2 deleted 6 characters in body
source | link

There are chemical processes in the fruit, a bit crudely it's just atoms “moving around”

If you really want to keep a strict separation of Being and Non-Being, movement is also contradictory. For the movement of an object from point A to B involves a transition from Being to Non-Being at point A, and from Non-Being to Being at B. If we focus at point A, we see an object disappearing. And, at point B, we see an object coming into existence.

Moreover, we now know that not even elementary particles "exist the whole time". For instance, if an electron meets a positron they annihilate and emit a photon. Or, reciprocally, if a photon has enough energy it can produce a particle-antiparticle pair out of the "vacuum" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). Thus it is not true that all we have are ever-existing and never-changing particles that simply move around and re-arrange themselves.

Now, one could still say: "OK, maybe it's not atoms, but there IS something that always existed and is just reshaping itself". But in any case Parmenides' argument would hold for this reshaping, IF you hold that Being and Non-Being are completely disjoint categories.

I think the only acceptable solution to the conundrum is Hegel's proof that, in fact, far from being disjoint concepts, Being and Non-Being/Nothing are the same thing. So trying to conceive of an immutable, always-existing Being is simply self-contradictory. When we say Being, we are in fact saying Becoming, Coming-to-Be and Ceasing-to-Be.

There are chemical processes in the fruit, a bit crudely it's just atoms “moving around”

If you really want to keep a strict separation of Being and Non-Being, movement is also contradictory. For the movement of an object from point A to B involves a transition from Being to Non-Being at point A, and from Non-Being to Being at B. If we focus at point A, we see an object disappearing. And, at point B, we see an object coming into existence.

Moreover, we now know that not even elementary particles "exist the whole time". For instance, if an electron meets a positron they annihilate and emit a photon. Or, reciprocally, if a photon has enough energy it can produce a particle-antiparticle pair out of the "vacuum" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). Thus it is not true that all we have are ever-existing and never-changing particles that simply move around and re-arrange themselves.

Now, one could still say: "OK, maybe it's not atoms, but there IS something that always existed and is just reshaping itself". But in any case Parmenides' argument would hold for this reshaping, IF you hold that Being and Non-Being are completely disjoint categories.

I think the only acceptable solution to the conundrum is Hegel's proof that, in fact, far from being disjoint concepts, Being and Non-Being/Nothing are the same thing. So trying to conceive of an immutable, always-existing Being is simply self-contradictory. When we say Being, we are in fact saying Becoming, Coming-to-Be and Ceasing-to-Be.

There are chemical processes in the fruit, a bit crudely it's just atoms “moving around”

If you really want to keep a strict separation of Being and Non-Being, movement is also contradictory. For the movement of an object from point A to B involves a transition from Being to Non-Being at point A, and from Non-Being to Being at B. If we focus at point A, we see an object disappearing. And, at point B, we see an object coming into existence.

Moreover, we now know that not even elementary particles "exist the whole time". For instance, if an electron meets a positron they annihilate and emit a photon. Or, reciprocally, if a photon has enough energy it can produce a particle-antiparticle pair out of the "vacuum" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). Thus it is not true that all we have are ever-existing and never-changing particles that simply move around and re-arrange themselves.

Now, one could still say: "OK, maybe it's not atoms, but there IS something that always existed and is just reshaping itself". But in any case Parmenides' argument would hold for this reshaping, IF you hold that Being and Non-Being are completely disjoint categories.

I think the only acceptable solution to the conundrum is Hegel's proof that, in fact, far from being disjoint concepts, Being and Non-Being/Nothing are the same. So trying to conceive of an immutable, always-existing Being is simply self-contradictory. When we say Being, we are in fact saying Becoming, Coming-to-Be and Ceasing-to-Be.

1
source | link

There are chemical processes in the fruit, a bit crudely it's just atoms “moving around”

If you really want to keep a strict separation of Being and Non-Being, movement is also contradictory. For the movement of an object from point A to B involves a transition from Being to Non-Being at point A, and from Non-Being to Being at B. If we focus at point A, we see an object disappearing. And, at point B, we see an object coming into existence.

Moreover, we now know that not even elementary particles "exist the whole time". For instance, if an electron meets a positron they annihilate and emit a photon. Or, reciprocally, if a photon has enough energy it can produce a particle-antiparticle pair out of the "vacuum" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). Thus it is not true that all we have are ever-existing and never-changing particles that simply move around and re-arrange themselves.

Now, one could still say: "OK, maybe it's not atoms, but there IS something that always existed and is just reshaping itself". But in any case Parmenides' argument would hold for this reshaping, IF you hold that Being and Non-Being are completely disjoint categories.

I think the only acceptable solution to the conundrum is Hegel's proof that, in fact, far from being disjoint concepts, Being and Non-Being/Nothing are the same thing. So trying to conceive of an immutable, always-existing Being is simply self-contradictory. When we say Being, we are in fact saying Becoming, Coming-to-Be and Ceasing-to-Be.