Shut Up and Calculate: Exploring Feynman's Ideas on Physics

[curiousphoton]

Just a general topic here. Hope I don't offend anyone. Curious to see what everyone else thinks about this.

I read Lee Smolin's 'Trouble with Physics' a certain amount of time ago and found myself agreeing with him in many respects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the physics community as divide as Lee depicts? He makes it sound like 90% of physicists these days get their doctorate in some advanced String Theory field that lacks any sort of physical observational evidence.

I also more recently read Feynman's books (I forget which one as I've read the majority of his works) and he seems to come from the opposite end of the spectrum in many respects. He believes in 'Shut up and Calculate, don't ask why' type of physics, as his book quotes himself. He also goes on to explain how it takes 8 years of drawing lines in graduate school until students are ready to fully solve QM problems.

I really enjoy Feynman's works and ideas and think he is one of the top physicists we've seen in a while but have to completely disagree with him on the whole 'Shut up and Calculate' idea. I mean if Einstein or Newton or Galileo were drawing lines to work their way up the QM problem solving tree until they were 30, would they have come up with their intuitive thought experiments that led to the fundamental world changing theories we use today? I tend to think not.

Feel free to agree or disagree or disregard.

 

[humanino]

Einstein, Newton or whoever, they did draw lines for quite some time before coming up with genuine ideas on their own. Most important in this forum in particular (I can not say for sure for Feynman), I would suggest "calculate first, and we'll discuss the interpretation afterwards". Too often around here, we see discussions without underlying substance. "Calculate first and discuss the interpretation afterwards" is exactly what my first teacher in QM told me. She was only too right.

 

[curiousphoton]

Einstein, Newton or whoever, they did draw lines for quite some time before coming up with genuine ideas on their own. Most important in this forum in particular (I can not say for sure for Feynman), I would suggest "calculate first, and we'll discuss the interpretation afterwards". Too often around here, we see discussions without underlying substance. "Calculate first and discuss the interpretation afterwards" is exactly what my first teacher in QM told me. She was only too right.

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin. But the story of the advice your QM teacher told you is a great example of 'The Trouble with Physics'. Recommended read if you have time.

 

[GeorgCantor]

"Shut up and calculate" is the physicist's knee-jerk reaction to the question - 'What is the universe made of'?

This is what everyone here is interested in, but it's also kind of hopeless.

 

[wuliheron]

If there is no more room in academia for dissenting opinions then it is time for a revolution!

 

[Pythagorean]

The equations are the most accurate description of an observation, and with them come basic logical expressions.

When you start conjecturing about a topic and don't even understand the basic tenants of the logical expression, it's frustrating for people who do.

And specifically, I'm referrering to mathematical statements based in observation. Not string theory (which my U, for instance, doesn't even offer classes for)

 

[Evo]

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin. But the story of the advice your QM teacher told you is a great example of 'The Trouble with Physics'. Recommended read if you have time.

Ahaha, humanino is the only physicist posting in this thread.

 

[humanino]

Recommended read if you have time.

No, I skimmed through it, and I am not interested in it at all. I prefer physics books.

 

[Pengwuino]

I mean if Einstein or Newton or Galileo were drawing lines to work their way up the QM problem solving tree until they were 30, would they have come up with their intuitive thought experiments that led to the fundamental world changing theories we use today? I tend to think not.

Those thought experiments were the results of a lot of "shut up and calculate" time. There is typically a REASON to have a thought experiment in the first place, and it's typically because there's some set of calculations that are stareing at you that aren't what you perceive as reality.

Relativity wasn't formulated by dreaming up out of thin air "what if gravity is best described by some 4-dimensional mathematical description that can be described like some sort of fabric..." and then make calculations fit that description. The seed of the idea was in what was seen in the math.

 

[fatra2]

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin.

Hi there,

Can I dare to ask, why would such a theory apply to Einstein. Do you really believe the guy was a complete dreamer, that had no clue about hard core mathematics.

Ok, he was not a mathematician, but to develop a theory in the brownien movement (that enabled him to win the nobel prize), he had to sit there and do the calculation first.

