Welcome!

Hello, Steaphen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello 'JimWae'

Being new to Wikipedia (at least as far as contributions are concerned) I'm still coming up to speed in matters of procedure, etiquette and the like.

However, I've noted that your corrections to my contributions regarding the Zeno's Paradox section "Are space and time infinitely divisible?" was that "other reasonable conclusions exist - such as space & time are not divisible at all - linking to own website is contra wiki policies."

On the cause for removal being that "linking to own website is contra wiki policies." ... this is entirely understandable (and obviously my material was posted contrary to policy -- so my apologies for not being aware of this).

However, on the subject of "other reasonable conclusions exist - such as space & time are not divisible at all" I disagree (that we can reasonably conclude that space-time is not divisible at all).

Technically speaking, any "reasonable conclusion" requires the use of reasoning which is, as explained at my website, reliant on the ability to measure or conceptualise proportion or ratio (ratio is the Latin root of the words reason and rational). To think reasonably therefore requires that we separate (divide) our thoughts or perceptions from the object of our perceptions.

Secondly, if we conclude that any perceived divisibility is "all in our heads" and that physical reality is not divisible at all (and thus separate things do not exist) we can reasonably ask, "how can we name different 'things' different names if there is no divisibility, individuality, objectivity, differentiation or differences in the physical stuff we are observing?)

The very process of thought (see above) requires differentiation (dividing and correlating lumps of sense data into meaningful wholes ... e.g. identifying lumps of stuff called leaves, branches, trunk as a 'tree').

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Steaphen Pirie
Author, Maya Sends Her Love.
Steaphen 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

————

Thank you, JimWae for clarifying some of your concerns.

IN particular I'd like to respond to "as though everyone agrees with it" ... I've merely included supporting quotes to clarify the case for whether "space and time are infinitely divisible".

However, I'll include more quotes from more physicists if that will help alleviate the perceptionn that this is my POV and no one elses.

I was careful not to include too much supporting material as it could run to quite a few pages (or an entire book :)

Stay tuned ...

Best regards,
Steaphen 08:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

————

Hello (again) JimWae,

Question for you: would the sentence I included "Furthermore, this framework also allows seemingly disparate phenomena and beliefs (e.g. science and spirituality) to be melded together in a consistent conceptual understanding:" be more palatable if instead it included "... this framework appears to allow seemingly disparate ..." ?

I'm still seeking to ascertain the boundaries of POV, accepted dogma and what is deemed fit for an encyclopedia.

Also, your reply that "the exposition you have added is far too definitive" confuses me. I was asked for citations and have included the most meagre number in reply, so I'm not sure if my contribution is too definitive (and too well supported) or not supported well enough.

Best regards,
Steaphen 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

—————

Hello 'JimWae' (2)

I've followed your links to wiki entries (e.g. on Space which begins with "The term is used somewhat differently in different fields of study").

Given the ambiguity (as stated) perhaps teh section "Are space and time infinitely divisible" needs to be changed to "Is physical reality infinitely divisible" ... particularly as Zeno's original observations concerned the movement of physical things in our physical reality.

If we are to address Zeno's issues, surely that requires we remain unambiguous as to the context of that inquiry.

The field of quantum physics is now regarded by many physicists (e.g. David Deutsch, Richard Morris, among others) as "the most successful physical theory in history."(Ref:Paul Davies, J.R. Brown, The Ghost in the Atom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995, page 84., quoting David Deutsch, research fellow at the University of Oxford).

Does it not behove us to look to science's most successful physical theory to assist with understanding a seemingly complex physical phenomenon (that of physical movement)?

If science's most successful physical theory cannot assist with understanding our physical reality, then what might best do so?

Best regards, Steaphen 10:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

————

HEllo JimWae, (3)

I've reflected on the wording of the paragraph "In a similar manner to Newton's laws of motion being approximations to finer quantum and relativistic principles, the infinite series that underlie most of the paradoxes are therefore geometric approximations of deeper non-physical, super-luminal (nonlocal) "processes" or connections. {As physicist Nick Herbert clarified ..."

I edited this from an original statement concerning geometric progressions.

Perhaps you could assist in my intention here (e.g. by suggesting more appropriate text). My intent was to expose the paradox as follows: Since calculus (which is widely stated to resolve Zeno's Paradox) is not and cannot be used in the field of quantum theory to accurately and fully predict the motion (momentum and position) of quantum-level particles, (as that would contravene the Uncertainty Principle) then what relevance does calculus (and the theory of limits upon which it is based), have with resolving this problem?

Surely if calculus was a tool to work a robust solution to this problem, we would be able to use in the field of quantum theory to yield robust, predictable results (as is done in macro environments).

