.e. the one about the arrow (the significant difference is that in Zeno's day, there were no cameras to take snapshots).

How is it a paradox, the parameters clearly state, snap shot's have been taken of specific moments in time, the gaps arise as a matter of consequence, the problem can be overcome by simply using a video recorder, with a continuous filming motion. The premise is logically sound, gaps in time are excepted between frames due the nature of snapshots, without a point of reference, the theory of relativity specifically states the moving objects will appear motionless.

[Philosophy Explorer]

TC said:

"the problem can be overcome by simply using a video recorder, with a continuous filming motion."

I don't know if a continuous filming motion can be done, but for sake of argument, let's say that's the case. You make the gaps disappear, but then so do the snapshots. Maybe I'm taking this too literally so maybe you can stop the machine at intermittent points. So now you have motionless points along with the motion when this machine is running, so now you can show motion and nonmotion which is contradictory.

Now maybe such a machine doesn't exist because unless something changed with the technology, my understanding is that filming and recording is done on a frame-by-frame basis instead of continuous motion.

[Fafner88]

And I know none of those snapshots will show any movement no matter how many snapshots are taken.

Why? Let's suppose that that arrows flight consist of an infinite number of snapshots, where's the problem? Or is it just the same as Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the turtle?

And if you say that all you need to do is measure the time between snapshots, that will mean there are gaps between snapshots and there are no movements in those gaps.

Why should we think that there are "time gaps" between the shots? If one takes seriously the A-theory of time, then there are no such 'gaps' but constant and continues change, whether the flight is discrete or continuous.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Fafner said:

"Why? Let's suppose that that arrows flight consist of an infinite number of snapshots, where's the problem? Or is it just the same as Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the turtle?"

You can suppose it, but all you can take is a finite number of snapshots which means: (1) motionless pictures while the arrow is supposed to be moving in flight, a contradiction (2) wrong paradox - the right paradox to compare with is Zeno's paradox of the arrow.

"Why should we think that there are "time gaps" between the shots? If one takes seriously the A-theory of time, then there are no such 'gaps' but constant and continues change, whether the flight is discrete or continuous."

The snapshots are motionless, they don't show constant and continued change. We should think there are time gaps between the snapshots because the arrow is in motion during its flight - this is helping to create the paradox.

[Fafner88]

You can suppose it, but all you can take is a finite number of snapshots which means: (1) motionless pictures while the arrow is supposed to be moving in flight

But they move in relation to one another, if you take seriously the A-theory of time, then the pictures do change because the present is constantly 'moving' from the future to the past. From the fact that nothing changes in a given moment it doesn't follow that nothing is changing at all. Every snapshot taken by itself is motionless, but it doesn't mean that time can't move by virtue of a special kind of relation between all the snapshots.

The snapshots are motionless, they don't show constant and continued change. We should think there are time gaps between the snapshots because the arrow is in motion during its flight - this is helping to create the paradox.

I don't see why. There mustn't be any gap between the snapshots, time changes by virtue of simultaneous appearance of new snapshots in the present and disappearance of the old ones into the past.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I suppose with what you're bringing up now, that you're an A-theorist as opposed to being a B-theorist regarding time. You're saying that since time is moving forward, that pushes those moments shown in the snapshots backwards in time which resembles movement. But, with respect to each snapshot, there is no movement within each snapshot as each snapshot captures that moment in time which stays the same as everything else outside of the snapshot is also moves backwards in time at the same rate as what's depicted in the snapshot so nothing changes relative to what's outside of the snapshot.

[Fafner88]

But, with respect to each snapshot, there is no movement within each snapshot as each snapshot captures that moment in time which stays the same as everything else outside of the snapshot is also moves backwards in time at the same rate as what's depicted in the snapshot so nothing changes relative to what's outside of the snapshot.

Yes, but temporal change isn't defined (according to this theory) by what is happening with each snapshot individually, but by their succession. There's change because the present is occupied by different snapshot at each moment (i.e. the domain of the existential quantifier constantly changes).

[Raymond]

This paradox emerges because it supposes time can be halted. Fact is that time can't be stopped, even if there is no motion in space.

[SteveKlinko]

"Grandpa, Grandpa. I'm all confused."

Grandpa: (groan) "Yes, what is it?"

Grandson: "In today's class we analyzed the flight of an arrow with snapshots. Now the arrow moves in flight towards its target, but those snapshots don't show any movement which is a paradox. And I know none of those snapshots will show any movement no matter how many snapshots are taken. And if you say that all you need to do is measure the time between snapshots, that will mean there are gaps between snapshots and there are no movements in those gaps. Grandpa, grandpa I'm so confused."

Grandpa: "Why don't you ask your teacher these questions? That's what he gets paid for."

Can you help Grandpa out of this jam?

Why is the fact that the Snapshots don't show any movement a Paradox? They are Snapshots and are not supposed to show movement.