Thompson's Lamp Solution?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Thompson's Lamp Solution?

"Consider a lamp with a toggle switch. Flicking the switch once turns the lamp on. Another flick will turn the lamp off. Now suppose that there is a being able to perform the following task: starting a timer, he turns the lamp on. At the end of one minute, he turns it off. At the end of another half minute, he turns it on again. At the end of another quarter of a minute, he turns it off. At the next eighth of a minute, he turns it on again, and he continues thus, flicking the switch each time after waiting exactly one-half the time he waited before flicking it previously.[1] The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is exactly two minutes.[2]

The following question is then considered: Is the lamp on or off at two minutes?[1] Thomson reasoned that this supertask creates a contradiction:

It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp

+1- -1/2+ +1/4- -1/8+ +1/16- -1/32+ +1/64- -1/128+ +1/256
60 30 15 7.5 3.75 1.875 .9375 .46875 .234375
60 90 105 112.5 116.25 118.125 119.0625 119.53125 119.765625 .....ad infinitum

At the rate presented the lamp never reaches two minutes, it is a faulty question as the infinite supertask overrides time itself by forming its own seperate time zone.

Considering time is composed strictly of a relation of movements and the relation of the movements of x person expands infinitely in relation to the movements of timer y.

Timer y rings if and only if it reaches two minutes:

∃y ↔ 120

X is a series of movements greater than zero and less than 120 which is equivalent to infinity
x = [0 < a....b < 120] = ∞

X is equivalent to infinite movement, and considering time is movement, x creates a seperate temporal cycle outside of Y.

In one respect: Y never rings, as x is relative to itself as perpetual movement and exists within its own time cycle.

In a seperate respect Y ringing occurs at the lamp being turned on, off, and midway as the "ringing" embodies multiple different respects at the same time.

A dualism occurs, where:

from X, Y never rings, as x exists outside of Y's time zone considering time for x is measured according to its own movements.

from Y, X manifests all possible degrees of movement at one time in seperate respects. This implies, relative to Y, X is propagating multiple time dimensions and a form of "modal realism" can be observed in which the ringing of the clock observes multiple dimensions relative to each other at one time.

A solution to this dualism, would be Y both ringing and non-ringing as an extension of X and Y exists if and only if X. In these respects, Y is merely a gradation of X as: X/Y with X being the potential of Y.

Summary:
Y can be observed as a deficiency in X and not a thing in itself hence it only rings if and only if X manifests all possible dimensions at one moment.

In order for X to manifest all dimensions at one moment, it must manifest further temporal cycles which relate to eachother through X.

In these respects, multiple time cycles exist relative to Y both ringing and non-ringing.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

The paradox might be addressed by quantum theory, where an action can't meaningfully happen in less than a Planck unit of time. At some point, time would no longer be divisible, and therefore any further switching action would take more time than is available, thus defining an end to the process.

TheVat

Posts: 6946
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Practically speaking the lamp is on. That is we'd not be able to distinguish between a lamp that was on or one that was being turned off and on so quickly that our eyes couldn't register any intermission.

Other than that the issue is the understanding of time.

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Braininvat » April 2nd, 2018, 1:00 pm wrote:The paradox might be addressed by quantum theory, where an action can't meaningfully happen in less than a Planck unit of time. At some point, time would no longer be divisible, and therefore any further switching action would take more time than is available, thus defining an end to the process.

The problem is that the Planck unit of time, which in itself is a "unit" hence is dependent upon relations, requires further "Planck units" to exist. Hence for the Plank unit to be what it is, as a unit, it must continually relate to further units, etc.. In this manner the Plank unit, at least what I argue and this is strictly "opinionated", is an observation of point 0 where movement ceases. The problem occurs in the respect that as a unit, dependent upon other units to which it relates, the Plank Unit (while applicable to current measurements in physics) is strictly subjective to the methodology and technology to which the method is applied.

In these respects the Plank Unit is dependent upon further units of measurement to exist. Considering the "unit" or "part of a whole" is dependent upon a process of individuation in which it can be observed as a single entity this process itself implies:

1) The unit as part of a whole, exists in relation to other units. This is common sense.
2) However the unit, as a "relative" whole in itself, must be composed of further units.
3) To synthesize the arguments of points 1 and 2 the Plank Unit is strictly the "current" measurement to which we can currently "divide" a physical reality.
4) As a current measurement, with measurement itself being subject to time in the respect it is dependent upon finite symbols, this measurement exists as a "part" of a further "measurement".
5) As a part of a further measurement it must further individuate, or seperate, into further measurements due to its dependence upon time. This is considering that time is an inherent part of the measurement process.
6) In these respects the Plank Unit, although completely valid in the physics community, must eventually be broken down over time or in simpler terms: eventually lay the foundation for further units of measurement.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

BadgerJelly » April 2nd, 2018, 1:06 pm wrote:Practically speaking the lamp is on. That is we'd not be able to distinguish between a lamp that was on or one that was being turned off and on so quickly that our eyes couldn't register any intermission.

Other than that the issue is the understanding of time.