Where Einstein was truly a genius was his ability to give a correct interpretation of his calculation.

Cheers

 

[apeiron]

It is amusing to consider what the actual inventor of this famous aphorism thinks about it.

David Mermin - who railed against colourless and humorless approaches to physics in Boojums all the way through: communicating science in a prosaic age - was talking about the cultural attitudes imposed upon him, rather than an attitude he really endorsed.

As he now says apologetically...

I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive...So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms...

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

And would Feynman even have said it, as widely believed?

He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it."2 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.

 

[curiousphoton]

Hi there,

Can I dare to ask, why would such a theory apply to Einstein. Do you really believe the guy was a complete dreamer, that had no clue about hard core mathematics.

Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.

And as far as a dreamer, in his first major breakthrough (SR), he, himself, Mr. Einstein writes about his famous train thought experiment, which led to a simple algebra calculation involving triangles (which a smart 8th grader can solve). Thinking about light, then calculating what was going on, led to a breakthrough unlike any we've seen to date...

And would Feynman even have said it, as widely believed?

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his books (sorry I don't have the collection on me but am sure he said it because it struck me as odd especially having just read 'The Trouble with Physics').

 

[fatra2]

Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.

And as far as a dreamer, in his first major breakthrough (SR), he, himself, Mr. Einstein writes about his famous train thought experiment, which led to a simple algebra calculation involving triangles (which a smart 8th grader can solve). Thinking about light, then calculating what was going on, led to a breakthrough unlike any we've seen to date...

Hi there,

It's fine to be a dreamer. As a matter of fact, you need to be. But don't forget that if you want people to follow you train of ideas, you need to be able to put them to good use. And, in science, you need to shut and calculate first.

Cheers

 

[humanino]

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his books

On his last blackboard was also written "what I cannot create, I do not understand" and "know how to solve every problem that has been solved". If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

You only use anecdotal pieces of evidence and authority argument. This is not very convincing. Again, you say "other could calculate better than him and did not come up with such important results". That changes nothing : there has never been in the history of science a physics revolution coming from somebody unable to understand what had previously been found, that is, unable to do calculations. First calculate, then discuss the calculation. Being able to calculate is not sufficient, sure. But it is necessary.

 

[f95toli]

Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.

No there wasn't. First of all, remember that Einstein and co were active where "physics" was a much,much smaller field than now meaning it didn't take nowhere near as long to study all the basic material (most of the physics that existed in 1905 is today covered in the first 1-2 years of a degree in physics).
Secondly, Einstein was a very competent theoretical physicists who had learned from some of the best scientists of his era, just look at some of his lesser known (but very good) work in e.g. statistical physics; some of it is very much "nuts and bolts" theoretical physics and is nowhere near as "visionary" as SR and GR. So, no, Einstein was most definitely not a dreamer...

 

[curiousphoton]

First off, I'm not trying to get personal with anyone as my aim is simply to discuss a topic that I've always wondered about.

If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

Agreed but with an asterisk. See why in comments below.

No there wasn't. First of all, remember that Einstein and co were active where "physics" was a much,much smaller field than now meaning it didn't take nowhere near as long to study all the basic material (most of the physics that existed in 1905 is today covered in the first 1-2 years of a degree in physics).

That's the hard part for me to accept. Granted I don't have a PHD is physics, I took the first 3 years of university physics and math at a top ranked university. We covered everything through basic QM.

*back to the asterisk : "One has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim an understanding of them". I agree and this is what turned me off to physics. The field has tens of thousands of professionals now, as opposed to Einsteins time when you could work through everyones work in a few years (see quote above). To work through everyone's string theory work and everyone's theory on QM would take a lifetime. The trouble with physics to me is that all of these QM interpretations COULD be correct, so which ones do you focus your time on? The one most popular at the time?

That is why I agree with Smolin and Einstein and Newton who looked at problems through both a mathematician and philosophers lens.'Shut up and Calculate' just doesn't seem right to me.

So, no, Einstein was most definitely not a dreamer...

I disagree. If you read any biography on Einstein, he speaks with enthusiasm about his first passion : PHILOSOPHY. If philosophers don't dream, I don't know who does...

