more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 4786

[filed under theme 27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 1. Mechanics / a. Explaining movement ]

Full Idea

To reply to Zeno's Arrow Paradox, Russell developed his 'at-at' theory of motion, which says that to move from A to B is to be at the intervening points at the intervening instants.

Gist of Idea

Russell's 'at-at' theory says motion is to be at the intervening points at the intervening instants

Source

report of Bertrand Russell (Human Knowledge: its scope and limits [1948]) by Stathis Psillos - Causation and Explanation §4.2

Book Ref

Psillos,Stathis: 'Causation and Explanation' [Acumen 2002], p.113


A Reaction

I wonder whether Russell's target was actually Zeno, or was it a simplified ontology of points and instants? The ontology will also need identity, to ensure it is the same thing which arrives at each point.


The 5 ideas from 'Human Knowledge: its scope and limits'

Russell's 'at-at' theory says motion is to be at the intervening points at the intervening instants [Russell, by Psillos]
Is it possible to state every possible truth about the whole course of nature without using 'not'? [Russell]
Some facts about experience feel like logical necessities [Russell]
It is hard to explain how a sentence like 'it is not raining' can be found true by observation [Russell]
If we define 'this is not blue' as disbelief in 'this is blue', we eliminate 'not' as an ingredient of facts [Russell]