Considering the eyes measure certain movements (particle-waves, fields, etc.) and these movements are composed of further movements the ringing of the bell would be composed of linear movement of time in itself where the "on/off/neutral" of the lamp being "linear motions in time" themselves would exist as fractals of the ringing bell. In this manner all situations, I argue, would occur at once. Now could this happen in the laws of physics? Well eventually the "on/off/neutral" would be faster than the electrical frequencies in themselves...hence it may be implied as strictly a mathematical or in my opinion a question of metaphysics.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

BadgerJelly » April 2nd, 2018, 12:06 pm wrote: we'd not be able to distinguish between a lamp that was on or one that was being turned off and on so quickly that our eyes couldn't register any intermission.

This is known as the "flicker fusion frequency" and it varies from person to person and from animal species to animal species.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 523
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

bangstrom » April 3rd, 2018, 3:15 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » April 2nd, 2018, 12:06 pm wrote: we'd not be able to distinguish between a lamp that was on or one that was being turned off and on so quickly that our eyes couldn't register any intermission.

This is known as the "flicker fusion frequency" and it varies from person to person and from animal species to animal species.

Regardless it is "ad infinitum" so at some juncture it will make no difference given that the eye is generally responsive to the presence of light rather the absence of it.

I think the point of the post is to consider "darkness" as existing only once "light" is experienced. At least that is my take on it, and something identical to what I posted fairly recently on this forum (or maybe another one??)

There are also echo's of Zeno here. The metaphysical problem would be one of semiotics I believe? The same issue occurs for "time" and I am unable to do a whole lot with "time" or "space" other than split them up into phenomenological slices that don't appear to be anything more than enigmatic and "remote".

The "remote" is the problem. There is nothing that can be articulated that doesn't possess dichotomies and magnitudes - I can go no further than that without opening up a whole world of analogical meanings and metaphors that are likely only useful to me and some madmen. :D

We can at least marvel at our own limitations, which obviously make themselves known to us by our capacity to reach out in the first place :)

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Eod -

In this manner all situations, I argue, would occur at once. Now could this happen in the laws of physics?

If it did they'd be no means of measuring such phenomenon, so it wouldn't be encompassed by physical phenomenon - meaning, they'd be no phenomenon at all to consider.

This is probably the easiest way to understand Kantian noumenon. We can parse such a thing, negative noumenon, but we cannot experience such a thing, positive noumenon. (I admit I was lazy here using the term "experience", but there is no terminology for what is beyond comprehension, such things are merely the presentation of our cognitive functioning which seems deeply embedded in creating and cross-referencing manifold dichotomies and adding weight to them with the application of magnitudes - where, if you're following me, unlikely as that may be, the magnitudes are merely compensations and amalgams of "units" of exploration. The chair is a chair because of the table, yet neither had the weight of meaning to the other without the other; that is one measure of anticipation - the coming of the "other".

You'll need more than a pinch of salt to digest that. Sadly obtuse, but thankfully so. If you could offer insight I'd likely not be able to understand it.

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 5:50 pm wrote:"Consider a lamp with a toggle switch. Flicking the switch once turns the lamp on. Another flick will turn the lamp off. Now suppose that there is a being able to perform the following task: starting a timer, he turns the lamp on. At the end of one minute, he turns it off. At the end of another half minute, he turns it on again. At the end of another quarter of a minute, he turns it off. At the next eighth of a minute, he turns it on again, and he continues thus, flicking the switch each time after waiting exactly one-half the time he waited before flicking it previously.[1] The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is exactly two minutes.[2]

The following question is then considered: Is the lamp on or off at two minutes?[1] Thomson reasoned that this supertask creates a contradiction:

It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.[1]"

Yes, it is a contradiction. By stipulation, the lamp is either on or off, never both simultaneously. But at the end of two minutes there is a zero interval between its being turned on and turned off, therefore it must be (fully) on and (fully) off at the same time. Hence the contradiction.

The question is therefore ill-formed. Even if one ignores the practical problems, and the indivisibility of the Planck time, the scenario it presents is logically impossible. There is no possible world in which it could be true.

I would leave it at that. This is one of those "philosophical problems" that arises purely through faulty use of language, as Wittgenstein pointed out.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Positor wrote:But at the end of two minutes there is a zero interval between its being turned on and turned off, therefore it must be (fully) on and (fully) off at the same time. Hence the contradiction.

Agreed.

But if we wish to look at this from a real world perspective, note that our everyday household light bulbs, when turned on, actually alternate on-and-off at a rate of 60 times per second (60 hz), but yet, to us, they appear to be solidly ON.

So in this regard, I suspect that by the third iteration (on/off cycle) of Thompson's Lamp scenario, the light bulb would appear to stay solidly ON, through to the 2 minute mark.

RJG
Banned User

Posts: 959
Joined: 22 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

BadgerJelly » April 3rd, 2018, 1:56 am wrote:Eod -

In this manner all situations, I argue, would occur at once. Now could this happen in the laws of physics?