 

[humanino]

Einstein was not just a dreamer. Doing calculation is not sufficient. "Shut up and calculate" is appropriate to use when there is an imbalance between the amount of philosophy and the amount of calculation, when the amount of calculation is not enough to back up the philosophical discussion. Smolin's book is not a physics book, it is a personal opinion on the sociology of physics research. It is not true that it takes a lifetime to study string theory before one can produce research result : there are young researchers in the field.

Besides, you seem to describe physics as if the only problem in physics was to quantize gravity. Physics is much wider that this narrow specific field. There are many very active areas where one does not need to worry about such philosophical choices. To me, we live in times when physics is even more exciting than at Einstein's time.

 

[humanino]

I disagree. If you read any biography on Einstein, he speaks with enthusiasm about his first passion : PHILOSOPHY. If philosophers don't dream, I don't know who does...

If you read any biography on Einstein, you will know that right after his work started to receive publicity (at times when antisemitism was widespread) the majority of professional physicists would harshly criticize the part of the work dealing with the photoelectric effect and relativity, based on the amount of philosophy it consisted in. Even when Einstein received the Nobel prize, Planck would still dismiss the photoelectric effect interpretation BTW, despite the fact the Planck was one of the first to recognize Einstein's work. Ultimately, this can be understood mostly because they did not fully appreciate the depth of significance in the calculations.

 

[apeiron]

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his books (sorry I don't have the collection on me but am sure he said it because it struck me as odd especially having just read 'The Trouble with Physics').

Yes, please provide the reference for where he says this. Mermin says he invented the quote and can find no trace of it in Feynman's writings.

 

[Pythagorean]

On his last blackboard was also written "what I cannot create, I do not understand" and "know how to solve every problem that has been solved". If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

You only use anecdotal pieces of evidence and authority argument. This is not very convincing. Again, you say "other could calculate better than him and did not come up with such important results". That changes nothing : there has never been in the history of science a physics revolution coming from somebody unable to understand what had previously been found, that is, unable to do calculations. First calculate, then discuss the calculation. Being able to calculate is not sufficient, sure. But it is necessary.

not that I support the opposin position, but:

What about deBroglie? I was always underthe impression he was like "lol, if light can be a particle, then why can't matter be a wave, haha!"

 

[curiousphoton]

Well looks like no one agrees with Lee Smolin or I and thinks Physics is progressing in the right direction. That's all I really wanted to find out.

Interesting...thank you all

 

[curiousphoton]

If you read any biography on Einstein, you will know that right after his work started to receive publicity (at times when antisemitism was widespread) the majority of professional physicists would harshly criticize the part of the work dealing with the photoelectric effect and relativity, based on the amount of philosophy it consisted in. Even when Einstein received the Nobel prize, Planck would still dismiss the photoelectric effect interpretation BTW, despite the fact the Planck was one of the first to recognize Einstein's work. Ultimately, this can be understood mostly because they did not fully appreciate the depth of significance in the calculations.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I was reading an article today on Bell and found out Philosophy was his first passion as well. Funny Einstein and Bell, two of the greatest thinkers of our time, first fell in love with philosophy.

Funny also that Bell considered QM the greatest FAPP (For all practical purposes, a term he coined) theory of all time.

Besides, you seem to describe physics as if the only problem in physics was to quantize gravity. Physics is much wider that this narrow specific field.

Obviously not but it is the biggest problem. And that I hope you can admit.

 

[apeiron]

This thread talks at cross-purposes. There are two different points to be made.

1) "Philosophy" is always required to ground new science. It is the vague scaffolding of exploratory thought that later becomes crystallised into some precisely expressed model. Usually there will be some powerful imagery or analogy (like replacing point particles with vibrating loops). There is a sense of how things may fit into a shape even before that shape is exactly expressed. And once the model has been constructed, then all the philosophy - the grounding intuition - can be discarded and the model used in "shut up and calculate" fashion.

The inventor must have been a philosopher, but the later users may be just technicians with no interest in the reason why their tools might work.