Quantum theory (as mentioned above) is now widely regarded as the most successful physical theory, ever. If science's most successful physical theory cannot give insight into physical movement (and as much as it does explain it says (and requires)* that physical motion is most certainly not continuous) then again, how can the accepted standard beliefs (concerning the resolution of Zeno's Paradoxes using the theory of limits) continue to maintain credibility?

Best,
Steaphen 11:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Notes: It is required as a result of the Atomic Catastrophe problem which is that(due to Maxwell's Laws) an electron circling a nucleus (continuously) would quickly and violently spiral into the nucleus. As physicist Paul Davies pointed out, the energy that would be given off in this process would be infinite. All atoms, including the entire universe would, if physical movement was perfectly continuous, cease to exist "within a tiny fraction of a second." (Ref: Richard Morris, Achilles in the quantum universe: the definitive history of infinity, Souvenir Press, London 1998, page 79)

"If both Rutherford's theory and classical physics were correct, there should be no atoms, no matter as we know it, and, of course, no physicists." (Ref: Morris, page 80).

• Sorry, I meant definite (not definitive) - too assertive. Finding a quote that agrees with you does not justify asserting something as fact. I am flying & travelling in 2 hours, and will have little opportunity to follow up for a couple of weeks. Remember the article is about Zeno & his paradoxes - not your proposed solution. Don't change section titles - Zeno was not an atomist - he said motion (AND for Parmenides - any change at all) were an illusion -- JimWae 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

———

Dear JimWae

Thank you for your reply and your correction ... that makes more sense to me. If I appear too definite, then perhaps (as is now included)* additional quotes can help allay such concerns.

As for Zeno not being an "atomist" ... I'm not sure what relevance there is regarding Zeno's disposition or beliefs, other than his observations and their implications.

The issue at hand here, I would think, is the nature of the observations (paradoxes) he raised ... namely, how do physical things (such as arros, hares and runners) physically move.

On the quantum level we now have experimental evidence that, according to Oxford physicist David Deutsch, "unequivocally rule out the possibility that the tangible universe around is all that exists." (see main article for references)

It seems to me that the widespread use of the theory of limits (calculus) to resolve Zeno's Paradoxes is an attempt to use classical physics (calculus) to solve a problem that clearly crosses into the quantum domain, in which classical laws (e.g. Maxwell's equations) are no longer tenable as they predict a violent and speedy end to our universe.

I believe that any significant, coherent resolution to Zeno's Paradoxes will therefore require the inclusion of quantum theory, or some new theory which supersedes quantum theory. Accordingly, I think we can be confident that the use of classical physics (and calculus) cannot be left where matters rest (please excuse the pun).

Best regards,
Steaphen 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Notes. I refer here to teh additional material I've added regarding Maxwell's equations and how they are insufficient in the quantum realm to explain quantum behaviour.

Talk-page guidelines

1. It is a violation of wiki policies to delete comments from talk pages - even one's own - especially after they have been responded to -- See WP:TPG-- JimWae 05:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. if you put in 4 ~s you will sign & date your comments -- JimWae 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply by Steaphen

Thanks Jim. I admit I have not been diligent in reading the rules. Yes, I generally sign my name (no problems there, except when I forget). After all, I make no secret of who I am and the nature of my beliefs.

ALthough I do wonder why you've shown bias towards admonishing me for the format of my posts and not other miscreants.

Anyway, since I've called for a suspension of further dialogue at the main discussion page, I'll include mention here (see below): Steaphen 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm grateful for all who responded to my posts (particularly those who were critical), as they have immensely helped and motivated me towards sharpening my thoughts and comments (as I wrote in the Summary of Position section).

I find it interesting to observe how vague I was (in the beginning) with regards to the essential problem when using geometric series to solve Zeno's Paradoxes. However, with the criticisms, I was motivated to drill down to the essential issue. And to qualify some of the terminology I used.

Actually, rereading the posts, I realise in some cases I should have used the term "values" instead of "variables" ... my challenge (as with all my work) is to translate the deeper, broader principles that underpin our physical reality, into everyday language. It's often a challenge to remember the correct use of terminology when discussing the fine details of some particular field, such as quantum theory, or whichever other field I'm commenting on ... the principles about which I write eclipse all fields of inquiry, so that requires a refocus (depending on the field of inquiry, be it quantum physics, biology, evolution, psychiatry, psychology, medicine, religion, new-age etc).

And when I say I'm grateful, I mean it. I'm presently living on the "edge of known civilisation" :) ... a small country town in NSW Australia, helping friends build their business. Generally, I find that sharp and incisive questioning of my work is not something I run across as I engage the locals -- their priorities are towards more earthy, practical issues. So it was a refreshing impetus to have received your criticisms. Thank you! (thank God for Broadband ... and electricity).