If it did they'd be no means of measuring such phenomenon, so it wouldn't be encompassed by physical phenomenon - meaning, they'd be no phenomenon at all to consider.

This is probably the easiest way to understand Kantian noumenon.
What is it exactly with philosophy that it applies ideologies with names without referring to the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority". I am not blaming "you", or anyone for that matter, but it is a question I have. Does that make me "smarter" or "less smart" for referencing a name? I understand the necessity of "referencing" a source but even in the referencing process many people have their own interpretations and the universal failures of the author are to never be completely understood for the ideas they present. It is a thought, don't take this as an accusation as I do the same thing...sometimes.

We can parse such a thing, negative noumenon, but we cannot experience such a thing, positive noumenon.

If we can experience the imaging process through dreams, however "deficient" in reality they are, they are "experiences" nonetheless. Of a high degree? Generally not, with the exception of a mad-man, but they are experiences.

Take the experience of a question for example. I observe a phenomena, in real life, but I cannot observe it fully through time space. I may be able to see or feel or smell certain degrees of it, but generally I cannot observe all of it. The deficiency of observing all of it, leads to a question, which in term leads to a general form in the mind where we try to "image" the answer to such a degree. This "image" in turn, as a medial point in itself, is reference to the medial point of the real-life experience. The mirroring, or lack of, in turn observes where the image and reality are unified and seperated. This "imaging" through the questioning process, however in itself is an experience considering a level of thought as "observation" is involved.

(I admit I was lazy here using the term "experience", but there is no terminology for what is beyond comprehension, such things are merely the presentation of our cognitive functioning which seems deeply embedded in creating and cross-referencing manifold dichotomies and adding weight to them with the application of magnitudes - where, if you're following me, unlikely as that may be, the magnitudes are merely compensations and amalgams of "units" of exploration. The chair is a chair because of the table, yet neither had the weight of meaning to the other without the other; that is one measure of anticipation - the coming of the "other".

Definition is dependent upon relation. That should sum up the above statement, I think we can agree on that. And it is true relative to an absolute, considering that argument is dependent upon an infinite chain of "individuation" where the "unit" of the table is defined by the chair. The chair in turn is defined by "A". "A" is defined by "B"...and so on and so forth. In a seperate respect, because the table is defined by the chair and the chair is defined by both the table and "A", then by default the table is also defined by "A". In turn the table is defined by "B" and so on and so forth.

In this manner, considering the nature of definition is dependent upon a degree of relation in which a degree of separation is incurred by observing "units" or "parts" of a "greater whole", the nature of definition through relation is definition through negation considering a degree of continual fractation is necessitated. In these respects all definition of "relation" is dependent upon a linear progression which goes towards a point 0, which in itself is irrational...hence a contradiction ensues from relativistic definition only.

While a degree of relativistic definition is necessary it is a form of approximation in which a form is observed through its multiplicity. The table is defined because it is a part, not because it is a table. A relativistic reasoning, because it is dependent upon a continual degree of individuation, never really observes any constant axioms, yet ironically is dependent upon them. While the table may "dissolve" through time, the necessity of the table was always their in the chain of events, hence as certain degree of "consistency" or "absolute" is necessary considering a "broken" chain observes a degree of "broken" reasoning.

But the table as an absolute? That is the question. How can a table be absolute when there as so many variations? Are forms but approximations? But would this mean that approximations require a constant "form" through which to be observed? We can go back to geometry for the answers, considering the form of the table required a degree of geometric forms to compose the form (pardon the pun).

If I have a triangle, which is three angles, there may be an infinite varieties of that which is the "triangle". But that does not change that their is a triangle and that this "triangle" is dependent upon a quantity (3) of quality (angle) with the quality (angle) dependent on the quantity (3). In this manner that which defines, being both "quantity" and "quality", is dependent upon an inherent "dimensionality" or measurement that is summated as "lines and points" where quantity and quality are unified through space.

In this manner what is absolute is space with space being both the premise and end of "forms" through a process of mirroring boundaries (which in themselves exist as space folding through space).

You'll need more than a pinch of salt to digest that. Sadly obtuse, but thankfully so. If you could offer insight I'd likely not be able to understand it.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Positor » April 3rd, 2018, 8:30 am wrote:
Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 5:50 pm wrote:"Consider a lamp with a toggle switch. Flicking the switch once turns the lamp on. Another flick will turn the lamp off. Now suppose that there is a being able to perform the following task: starting a timer, he turns the lamp on. At the end of one minute, he turns it off. At the end of another half minute, he turns it on again. At the end of another quarter of a minute, he turns it off. At the next eighth of a minute, he turns it on again, and he continues thus, flicking the switch each time after waiting exactly one-half the time he waited before flicking it previously.[1] The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is exactly two minutes.[2]

The following question is then considered: Is the lamp on or off at two minutes?[1] Thomson reasoned that this supertask creates a contradiction:

It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.[1]"

Yes, it is a contradiction. By stipulation, the lamp is either on or off, never both simultaneously. But at the end of two minutes there is a zero interval between its being turned on and turned off, therefore it must be (fully) on and (fully) off at the same time. Hence the contradiction.