2) Humanino's point seemed to be about the need for mastery of a field before you can do creative work in that field. And indeed, this is standard wisdom in the psychology of creative genius. You have to make the journey to the edge of current knowledge to then be ready to take a step further into the darkness.

It is important to note that the mastery does not have to be in the same field. Sometimes the big breakthroughs come when someone is a master in one field, then moves into a new area and can see how the ideas of one domain can now solve the problems that exist in another.

However the general point is still that breakthroughs need a solid grounding. You have to know the rules before you can do a good job of breaking them.

 

[GeorgCantor]

However the general point is still that breakthroughs need a solid grounding. You have to know the rules before you can do a good job of breaking them.

Well, as far as "shut up and calculate" is concerned, and as far as an interpretation is needed, it isn't going to come around as long as QM is a complete theory. That may not always be the attitude in the qm sub-forum, but they are chasing a red herring with those "interpretations" if the theory is complete.

If there is no underlying reality, the interpretation of QM lies somewhere between totally impossible and very likely impossible, no matter what breakthru is made or what kind of experts you gather around. The way our logic works prohibts us from drawing an interpretation of fundamental levels of reality(i am not sure if the experts are always aware of this point). If such is the case with the completeness of qm, the theory of everything is as likely as the cow that jumps to the Moon.

Either we peel another layer of the onion of reality and explain QM or we are stuck here pop-eyed doing the shut up and calculate. Even then, provided that the new level of reality is fundamental, there would be still be no interpretation.

Philosophically speaking, the dream of explaining and interpreting the fundamental level with our usual tools --the so-far successful causal-reductionistic logic, makes as much sense as teaching pigs to fly. Sure, you could kill your spare time trying, but pigs aren't going to fly.

 

[apeiron]

Philosophically speaking, the dream of explaining and interpreting the fundamental level with our usual tools --the so-far successful causal-reductionistic logic, makes as much sense as teaching pigs to fly. Sure, you could kill your spare time trying, but pigs aren't going to fly.

So now you agree with me that the interesting place to be working is on a more holistic model of logic - such as the systems approach to causality .

The mechanical approach (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a set of clear metaphysical principles - locality, atomism, monadism, determinism, mechanicalism (yes, QM does break some of these principles radically, and yet that is also because it is an attempt to get even close to them).

The mechanical approach to causality is not wrong. It is indeed a very successful brand of modelling.

But QM is one of the things that also reveal its limits rather starkly. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, you would indeed need another kind of logic better suited to the task.

But because our logic is also our thinking, our mental habit by which we already view the world, it is in fact very difficult for people to make the change.

 

[Gokul43201]

He [Smolin] makes it sound like 90% of physicists these days get their doctorate in some advanced String Theory field that lacks any sort of physical observational evidence.

Let's fix this little problem right away. By far, the biggest research area in Physics is Condensed Matter. My guess would be that over a third of the Physics community works in Condensed Matter research and less than 10% does research in String Theory + other areas of Quantum Gravity. I expect similar numbers for PhDs. My year of 20-odd grad students saw over 50% go into CM (but our department was particularly strong in CM) and maybe 1 student joined a String group.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So now you agree with me that the interesting place to be working is on a more holistic model of logic - such as the systems approach to causality .

Well yes, but a hollistic reality of emergent properties seem to my (probably naive) understanding like a 'system' following a goal. I'd go as far as say that 'emergent' seems to implicitly imply a goal/end. It's hard to say what kind of purpose a universe/reality might have for awareness, but certain weird and fundamental cosmic 'coincidences' are quite inline with what(still naively) appears like a universe straining towards life. Consider the fact that at the fundamental level(or what appears to be the fundamental level), all particles in the same quantum state are indistinguishable, except for their behavior determined by their inherent randomness(randomness that strains, quite successfully, towards deterministic causality).

The mechanical approach (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a set of clear metaphysical principles - locality, atomism, monadism, determinism, mechanicalism (yes, QM does break some of these principles radically, and yet that is also because it is an attempt to get even close to them).

My 'favorite' is debb for its attempt to find an underlying reality. Then, someone will concoct an underlying reality for the ftl pilotwave(that will restore causal determinism and common-sense for why the wave acts the way it does) and then some dissident physicist will come up with an idea of another underlying reality that will explain and bring common-sense for the underlying reality of the underlying reality of the underlying reality. The deterministic causality fanboys will always have an array of theoretical toys to play with.

