tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post6191679708819556344..comments2024-01-22T11:26:37.599-08:00Comments on TGD diary: Immortal jellyfish in zero energy ontologyMatti Pitkänenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-17055803264424635092019-12-08T19:07:41.206-08:002019-12-08T19:07:41.206-08:00As a physicist I do not find myself in Parmenides ...As a physicist I do not find myself in Parmenides paradox. X has become a new state does not mean X=not-X. Severino identifies state <br />as concept with its particular representative X and this is category error.<br /><br /> Physicist introduces more general notion: quantum state. Quantally: Quantum state X has become quantum state Y. No paradox. "Becoming" means quantum..<br /><br /> Same classically: classical time evolution leads from classical state X to Y. Now "becoming" means continuous time evolution.<br /><br />Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-86539733033473295462019-12-08T14:13:10.002-08:002019-12-08T14:13:10.002-08:00Dear Matti,
how does ZEO deal with the Parmenides ...Dear Matti,<br />how does ZEO deal with the Parmenides paradox?<br /><br />An important italian philosopher (Emanuele Severino) has presented in our days a renewed formulation of the impossibility of every change, that Greek philosopher Parmenides had presented for the first time in early fifth century BC.<br /><br />Considering a specific thing (let's say X) which is determined as a "unity" of informations, shapes and energy states, we can say "it has become a different thing" because we experience it is "changed". <br /><br />Indeed behind this simple idea of "change", to a more careful consideration, we must recognize that we are contradicting ourselves: infact the necessary condition to be able to say that over time "X has become something else (a different thing)" is that (X = not-X): this is a clear contradiction because we are identifying X and not-X. This contradiction is not solved even if we say that, over time, some aspects of X had become a nothing because we are identifying X (an existence) and nothing (the inexistence). <br /><br />It would seem that the only way to resolve the contradiction is to say that X has remained totally unchanged: X = X, but in this way we have to negate the changing.<br /><br />How does ZEO deal with this formulation of Parmenides paradox?<br />Is changing real or is it an impossible contradicion ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com