The question is therefore ill-formed. Even if one ignores the practical problems, and the indivisibility of the Planck time, the scenario it presents is logically impossible. There is no possible world in which it could be true.

It is true as a symbolic image. Is it grounded in empirical fact? Not entirely without leading to some form of contradiction in the respect that the abstraction does not mirror the physical reality entirely. Considering the "on and off" corresponds physically to electrical flow only, and the electrical flow exists at a faster rate of movement than the sound of the bell, it may be both on and off at the same time (relative to the "flow" only) but the framework (the toggle switch, wiring, bulb, etc.) causes the problem where empirically speaking this is not the case.

Hence the question observes a mathematical model that is dependent upon a faulty framework that is inherently problematic in the respect that it observes a "technology as a form of measurement". Now in a hundred to few hundred years (maybe even currently) a lamp may be able to "flicker" at this rate where both "on and off" can exist within the movement (sound wave) of the bell, hence this question is premised to some degree through the technology in which we measure reality and the answer finitely is "no" in this regards considering technology is dependent upon a finite movement in one respect.

In another respect considering technology, as being finite, continually "progresses" the framework of the "lamp" allows a simultaneous "yes" in the separate respect that the measurement of technology approaches infinity.(considering technology, as a manner in which we measure reality by putting phenomena into frameworks or “forms”, is dependent upon a continual progression that must be infinite in nature otherwise is contradicts its progressive nature.)

I would leave it at that. This is one of those "philosophical problems" that arises purely through faulty use of language, as Wittgenstein pointed out.

For as much as I agree with Wittgenstein, considering he was right about "a lot", he is one of the few philosophers (in my opinion only) that was simultaneously wrong about being wrong. I say that because while the philosophical problems of language he poses are "genius", he is observing constant "deficiencies" in language itself. These deficiencies give boundaries to language and in this manner the "problems" he observed may simultaneously be observed as constants in a separate respect.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Darker please ... pref. BLACK or simply bold/italic. My eyes cannot handle it I have to wear glasses to read from my laptop and I struggle with print of paper too if it is too bright.

Any of these is fine for me and this one is about as light as I can put up with for larger chunks of text.

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Eod -

I put out names because I asked you what you've read elsewhere and you either forgot to reply or decided not to. It is helpful if we have common ground to work from - especially in the above case because you're talking about the exact thing Husserl dealt with, and also something of what Heidegger extrapolated from.

I have read Husserl (Crisis, and Commentary on his Meditations, and have recently bought Philosophical Investigations), Heidegger (Being and Time), Aristotle (most of Politics, some of Rhetoric and various other bits and pieces), Plato (The Republic, a couple of times, and three or four of his dialogues), and Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, easily the most rewarding and difficult of all and, IMO, essential reading for anyone serious about studying philosophy in any capacity, or anyone simply interested in what it means to read and write something.) I've read a few other books, but not to the same degree as the above.

This is not a boast because I am pretty sure there are member here who have read more than me and have likely studied them at university in depth.

If we have different views of Kantian noumenon it would be a bloody good thing to know and save a lot of needless back and forth. If you've read much of Husserl then I am eager to hear your views because I don't find many people who bother with him and it would be a good foundation to work from in light of the subject matter.

If you've not really read that much and these are products of your own personal musings then good for you! I find it utterly futile to approach a question by first referring to what other think - IMO it is better to turn the question ove rin your own head as much as you can before looking to the work of others (age and experience are likely important issues with how to go about that though!)

The oldest puzzle of philosophical discourse is the question of the question itself. There is little doubt about that in my mind.

Anyway, in terms of what you've said above Husserl refers to "moments" and "parts". By this he simply pointed out that if you break the leg of a table it is still a table. What you cannot do is remove the "height" of the table without removing the table completely. And the same goes for sound, we cannot remove the "tone" from a sound without removing the sound. He also talked about the univocular terms like "and", "or", or "five", where they are never different items they possess an unchanging quality. The number five is never taken to be some different kind of five, yet it is always applied in a different manner if we're referring to explanations of experience.

if you pose the scenario of an unstoppable force hitting an unmoveable object and ask what will happen, the answer is a lot simplier than it first seems. Most people, as you've seen above, simply say it's a contradiction and cannot happen. If we manage to abandon such thoughts and go with the hypothetical then what do we find? I find two possible results. 1) The event happens and we simply cannot process it in any meaningful manner and so shy away from it and forget about it ever happening, 2) we use the old terminology of "unmoveable" and/or "unstoppable" either by cutting up the concept or building from it (in option (1) the terminology may be abandoned completely in extreme circumstances, that or the experience of the phenomenon is resolutely ignored/unapparent in the first instance other than, possibly?, through some indirect means.)

Given that dealing with such problems in a practical physical sense is not possible the best means we appear to have is through mathematics - I am no mathematician though so I cannot really add more than that as a suggestion.

The issue of cognition and illusion is another thing to consider I guess, but that doesn't really seem to deal with the problem you wish to look at directly?

