Instants and instantaneous velocity

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Are instantaneous velocities real and really instantaneous?: An argument for the affirmative.R. S. - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34 (2):261-280.
Srđan Lelas (1939-2003).Boris Koznjak - 2003 - Prolegomena 2 (1):125-128.
This moment and the next moment.Francesco Orilia - 2014 - In Vincenzo Fano, Francesco Orilia & Giovanni Macchia (eds.), Space and Time: A Priori and a Posteriori Studies. Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 171-194.
Instantaneous motion.John W. Carroll - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 110 (1):49 - 67.
On Instantaneous Velocity.David Sherry - 1986 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 3 (4):391 - 406.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
110 (#158,735)

6 months
10 (#382,620)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Why Physics Uses Second Derivatives.Kenny Easwaran - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (4):845-862.
Dynamic events and presentism.Francesco Orilia - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (3):407-414.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A treatise of human nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 1969 - Harmondsworth,: Penguin Books. Edited by Ernest Campbell Mossner.
What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Sydney Shoemaker.
Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
What is a Law of Nature?David Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
The Complete Works: The Rev. Oxford Translation.Jonathan Barnes (ed.) - 1984 - Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

View all 36 references / Add more references