Although having said that, I woke this morning thinking, "Damn, I haven't even started on the interesting stuff" .. like the superposition of states (in quantum physics) ... I mean, think about it: physicists are working on building quantum computers that use these "semi-physical" states (and I didn't even mention the fact that NIST photographed a Beryllium atom in two separate places at the same time, years ago ... I think from memory it was 1996 ... I haven't Googled to check). And then the issue of delayed choice experiments (indicating nonlocal connections across time ... that the future is influencing what we think, the choices we make ...)

Gee, amongst all that ... to find people still dicking around with geometric series ... that's like sooooo last century (actually, given that quantum theory was discovered around the 1920's ... it's almost like, sooooo last last century).

But then it took around 200 years for the heliocentric model to be accepted, after Copernicus espoused the theory in no uncertain terms, accounting for the observe facts, so maybe, given that quantum theory is many times more in-your-face than the idea that we're whizzing around the Sun, it might take even longer (300 years?) for quantum physics (and the implications thereof) to be commonly accepted.

Cheers, Steaphen 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It is commonly believed that the attitude which motivated the priests in Galileo's time to avoid looking through the telescope to observe "the heavens", was typified by religious folk. Such fear to look was not, it is believed, typical of sane, rational folk.

However, the fear or intransigence to look at observable reality (via such tools as telescopes or their modern quantum-physical equivalents) is not restricted to religious believers.

Consider the issue of Zeno's Paradoxes. We now have clear evidence, as is observed when we look through a 'quantum telescope,' that our world is not so real, solid and predictable as Newtonian, classical thinking would have it. A great deal more is going on than our standard Western scientific views give credit to.

I have posted material at this site to highlight the extraordinarily flagrant flaw in current thinking that has persisted, even in recent times -- despite the unequivocal evidence highlighting the inadequacy of old, clockwork beliefs to explain observable reality.

Those posts have been removed by others who have chorused that I am biased.

A link to a (previous) page now this page (at the Belief Institute website), highlighting the flaws was removed. (links updated by Steaphen Pirie, November 9, 2008)

I believe we live in extraordinary times ... I believe we are at a pivotal time in the development of our race. I believe we are on the threshold of a major, quantum jump in understanding and awareness.

I believe these times call for each us to engage understanding and knowing that is pushed aside, ignored or denied by a great many.

Current parlous world circumstances can be attributed to the lack of awareness of these deeper principles.

Soon I will post a great deal of information that will, I hope, assuage the fear of those who avoid "looking through the telescope."

Steaphen 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Steaphen, I just wanted to let you know that the editor who took on your mediation case is not suitable for mediation because he is under restricted editing as part of a mentorship program. He is also now blocked. I am sorry for the inconvenience but another mediator will have to review your case. All the best, Sarah 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you still require help with this case? If so, I would be willing to mediate. Please leave me a message on my talk page or send me an e-mail to let me know. Best of luck! -- JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have re-opened the case. We will be conducting the mediation here. -- JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you still interested in this mediation or can I close the case? -- Ideogram 07:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I can show you that ordinary mathematics can solve the Zeno paradox of Achilles and Turtle. The statement is below, you can post me a message if you want to discuss it: Say that the turtle starts 10 meters beyond Achilles. Say that the turtle goes at velocity ${\displaystyle v_{turtle}=1m/s}$ and Achilles at ${\displaystyle v_{Achilles}=4m/s}$. So, in the paradox is supposed that velocity does not change, ok?. So you can list the position of the two runners in a table at different times. For example, at the start of the race, position of the turtle is 10 m and position of Achilles is 0 m. One second later, turtle in 11m and Achilles in 4m. One second later, turtle in 12m and Achilles in 8m. One second later, turtle in 13m and Achilles in 12m. One second later, turtle in 14m and Achilles in 16m. So there is a moment in which Achilles passes to stay behind the turtle to stay beyond (because of the Bolzando Theorem, if you know that there's a moment in which A is beyond B and a moment in which A is before B, so exists a moment in which A and B are in the same position). You can use some high school physics to find the exact time and place. You can describe the trajectories of the two runners in space-time as ${\displaystyle position_{turtle}=v_{turtle}\times t+advantage}$ ${\displaystyle position_{Achilles}=v_{Achilles}\times t}$ then you equal the two positions, ${\displaystyle v_{turtle}\times t+advantage=v_{Achilles}\times t}$ ${\displaystyle (v_{Achilles}-v_{turtle})t=advantage}$ ${\displaystyle t={\frac {advantage}{v_{Achilles}-v_{turtle}}}}$ so then you have the time! in the example I showed you, t=10/3=3.3333... Now, this is how you can calculate the time in which Achilles passes beyond the turtle. If you still want to solve the paradox you go on reading. To solve the paradox, remember that velocity is always the same for the two runners. I will use the same numbers I used in the example I used before. Achilles move from 0m to 10m. This is accomplished in a time ${\displaystyle t=10m/v_{achilles}=2.5s}$; in that time, the turtle runs 2.5m, so passes from 10m to 12.5m. Now the distance between the two is of 2.5m. Achilles run that distance in a time ${\displaystyle t=2.5m/v_{achilles}=0.625s}$; in that time the turtle runs 0.625m, so now is in 13.125m. You can see that the time of this steps have diminished a lot (from 2.5s to 0.625s). You can see that this calculation is recursive, so in the next step I'll use the present step. Mathematically, ${\displaystyle \Delta t=(oldposition_{turtle}-oldposition_{Achilles})/v_{achilles}}$ ${\displaystyle newposition_{Achilles}=oldposition_{turtle}}$ ${\displaystyle newposition_{turtle}=oldposition{turtle}+\Delta t\times v_{turtle}}$ Now see that the position of the turtle becomes (just replacing the time of the step) ${\displaystyle newposition_{turtle}=oldposition{turtle}+(distance_{turtle,Achilles})/v_{achilles}\times v_{turtle}}$ Now, the only thing that changes here is the distance between the turtle and Achilles: it gets always smaller. This doesn't say that Achilles is near but he can't reach the turtle, but say that if I sum infinite times that distances (times the quotients of velocities) it will converge to a finite number, so the position of the turtle will reach a limit. The position of Achilles also will reach a limit, the same position of the turtle, and that's when he reach it. But, that's not at infinite time, because the times of the steps are decreasing, in a manner that the sum of all them is finite. José Miotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.72.15 ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Response by Steaphen. As has been argued by many others on this subject, you, like them, have used continuous functions reliant on continuity.