If it is an issue of the grounding of empirical science then Husserl was utterly focused on that very issue (although I'm not well read enough on him to have an understanding of his positon other than is a general manner.)

As for experience of dreams? I must be a madman, because some of my dreams are no different from the richness of wakeful experience (although that may be an illusion I don't think it is for a number of scientifically valid reasons.)

Maybe your argument is one from the position of psychologism?

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

BadgerJelly » April 4th, 2018, 2:41 am wrote:Eod -

I put out names because I asked you what you've read elsewhere and you either forgot to reply or decided not to. It is helpful if we have common ground to work from - especially in the above case because you're talking about the exact thing Husserl dealt with, and also something of what Heidegger extrapolated from.

The simple truth, whether you believe it or not is up to you, that I have spent so much time reading everything it all blends together...the fault may be mine in this regard. I am a man, and my memory is limited at times, hence I have to depend upon logic more than anything as that in itself is a continual process of the human condition. Another simple truth I have come to learn is that everything mirrors eachother after a while.

In regards to what I have read I can give somewhat of a list it that will help establish a common median:

Aristotle, Plato, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus (for what is "published"), Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Socrates (for what is published), Kant, Locke, Husserl, Heidegger, Hall, Hegel/Fichte, Hofstadter (currently), Blavatsky, Aquinas, Averroes, Neitszche, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Popper, Kierkegaard, Goethe, Rand, Descarte, The Kybalion, The desert fathers (early monks of Christianity), misclenanious (various small authors/magazine articles, etc.).

Religions: Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, (Want to understand confucianism better), Buddhism, Freemasonry, Satanism, Judaism, Theosophy, Norse/Greek/Aztec/Mayan/Native American mythology.

The great "irony" of it all, is that the majority of actual learning was simply talking to people at the practical level of everyday life...not to put academia down considering it is necessary, but I am not sure philosophy can be limited to an "either/or" perspective.

I have read Husserl (Crisis, and Commentary on his Meditations, and have recently bought Philosophical Investigations), Heidegger (Being and Time), Aristotle (most of Politics, some of Rhetoric and various other bits and pieces), Plato (The Republic, a couple of times, and three or four of his dialogues), and Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, easily the most rewarding and difficult of all and, IMO, essential reading for anyone serious about studying philosophy in any capacity, or anyone simply interested in what it means to read and write something.) I've read a few other books, but not to the same degree as the above.

This is not a boast because I am pretty sure there are member here who have read more than me and have likely studied them at university in depth.

If we have different views of Kantian noumenon it would be a bloody good thing to know and save a lot of needless back and forth. If you've read much of Husserl then I am eager to hear your views because I don't find many people who bother with him and it would be a good foundation to work from in light of the subject matter.

In all truth, and I do not mean to offend you, Kant I never had much taste for.

I was "tested" on him at the university level, and reflect back to basic concepts from time to time. In regards to the "testing", at the university level, I did better than all the people who studied and I studied it for fifteen minutes before each examination. With that being said I have to emphasize that being "tested" on a subject, and doing "well", does not mean I am an expert.

If you've not really read that much and these are products of your own personal musings then good for you! I find it utterly futile to approach a question by first referring to what other think - IMO it is better to turn the question ove rin your own head as much as you can before looking to the work of others (age and experience are likely important issues with how to go about that though!)

The simple truth I am trying to figure out where "I" and the "other" essentially end...in this respect at the age of 28 I fear I am headed for an identity crisis. Some "original" work, at least I thought was original, deals with the "mirroring" nature of reality which I found already to be address in some works of the presocratics, especially Pythagoras. So in this manner, I have made up in my mind (for the time being), their is no such thing as "originality" other than a form of self-discovery or synthesis where what "was" fundamentally "is" and "will be".

The oldest puzzle of philosophical discourse is the question of the question itself. There is little doubt about that in my mind.

Anyway, in terms of what you've said above Husserl refers to "moments" and "parts". By this he simply pointed out that if you break the leg of a table it is still a table. What you cannot do is remove the "height" of the table without removing the table completely. And the same goes for sound, we cannot remove the "tone" from a sound without removing the sound. He also talked about the univocular terms like "and", "or", or "five", where they are never different items they possess an unchanging quality. The number five is never taken to be some different kind of five, yet it is always applied in a different manner if we're referring to explanations of experience.

if you pose the scenario of an unstoppable force hitting an unmoveable object and ask what will happen, the answer is a lot simplier than it first seems. Most people, as you've seen above, simply say it's a contradiction and cannot happen. If we manage to abandon such thoughts and go with the hypothetical then what do we find? I find two possible results. 1) The event happens and we simply cannot process it in any meaningful manner and so shy away from it and forget about it ever happening, 2) we use the old terminology of "unmoveable" and/or "unstoppable" either by cutting up the concept or building from it (in option (1) the terminology may be abandoned completely in extreme circumstances, that or the experience of the phenomenon is resolutely ignored/unapparent in the first instance other than, possibly?, through some indirect means.)

