David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper will argue that the puzzles about instantaneous velocity, and rates of change more generally, are the result of a failure to recognize an ambiguity in the concept of an instant, and therefore of an instantaneous state. We will conclude that there are two distinct conceptions of a temporal instant: (i) instants conceived as fundamentally distinct zero-duration temporal atoms and (ii) instants conceived as the boundary of, or between,temporally extended durations. Since the concept of classical instantaneous velocity is well- deﬁned only on the second conception of instants, we will conclude that this distinction allows us to avoid the above dilemma. If instantaneous velocity is well-deﬁned then the states of a system at various instants are not logically distinct and thus we cannot generate Zeno’s paradox. However, if we assume that the instants are metaphysically distinct, then instantaneous velocity is not well-deﬁned and thus the second horn of the dilemma about the causal-explanatory role of instantaneous velocity cannot be generated.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Francesco Orilia (2012). Dynamic Events and Presentism. Philosophical Studies 160 (3):407-414.
Similar books and articles
Sheldon R. Smith (2003). Are Instantaneous Velocities Real and Really Instantaneous?: An Argument for the Affirmative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (2):261-280.
Yuri Balashov (2007). Defining ‚Exdurance'. Philosophical Studies 133 (1):143 - 149.
David Sherry (1986). On Instantaneous Velocity. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3 (4):391 - 406.
Marc Lange (2005). How Can Instantaneous Velocity Fulfill its Causal Role? Philosophical Review 114 (4):433-468.
J. Butterfield (2006). The Rotating Discs Argument Defeated. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):1-45.
John W. Carroll (2002). Instantaneous Motion. Philosophical Studies 110 (1):49 - 67.
R. S. (2003). Are Instantaneous Velocities Real and Really Instantaneous?: An Argument for the Affirmative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (2):261-280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #50,862 of 1,699,588 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #47,237 of 1,699,588 )
How can I increase my downloads?