The mechanical approach to causality is not wrong. It is indeed a very successful brand of modelling.

But QM is one of the things that also reveal its limits rather starkly. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, you would indeed need another kind of logic better suited to the task.

Agreed and this logic will also have to show more flexibility than a human mind can accommodate, to name a few:

real, but not quite
with properties, but not quite
there, but not quite
then, but not quite
causal, but not quite
deterministic, but not quite

If the emergent 'system' in system science is the goal to be realized, then the emergence of life couldn't be a meaningless occurence(it couldn't be anyway, since there can't be meaningless events in a deterministic reality, it's just our ignorance of preceding events that clouds our better judgement).

 

[apeiron]

I'd go as far as say that 'emergent' seems to implicitly imply a goal/end. It's hard to say what kind of purpose a universe/reality might have for awareness, but certain weird and fundamental cosmic 'coincidences' are quite inline with what(still naively) appears like a universe straining towards life.

This is where we would take deeply different views. I am happy with a strong idea of purpose and final cause. But I don't see awareness as anything particularly special.

The purpose of the universe seems pretty simple and encoded in the second law of thermodynamics - if there is an entropy gradient, it must be degraded. And life/mind are dissipative structures that use their intelligence to accelerate the universe towards its heat death. That is all. That is their only purpose.

This is what actual systems approaches say. For instance this paper on Ulanowicz's ecological model of ascendency ...

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/biot.2006.1.2.165

Development is a process whereby a relatively unspecified system
comprised of loosely connected lower level parts becomes
organized into a coherent, higher-level agency. Its temporal
corollaries are growth, increasingly deterministic behavior,
and a progressive reduction of developmental potential. During
immature stages with relatively low specification and high
potential, development is largely controlled by local interactions
from the “bottom-up,” whereas during more highly specified
stages with reduced potential, emergent autocatalytic processes
exert “top-down” control. Robert Ulanowicz has shown
that this phenomenology of ascendency follows thermodynamic
principles and can be described quantitatively using information
theory, providing a general theory of development.

You can see how in particular it deals with the issue of determinism as something that develops rather than something that is (that exists outside of time).

Karl Popper (1990) reminds us that only isolated (i.e.,
artificial) systems behave deterministically, whereas natural
systems are always embedded within larger systems of interactions,
making them susceptible to myriad complexities
that inevitably introduce some amount of indeterminacy (cf.
Ulanowicz 1997). The statement “if A then B” might then be
reformulated as the conditional probability p(B|A) = 0.90,
which describes the expected frequency of B given A. This
may seem to be a subtle difference in approach, but it opens
up a materialistic perspective that is less encumbered with assumption
than is a mechanistic worldview. Instead of assuming
that the universe is a causally closed mechanism analogous to
a watch, this perspective allows that the universe to be causally
open; that is, causal relationships are complex and not entirely
predictable, and can originate at any hierarchical level.

 

[GeorgCantor]

The purpose of the universe seems pretty simple and encoded in the second law of thermodynamics - if there is an entropy gradient, it must be degraded. And life/mind are dissipative structures that use their intelligence to accelerate the universe towards its heat death. That is all. That is their only purpose.

Speaking of entropy and its direction, I am curious how strong a certainty are you willing to express(in percents) that anything is actually moving? As in the statement - "physical motion is possible and actual"?

 

[brainstorm]

Recently a math-loving physicist explained to me how QM is beyond intuitive modeling of phenomena and yet it is the most successfully proven science. He also said that lasers were invented using QM equations without any qualitative logic whatsoever. Today, I picked up a book at the library that explained in qualitative, intuitively accessible terms how a laser works using a cylindrical synthetic ruby with mirrored ends where light builds up to the point that it overcomes the reflective ends and "zap." This explanation caused me to question what the math-lover was insisting and think that maybe the reason so many math-loving physicists claim that math is an absolute prerequisite to explaining or predicting anything physical is because they really just don't get what they're doing at the intuitive level.

 

[apeiron]

Speaking of entropy and its direction, I am curious how strong a certainty are you willing to express(in percents) that anything is actually moving? As in the statement - "physical motion is possible and actual"?

100 per cent. Otherwise what is inertia all about? Of course, motion needs to be measured against some background, so there is the contextual or relativistic issue.

 

[GeorgCantor]

100 per cent.

Hmmm, 100% certainty isn't typical of philosophers and i haven't noticed 100% certanty expressed on PF(except on the math sub-forum), so this must also be valid of physicists.

Otherwise what is inertia all about?

Good question. What is mass all about? What is space all about? Or matter? Or entropy?

Of course, motion needs to be measured against some background, so there is the contextual or relativistic issue.

Well not only. Motion is one of the fundamental physical concepts together with space, matter and time, so the conceptual problems with motion are at least as deep as those with the other 3.

You have the issue of continuous motion where infinity briefly touches on finiteness in a Zeno-like fashion(infinite converging series leading to finiteness). Then you have your physical theories of measurements(GR and QM) that explain motion as a series of measurements(no motion except that which is wrongfully? inferred after the measurements by your perception). Then you have Biology that explain motion as perception of frames per second(you always perceive a "Now" frame out of a series). Motion in qm is even wilder and quite possibly non-existent(sum over histories; seldomly anyone would argue on quantum trajectories). Then you have those involved in the foundational issues of QM sugesting that space and time must be emergent phenomena from the interaction of more basic entities. But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'. A blockworld model, that is consistent with the evidence, is silent on these issues as they are way deeper than physics can currently deal with.

Anyway, i was merely interested where your strong confidence comes from on these unresolved foundational issues and the idea that flow of entropy is a necessary subtrate of all being.


Have a look at this 'motion' example with additional perception surprizes:

http://physicsofopticalillusions.yolasite.com/insane.php

 

[apeiron]

But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'.

This is going off-topic and if you are interested, you could pose your question in its own thread (not that it matters much as this thread is already at a dead-end).

But briefly, my reply was about theoretical contexts in which motion is an irreducible property. And so - in terms of the model - 100 per cent certainty becomes possible.

What other models might say is another matter.

And the same applies for any claims about entropy gradients. The models cannot be doubted because we have constructed them from axioms.

Both motion and dissipation also seem to be facts about the reality as best we can observe. But there is always the possibility of new facts from more subtle measurements coming along.

Again, you want to focus on the fact that models always leave room for doubt (even when doubt seems to be unreasonable). I'm looking at the same situation from the other point of view. There is surprisingly little doubt now about some very fundamental seeming truths.

 

[brainstorm]

Could you say that motion is just a way of describing momentum changes in tandem with relative times and distances to other objects? Couldn't you simply say that objects with inertia change momentum and collide with each other (and interact with each other's fields) from time to time, without specifying their location vis-a-vis a coordinate system? I'm not claiming this would be particularly handy, but I feel the need to raise this kind of point whenever a discussion about the fundamental nature of motion, space, time, etc. comes up.

 

[apeiron]

Could you say that motion is just a way of describing momentum changes in tandem with relative times and distances to other objects?

Such a model would say nothing about relative distances and so nothing about the variable speeds of objects. It might be possible to make such a model, but a failure to represent motion would not throw doubt on motion would it?

But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'.

Georg, the problem you seem to be raising is that motion is deemed to be a continuous action and yet our models presume that motions are constructed as a succession of discrete steps. This leads to familiar paradoxes.

As usual, I would point out that all metaphysical concepts are derived as dichotomies, and dichotomies are limit state descriptions. So the metaphysical model here is discrete~continuous. Or constructed motion vs constrained action. And we can model from either point of view.

We can construct a motion mechanically as a series of discrete steps (which is the classical Newtonian approach, points along a line). Or we can constrain an action to a least mean path (which would be the top-down QM sum over histories approach, a collapse of possibilities to a single crisp path).

Which is more real? Well the dichotomy tells us that neither the discrete nor the continuous is real. They are the limits of what can be achieved (and so are not themselves achievable). But we can get infinitesimally close.