The answer may be found in a form of Hegelian synthesis where two polar extremes (movement and non-movement) synthesize to a "both/and" where boundaries are "formed" and a simultaneously "neither/nor" where possible boundaries may be formed.

Given that dealing with such problems in a practical physical sense is not possible the best means we appear to have is through mathematics - I am no mathematician though so I cannot really add more than that as a suggestion.

Mathematics only? No the answer cannot be found there, and in this respect you are correct. However considering mathematics itself is a form of measurement, and measurement is a foundational stone of observation, it cannot be entirely avoided in a separate respect so a "mathematical" model, at least in my opinion, is unavoidable.

The issue of cognition and illusion is another thing to consider I guess, but that doesn't really seem to deal with the problem you wish to look at directly?

Does it avoid it though? The reason I ask this is a simple one, the process of "imaging" seems to be unavoidable in one respect, and as you have observed a "trap" (my wording), in another.

If it is an issue of the grounding of empirical science then Husserl was utterly focused on that very issue (although I'm not well read enough on him to have an understanding of his positon other than is a general manner.)

As for experience of dreams? I must be a madman, because some of my dreams are no different from the richness of wakeful experience (although that may be an illusion I don't think it is for a number of scientifically valid reasons.)

Maybe your argument is one from the position of psychologism?

I argue metaphysics considering the question of "being" cannot be entirely seperated from consciousness. Consciousness? It appears, at minimum, to have an inherent form of "measuring quality" to it and in these respect is conducive to a process of rationalization in the respect it maintains and promotes further "symmetry" (may be the word?). We reason one phenomena, by giving it structure in the respect we apply dimensions to it. Hence it just "is". This "reason" mediates into another "reason" and, from a naturalistic perspective, a form of "growth" takes place where being extends from darkness much like a plant from soil.

Considering these posts are getting "longer and longer" it may be best if we establish a restart point where both you and I address one point at a time, considering this cycle will inevitably repeat itself.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

You didn't offend me. The only things I generally find offensive are compliments ;)

Hope we'll be of use to each other this year. I am currently trying to put something together regarding "religion". I hope you can help me flesh things out in that area in the future.

Kierkegaard and Hegel are two I'd like to read in the future. Philosophy isn't really my main interest and I'm currently only interested in Husserl (and Nietzsche, but he's incredibly hard for me to get to grips with.)

When it comes to consciousness I prefer to move toward areas that I can do something with (psychology and neuroscience.) Philosophy I generally view as being more of an exploration of language for the most part.

You're probably better off engaging with someone else in this thread for now tbh. I am willing if you want to go into something or other more though.

Resident Member

Posts: 5428
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

bangstrom » April 2nd, 2018, 3:15 pm wrote:
BadgerJelly » April 2nd, 2018, 12:06 pm wrote: we'd not be able to distinguish between a lamp that was on or one that was being turned off and on so quickly that our eyes couldn't register any intermission.

This is known as the "flicker fusion frequency" and it varies from person to person and from animal species to animal species.

"Alternation" of "on" and "off" or "being" and "non-being" as a foundational boundary of movement and no movement?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 9:47 pm wrote:
Braininvat » April 2nd, 2018, 1:00 pm wrote:The paradox might be addressed by quantum theory, where an action can't meaningfully happen in less than a Planck unit of time. At some point, time would no longer be divisible, and therefore any further switching action would take more time than is available, thus defining an end to the process.

The problem is that the Planck unit of time, which in itself is a "unit" hence is dependent upon relations, requires further "Planck units" to exist. Hence for the Plank unit to be what it is, as a unit, it must continually relate to further units, etc.. In this manner the Plank unit, at least what I argue and this is strictly "opinionated", is an observation of point 0 where movement ceases. The problem occurs in the respect that as a unit, dependent upon other units to which it relates, the Plank Unit (while applicable to current measurements in physics) is strictly subjective to the methodology and technology to which the method is applied.

In these respects the Plank Unit is dependent upon further units of measurement to exist. Considering the "unit" or "part of a whole" is dependent upon a process of individuation in which it can be observed as a single entity this process itself implies:

1) The unit as part of a whole, exists in relation to other units. This is common sense.
2) However the unit, as a "relative" whole in itself, must be composed of further units.
3) To synthesize the arguments of points 1 and 2 the Plank Unit is strictly the "current" measurement to which we can currently "divide" a physical reality.
4) As a current measurement, with measurement itself being subject to time in the respect it is dependent upon finite symbols, this measurement exists as a "part" of a further "measurement".
5) As a part of a further measurement it must further individuate, or seperate, into further measurements due to its dependence upon time. This is considering that time is an inherent part of the measurement process.
6) In these respects the Plank Unit, although completely valid in the physics community, must eventually be broken down over time or in simpler terms: eventually lay the foundation for further units of measurement.

Eodnhoj7 ,
I have seen your other posts on this forum. You are in a unique position to learn the deeper lessons about what Supertasks tells us. Particularly in regards to what is possible in any given universe, as well as what is possible about time in any universe.

Quoting Positor now :
Positor » April 3rd, 2018, 4:30 pm wrote:There is no possible world in which it could be true.

I would leave it at that. This is one of those "philosophical problems" that arises purely through faulty use of language, as Wittgenstein pointed out.

Notice "there is no possible world in which". Consequently there should exist zero universes which embody a supertask. While these words point us in the right direction to learn our lessons, Positor actually stated them for entirely wrong reasons. He made some sort of concession that at the very last timeslice, the difference between on lamp states and off lamp states must be exactly zero time. Then by definition it is both on and off at the "same time".

We could for example, notice that supertasks (and related Zeno problems) will tell us about what is possible in any universe that could exist. I will approach this issue from the perspective of the nature of time itself.

Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein were proponents of "time" being something like what is measured by an observer at a distance to something else. In other words, there exists no Grand Metaphysical Clock upon which the entire universe ticks. Instead what is "time" is itself ticking off only because of the outside signals reaching you in succession. If motion happens between those "time keepers" then it is not merely an illusion that the observer's clock moves slower, but in actuality his clock literally moves slower. So two simple "atoms" in any given universe exchange energy and hence exchange information, and this "exchange" is what time is. There is no other clock outside of this relational exchange. "Time" is itself this relational exchange, nothing more.

One consequence is that if you were to stop trading energy, light, and forces with any other object in the universe, time for you would literally cease. I'm not using "literally" in a metaphorical sense (as is prone to happen these days).

This type of purely relational time, (Or "Machian" Time if you want) is not how our intuitions normally proceed about the unvierse, about matter, about atoms, or even about physics in general. Nevertheless, given the incompleteness of supertasks, as well as their logical paradoxes, we may be forced to admit that time must operate relationally in any universe , not just in this one.

The paradoxes and incompletedness that comes with supertasks vanish when and if we start defining "time" as relational exchanges. Many other people in this thread were dazzled, and in their panic, decided to the take the easy way out. They started saying the solution lies in the Planck Length and Planck Times. They then declared that "This experiment could never be carried out because it would require and infinite amount of energy and blah blah". Thus shutting down all conversation about supertasks because "We couldn't do them."

The mystery remains, however. Those yammering about Plank Time were dodging the question. By attacking the mystery from a different angle we get more sensible progress. In order for "time to elapse" then there must be observers, and those observers must be at a distance. Their distance is required to facilitate "exchange" by means of some third thing which would fit betweenst them. IF there exists no "in between" between two (philosophical) atoms then therefore "exchange" cannot happen. Consequently, "time" cannot happen.

Relationaly, time requires space, and space requires time.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1532
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
 Eodnhoj7 liked this post

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

On second thought, the existence of a Planck Length and a Planck Time may be the exact condition that is forced into manifestation by the paradoxes of supertasks. Not sure if anyone was taking that angle of attack.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1532
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
 Eodnhoj7 liked this post

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

hyksos » May 27th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:
Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 9:47 pm wrote:
Braininvat » April 2nd, 2018, 1:00 pm wrote:The paradox might be addressed by quantum theory, where an action can't meaningfully happen in less than a Planck unit of time. At some point, time would no longer be divisible, and therefore any further switching action would take more time than is available, thus defining an end to the process.

The problem is that the Planck unit of time, which in itself is a "unit" hence is dependent upon relations, requires further "Planck units" to exist. Hence for the Plank unit to be what it is, as a unit, it must continually relate to further units, etc.. In this manner the Plank unit, at least what I argue and this is strictly "opinionated", is an observation of point 0 where movement ceases. The problem occurs in the respect that as a unit, dependent upon other units to which it relates, the Plank Unit (while applicable to current measurements in physics) is strictly subjective to the methodology and technology to which the method is applied.

In these respects the Plank Unit is dependent upon further units of measurement to exist. Considering the "unit" or "part of a whole" is dependent upon a process of individuation in which it can be observed as a single entity this process itself implies:

1) The unit as part of a whole, exists in relation to other units. This is common sense.
2) However the unit, as a "relative" whole in itself, must be composed of further units.
3) To synthesize the arguments of points 1 and 2 the Plank Unit is strictly the "current" measurement to which we can currently "divide" a physical reality.
4) As a current measurement, with measurement itself being subject to time in the respect it is dependent upon finite symbols, this measurement exists as a "part" of a further "measurement".
5) As a part of a further measurement it must further individuate, or seperate, into further measurements due to its dependence upon time. This is considering that time is an inherent part of the measurement process.
6) In these respects the Plank Unit, although completely valid in the physics community, must eventually be broken down over time or in simpler terms: eventually lay the foundation for further units of measurement.

Eodnhoj7 ,
I have seen your other posts on this forum. You are in a unique position to learn the deeper lessons about what Supertasks tells us. Particularly in regards to what is possible in any given universe, as well as what is possible about time in any universe.

Quoting Positor now :
Positor » April 3rd, 2018, 4:30 pm wrote:There is no possible world in which it could be true.

I would leave it at that. This is one of those "philosophical problems" that arises purely through faulty use of language, as Wittgenstein pointed out.

Notice "there is no possible world in which". Consequently there should exist zero universes which embody a supertask. While these words point us in the right direction to learn our lessons, Positor actually stated them for entirely wrong reasons. He made some sort of concession that at the very last timeslice, the difference between on lamp states and off lamp states must be exactly zero time. Then by definition it is both on and off at the "same time".

We could for example, notice that supertasks (and related Zeno problems) will tell us about what is possible in any universe that could exist. I will approach this issue from the perspective of the nature of time itself.

Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein were proponents of "time" being something like what is measured by an observer at a distance to something else. In other words, there exists no Grand Metaphysical Clock upon which the entire universe ticks. Instead what is "time" is itself ticking off only because of the outside signals reaching you in succession. If motion happens between those "time keepers" then it is not merely an illusion that the observer's clock moves slower, but in actuality his clock literally moves slower. So two simple "atoms" in any given universe exchange energy and hence exchange information, and this "exchange" is what time is. There is no other clock outside of this relational exchange. "Time" is itself this relational exchange, nothing more.

This mirrors, from a different angle, about what I have been arguing as "time being the relation of parts". From a strict 1 dimensional perspective there is no such thing as time, however this changes the nature of what we concieve of a reality to an intradimensional point.

One consequence is that if you were to stop trading energy, light, and forces with any other object in the universe, time for you would literally cease. I'm not using "literally" in a metaphorical sense (as is prone to happen these days).

This type of purely relational time, (Or "Machian" Time if you want) is not how our intuitions normally proceed about the unvierse, about matter, about atoms, or even about physics in general. Nevertheless, given the incompleteness of supertasks, as well as their logical paradoxes, we may be forced to admit that time must operate relationally in any universe , not just in this one.

Yes, this is similar to what I am arguing, but to extend upon that point:

1) Multiple time zones exist within a time zone.
2) Time as finiteness, observes the relations of multiple boundaries with these boundaries summated under time as its own boundary. These boundaries are observed through the "line" as the foundation for all finiteness.
3) Time, as non-universal finite movement, is strictly a low-degree of movement.
4) Time, while observed through the relations of particles (cesium at the atomic level if memory serves, and stars/planets for the ancients) can be observed in one form "universally speaking" as an algebraic expression: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 26&t=23354

The paradoxes and incompletedness that comes with supertasks vanish when and if we start defining "time" as relational exchanges. Many other people in this thread were dazzled, and in their panic, decided to the take the easy way out. They started saying the solution lies in the Planck Length and Planck Times. They then declared that "This experiment could never be carried out because it would require and infinite amount of energy and blah blah". Thus shutting down all conversation about supertasks because "We couldn't do them."

Agree.

The mystery remains, however. Those yammering about Plank Time were dodging the question. By attacking the mystery from a different angle we get more sensible progress. In order for "time to elapse" then there must be observers, and those observers must be at a distance. Their distance is required to facilitate "exchange" by means of some third thing which would fit betweenst them. IF there exists no "in between" between two (philosophical) atoms then therefore "exchange" cannot happen. Consequently, "time" cannot happen.

Relationaly, time requires space, and space requires time.

I agree with the above and will give a more focused response when I have the time.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Unity, Multiplicity and Infinity

What we understand of unity is fundamentally a "Holism" where there is no absence but rather what exists, exists as 1. It is within this nature of unity the observation of structure is involved as merely space as curvature through symmetry. What we understand of structural symmetry is merely curvature produced through a mirror effect as space.

This mirror effect is inseparable from space itself, and can be argued as space itself. From this structural symmetry, as mirroring space, unity manifests itself as a totality of being.

It is in observing the symmetry of a structure that multiplicity takes place as a form of individuation where symmetry as curvature is separated into an individual element. The observation of equality, much is the same manner as A = A, is an act of multiplicity as a form of individuation takes place through division as "A" is just "A" until "A = A" is observed.

Within observing the equality of curves as symmetry a dualism inherently takes place, as evidenced intuitively through the equality symbol "=" as dual symmetrical potential curves (lines).

Equality is dualism and is the founding of multiplicity as a form of individuation in which "A" is no longer "A" but "A = A". To argue equality is to argue separation in which (A = A) = B and simultaneously just "A":

A/(A = A) = B

This dualism manifests a propogative movement as relation in which the observation of further equality manifests further individuation:

A/((A = A) = B = B) = C
A/((A = A) = B = B) = C = C) = D

In these respects equality can be observed as a form of gradation of unity, into multiplicity.

From this Unity and Multiplicity form a duality where A and its gradations equal infinity as limits that provide the foundations for infinity and in these respects synthesize infinity:

......................A....................... = ∞
((A = A) = B = B) = C = C) = D → X

Infinity can be equated to a boundary which is both unified and multiple in nature. This boundary, as curvature, is space itself.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1532
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
 Eodnhoj7 liked this post

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Thanks, will look into it now while I have the time.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

Re: Thompson's Lamp Solution?

Read some through the day, it appears and you can correct me if I am wrong, "similar" to what I am working on. Thanks for the read...again. I will be going over it for awhile.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 111
Joined: 02 Mar 2018