What evidence supports your assumption of space-time continuity, particularly at and below Planck scales?

As like the others, you'll find no grounds for such an assumption. Until you demonstrate your assumptions are valid, your equations are irrelevant to the issue of Zeno's Paradoxes. Steaphen ( talk) 05:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zeno's paradoxes. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Steaphen,

You copied the template for a request for arbitration to WP:RFAR over ninety minutes ago but have not yet listed the parties (including yourself), named the dispute, indicated prior steps towards dispute resolution etc. Do you wish to open a case? Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 08:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As I was leaving this courtesy note you updated the request! Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 08:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I've understood your arguments exactly. Here's my argument:

• QM says that it's not only practically but also theoretically impossible to measure positions to any higher degree of accuracy than the Planck length.
• Some physicists have interpreted this as meaning that reality is discrete, some as meaning that reality can be continuous, but that the observable reality is discrete.

Regardless of which of these interpretations is correct, let us look at the position that reality is discrete. In this case, it would seem weird for particles to move between the discrete points. Similar to a ball rolling upwards a flight of stairs, the question is: "But how does it jump from step to step?"

If we toss a fair die, the result can be the discrete values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. But the expectation value is 3.5, in between two of the discrete values. Now, it is inconceivable for a fair die to turn up a number that isn't an integer, but there's nothing strange about it having an expectation value which is not an integer. Similarly, when we observe a particle, our observation can (theoretically) reveal it up to a resolution determined by the Planck length. But the expectation value (by way of Ehrenfest's theorem) will still equal the classical value, which might very well be in between two points separated by the Planck length.

Now, the question of course is, should the article mention the following: that we don't calculate the exact value of the point when Achilles overtakes the tortoise, but merely the exact value of the expectation of when Achilles will be observed to overtake the tortoise. Such rigidity seems uncalled for. Should we also go to the article on the Washington Monument and note that, in a very real sense, it is not necessarily located in Washington, but merely has a tendency to be observed to be there due to the expectation value of its position being in Washington. While such a statement would be true, is it necessary for readers to be informed of it? Gabbe ( talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ansgarf ( talk) 13:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I expect a reaction to this from you today. If I see nothing, I will request a block. Paradoctor ( talk) 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For your information, I opened a case on the Administrators noticeboard as was suggested by other editors. Ansgarf ( talk) 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Zeno%27s_paradoxes&diff=next&oldid=347191389. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite" -- it means I wasn't sure of the proper block length for privacy-violating edits like the one above. If you're still interested in editing WP, despite your recent userpage edits, make a case for a shorter block length in your unblock request. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Your statement on the requests for arbitration page is currently over 900 words long. The word limit is 500. Please refactor it to bring it within the 500 word limit within 24 hours or it will be removed completely. You're more than welcome to write a longer statement in your userspace and link to it from the arbitration page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As I see you're blocked, I've gone ahead and refactored the statement for you. If you want to make any further changes to it, please post here with {{ helpme}} and an editor will post your contributions across. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply