Continuous motion possible or impossible

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:42 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:36 pm

Nature abhors a vacuum. Between any 2 points there is no space, I.e. you can find another point between any 2 points ad infinitum. Since there’s always a connection between 2 points, I.e. another point, discrete is impossible. You should agree to this since you have only stated that discrete is possible without showing it to be so.
What is the size of a point?
Why do you ask?
I want to show that the continuum is ill-defined.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:53 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:42 pm
What is the size of a point?
Why do you ask?
I want to show that the continuum is ill-defined.
How would you do that?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by simplicity »

Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:14 am
simplicity wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:51 pm
We are talking about the motion of an object rather than the distance from an object. Moreover, an object looks solid but that is mostly empty space.
Close enough, you will see constant motion. Far enough away, it ceases to exist. Distance is THE KEY to all things in the physical universe.
So what if 'it' ceases to exist?

The process of 'ceasing to exist' happens in a state of CONSTANT-CHANGE, or in a continuous motion. Besides human observation, there is NO gaps NOR stop-start process. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and WILL PROVE otherwise.
Imagine the number of things existent in the the Universe. Then, think about how many of them you are aware of...

Existence is a personal matter.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:10 am
bahman wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:26 pm
There are two types of motion, discrete and continuous, the earlier has gap and the latter is gapless. Once it is shown that continuous motion is logically impossible then we are left by discrete motion.
And, what we are WAITING FOR is for you to SHOW that 'continuous motion' is 'logically impossible', and to speed this process up we have been asking you to SHOW this. Sometimes with VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS and at other times with CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. But, we are STILL WAITING.
Why continuous motion is impossible?
But continuous is NOT impossible AT ALL.

In fact besides 'continuous motion' being logical possible, whereas 'discrete motion' is 'logically impossible', 'continuous motion' is actually what happens and occurs. As evidenced and PROVEN by there being NO 'gaps' AT ALL 'in motion'. And, you NOT being able to provide just one example of ANY motion at all having 'gaps' just further PROVES that 'motion' is NOT discrete.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm You need to read my discussion with commonsense to see that is correct.
But I have read your discussion with "commonsense" here, in this thread, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that even remotely comes close to showing that 'continuous motion' is impossible. In fact the only 'thing' that even remotely comes close to showing that 'continuous motion' COULD BE an impossibility was you explaining that what 'you', human beings, observe is NOT always ACTUALLY True. Like, for example, watching a 'film', on a screen, looks continuous, but when a 'roll of film' is observed directly there are separated photos. But, when observed even closer and more directly what is also NOTICED and SEEN is that those, seemingly, separated photos are ACTUALLY joined together, by some thing, and NOT ACTUALLY separated AT ALL. And, this HAS TO BE the case for the 'film' to work, on a screen and in Reality.

See, like above with the 'film' example, ALL of Life is also joined together, without ANY separation AT ALL, and Life HAS TO BE this way, otherwise Existence would NOT be able to work also.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm The discussion is very long so I cannot repeat it all in this comment.
You REALLY do 'try to' DEFLECT and DISTRACT.

What I just made CLEAR above was that we are STILL WAITING for you to SHOW that 'continuous motion' is logically impossible. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that you have STILL NOT SHOWED this here, in this forum.

So, unless you are referring to some OTHER discussion that you have had with "commonsense" SOMEWHERE ELSE, then re-reading the discussion you have had here with "commonsense" here, in this forum, will NOT reveal that 'continuous motion' is impossible. Further evidence of this is that you are NOT even able to bring ANY thing forward, from this discussion you have had here with "commonsense", that could back up and support your CLAIM here. Or, if you "could" do this, you have NOT and will NOT. Which some have ALREADY WORKED OUT WHY.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:10 am
bahman wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:26 pm Moreover, what is the implication of the fact that cause comes before effect?
1. I do NOT draw conclusions from what is not explicitly stated. And, you have NOT explicitly stated HOW motion could be discrete.

2. The action, or state of being, involved with 'cause' coming BEFORE 'effect' is 'effect comes AFTER 'cause. BUT, this does NOT take away from the Fact that this can and does happen HERE-NOW, ALWAYS, in One continuous-motion, or constant-change.
So live in your confusing world.
What do you ASSUME is, or could be, confusing in 'my world'?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:13 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:08 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:01 pm
No, in fact, it is very simple. Feel free to read my response to Age.
I can't do that because motion is impossible.
Motion is possible. It is just discrete.
We've been here before. The word discrete is not applicable and you do not know the meaning of the word.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:08 pm On you can do magic
There is no magic involved. Just simple logic.
You would not know logic if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:48 am
The name is "Zeno" (likely related to "Zero" given people named themselves based upon who they are or become, not some arbitrary label based upon birth). Xeno was a philosopher of Plato's time who also wrote on Socrates.

I support Bahman here and know Zeno's paradoxes well. They support his view. Zeno argued that motion is impossible even knowing that it is in fact.
Are you saying that "zeno" KNEW that motion is FACT, but instead of ACCEPTING this FACT "zeno" chose to ATTEMPT to "argue" that ACTUALLY 'motion' is IMPOSSIBLE?

If yes, then okay. (This would then also completely make sense WHY "bahman" appears SO CONFUSED here.)

But if no, then what EXACTLY were you saying here?

Also, will you explain how "zeno's" words support "bahman's" views"?
Zeno was a philosopher who questioned actual paradoxes regarding continuity versus discrete measures.
So, by "questioning "actual" paradoxes" "zeno" managed to create MORE "actual paradoxes", namely; 'zeno's paradox', correct?

Also, and just out of curiosity, how many people ACTUALLY KNOW that the word 'paradox' is an ACTUAL paradox, itself?

See, the word 'paradox' can mean two completely opposing things. That is; the word 'paradox' can mean either:

1. A statement, which, at first, seems absurd or contradictory but actually expresses a truth. Or,

2. A statement, which, at first seems true but actually is absurd or contradictory.

So, a human being, who goes by the name "zero", and who is known as a "philosopher", and who while questioning actual 'paradoxes' (whatever they actually are), comes to create things known as "zeno's paradoxes", seems rather apt here.

Also, if ANY one wants to delve into this further, then I am more than willing to. Anywya,
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm Bahman was expressing the same thing and in the same way Zeno would have: you do not require expressing that you know something is not literal when presenting the paradox or it trivializes the concern. It is obvious that one could not MEAN the literal appearance of change is not real but that when you inspect this rationally, there is a real paradox.
REALLY?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY, is that so-called 'real paradox' here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm It is not merely a 'trick' concern because it relates to questioning positions in space (as well as time) with respect to physics. He wrote in ancient times when zero nor infinity were accepted as a legitimate concepts.
Thee ONLY 'trick' in "zeno's" (so-called) "paradox" is HOW and WHERE you have been FOOLED into thinking or seeing some thing, which is NOT even ACTUALLY there.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm The problem is something I think you understand by now considering our own conversations before. So you actually agree with Bahman, I believe, but just have an issue with the way he presented it.
Well that is certainly ONE ASSUMPTION, which may or may NOT be true, AT ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm Note that when one introduces an apparently shocking fact, like that "motion is impossible", as Zeno himself supposedly introduced it, it is unfortunately rhetorical;
What do you mean by; "an apparently shocking fact"?

What, SUPPOSEDLY, is "shocking", what, SUPPOSEDLY, is a "fact", and what, SUPPOSEDLY, is "rhetorical" here?

Also, WHY is 'it' a, SUPPOSEDLY, "unfortunate" "fact", and, WHO is it an "apparently" "shocking fact" to, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm but because it actually contradicts a logical inspection, it proves that either the logic is incomplete or the reality itself is contradictory.
Or, the so-called 'actual paradox' that "zeno" was, supposedly, questioning was itself just a seeming absurd or seemingly contradictory statement, but which ACTUALLY was expressing thee ACTUAL Truth of things, correct?

Or, is this NOT a possibility, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm Thus motion is both true and false realistically, OR the contradiction should MOTIVATE us to do something to fix this by looking back at the logic.
What, EXACTLY, do you consider is the, supposed, 'contradiction' here? And, WHY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm So even though you may think Bahman should presume the obvious fact that motion is possible, it is logical to assert it 'impossible' when logically when something is BOTH apparently possible AND impossible.
You appear to be MISSING a few words here.

Absolutely NO one, as far as I am aware, is disputing 'motion' is NOT possible. What we are disputing is whether 'motion', itself, is discrete OR continuous here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm [Binary logic defines, for instance, 0 = 0 and 1, but 1 = 0 or 1, where 1 stands for things real, true, or possible, and 0 stands for not real, false, or impossible.]
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm This conflict actually forced others to eventually accept seeking out new ideas that were previously not permitted in logic, math, science, and of course, philosophy in general. It was literally 'illegal' in the past to question whether zero should be allowed to be considered a rational integer.
In which country, EXACTLY, did some human being make it 'illegal', (in the past), to question whether zero should be allowed to be considered a rational integer? And, what was the fine/penalty for questioning whether zero should be allowed to be considered a rational integer?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:53 pm Anyone introducing such would be ridiculed and dismissed as nuts and so care had to be taken to introduce the ideas in ways that 'proved' the issues as relevant to be questioned. Demonstrating paradoxes forces those who pay attention to the logic to address them by demanding change in our logical understandings that would otherwise just get ignored and become blasphemous to speak of normally.
Okay.

But, to you, is 'motion' discrete or continuous? And WHY?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:24 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm
Why continuous motion is impossible? You need to read my discussion with commonsense to see that is correct. The discussion is very long so I cannot repeat it all in this comment.
In the conversation with me, I asked you to explain how gaps between cause and effect are certain.

You did not provide that explanation.

I invited you to re-read my post and gave you a second chance to explain.

You did not provide that explanation.

Referring to that conversation is not to your benefit.

You have often said that motion is discrete and that time is discrete. You have repeatedly stated your claim, but you have never provided a cogent argument in support of the claim.
Could we agree that there are two types of motion, continuous and discrete? Could we agree that the space between two immediate points in an entity either is zero or non-zero, continuous and discrete respectively?
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is one 'trying to' their very hardest DEFLECT AWAY from the VERY Fact that they have NOT YET provided ANY actual 'thing', which backs up NOR supports their CLAIM that 'motion is discrete'.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:46 am
Time changes so it follows the same principle. It is discrete.
LOL

How does 'time', Itself, change?
Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B either lay on the same instant or in different instants.
Will you provide an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, I am considering a change in the system of thee Universe, Itself. This change is from so-called A to so-called B. A, and, B lay in DIFFERENT so-called 'instants'. But what is OBVIOUSLY CLEAR and an ALREADY PROVED True is that BOTH so-called DIFFERENT INSTANTS lay on or in the EXACT SAME NOW.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm The change is timeless (simultaneous) or temporal in the first and second case respectively. There is no motion in the first case since A and B coexist timelessly. There is a motion in the second case. So for, the second case, we need a variable in which A and B can take place at different instants, ta and tb respectively. B comes after A so tb comes after ta also. This variable we call it time.
When 'you' say 'we' here, who or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

Also, just so 'you' are FULLY AWARE 'I' do NOT call ANY of this 'time'. This is because to do so would be ABSURD and LUDICROUS.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm Time, therefore, changes if there is a motion.
What is 'time', EXACTLY?

I have asked a few of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written. I had YET to gained AGREEMENT and CLARITY from 'you'.

Are you ABLE TO provide a CLEAR and PRECISE answer here, which will be in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then what are 'you' talking about, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am And, just because ANY or EVERY thing 'changes', then this does NOT logically lead to the CONCLUSION that motion is discrete.
Not when one excludes the continuous motion.
What you said here, ONCE AGAIN, to me, does NOT logically follow, AT ALL.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:56 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am

LOL

How does 'time', Itself, change?

And, just because ANY or EVERY thing 'changes', then this does NOT logically lead to the CONCLUSION that motion is discrete.
Bahman can't answer this, because no matter how hard he tries, he cannot move his fingers to type.
I already answered that.
Providing A response does NOT mean that you have ACTUALLY answered thee ACTUAL question, posed to you.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:53 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:42 pm
What is the size of a point?
Why do you ask?
I want to show that the continuum is ill-defined.
If you SERIOUSLY and REALLY want to do this, then just do it.

We have ALL been WAITING for you to SHOW that the 'continuum is ill-defined' or that 'motion is discrete'.

How long do we have to WAIT FOR?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:12 am
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:14 am
simplicity wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:57 pm
Close enough, you will see constant motion. Far enough away, it ceases to exist. Distance is THE KEY to all things in the physical universe.
So what if 'it' ceases to exist?

The process of 'ceasing to exist' happens in a state of CONSTANT-CHANGE, or in a continuous motion. Besides human observation, there is NO gaps NOR stop-start process. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and WILL PROVE otherwise.
Imagine the number of things existent in the the Universe. Then, think about how many of them you are aware of...

Existence is a personal matter.
Okay.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:09 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:53 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:44 pm

Why do you ask?
I want to show that the continuum is ill-defined.
How would you do that?
Tell me what is the size of a point first.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:20 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:10 am

And, what we are WAITING FOR is for you to SHOW that 'continuous motion' is 'logically impossible', and to speed this process up we have been asking you to SHOW this. Sometimes with VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS and at other times with CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. But, we are STILL WAITING.
Why continuous motion is impossible?
But continuous is NOT impossible AT ALL.

In fact besides 'continuous motion' being logical possible, whereas 'discrete motion' is 'logically impossible', 'continuous motion' is actually what happens and occurs. As evidenced and PROVEN by there being NO 'gaps' AT ALL 'in motion'. And, you NOT being able to provide just one example of ANY motion at all having 'gaps' just further PROVES that 'motion' is NOT discrete.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm You need to read my discussion with commonsense to see that is correct.
But I have read your discussion with "commonsense" here, in this thread, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that even remotely comes close to showing that 'continuous motion' is impossible. In fact the only 'thing' that even remotely comes close to showing that 'continuous motion' COULD BE an impossibility was you explaining that what 'you', human beings, observe is NOT always ACTUALLY True. Like, for example, watching a 'film', on a screen, looks continuous, but when a 'roll of film' is observed directly there are separated photos. But, when observed even closer and more directly what is also NOTICED and SEEN is that those, seemingly, separated photos are ACTUALLY joined together, by some thing, and NOT ACTUALLY separated AT ALL. And, this HAS TO BE the case for the 'film' to work, on a screen and in Reality.

See, like above with the 'film' example, ALL of Life is also joined together, without ANY separation AT ALL, and Life HAS TO BE this way, otherwise Existence would NOT be able to work also.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm The discussion is very long so I cannot repeat it all in this comment.
You REALLY do 'try to' DEFLECT and DISTRACT.

What I just made CLEAR above was that we are STILL WAITING for you to SHOW that 'continuous motion' is logically impossible. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that you have STILL NOT SHOWED this here, in this forum.

So, unless you are referring to some OTHER discussion that you have had with "commonsense" SOMEWHERE ELSE, then re-reading the discussion you have had here with "commonsense" here, in this forum, will NOT reveal that 'continuous motion' is impossible. Further evidence of this is that you are NOT even able to bring ANY thing forward, from this discussion you have had here with "commonsense", that could back up and support your CLAIM here. Or, if you "could" do this, you have NOT and will NOT. Which some have ALREADY WORKED OUT WHY.
I cannot help you if you cannot get my argument.
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:10 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:10 am 1. I do NOT draw conclusions from what is not explicitly stated. And, you have NOT explicitly stated HOW motion could be discrete.

2. The action, or state of being, involved with 'cause' coming BEFORE 'effect' is 'effect comes AFTER 'cause. BUT, this does NOT take away from the Fact that this can and does happen HERE-NOW, ALWAYS, in One continuous-motion, or constant-change.
So live in your confusing world.
What do you ASSUME is, or could be, confusing in 'my world'?
The fact that cause comes before effect means that the motion is discrete.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:38 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am
LOL

How does 'time', Itself, change?
Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B either lay on the same instant or in different instants.
Will you provide an example?
Example: A ball.

Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, I am considering a change in the system of thee Universe, Itself. This change is from so-called A to so-called B. A, and, B lay in DIFFERENT so-called 'instants'. But what is OBVIOUSLY CLEAR and an ALREADY PROVED True is that BOTH so-called DIFFERENT INSTANTS lay on or in the EXACT SAME NOW.
They are not the same now. If that was so then the change was simultaneous.
Age wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:38 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm The change is timeless (simultaneous) or temporal in the first and second case respectively. There is no motion in the first case since A and B coexist timelessly. There is a motion in the second case. So for, the second case, we need a variable in which A and B can take place at different instants, ta and tb respectively. B comes after A so tb comes after ta also. This variable we call it time.
When 'you' say 'we' here, who or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

Also, just so 'you' are FULLY AWARE 'I' do NOT call ANY of this 'time'. This is because to do so would be ABSURD and LUDICROUS.
Did you understand the argument?
Age wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:38 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm Time, therefore, changes if there is a motion.
What is 'time', EXACTLY?

I have asked a few of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written. I had YET to gained AGREEMENT and CLARITY from 'you'.

Are you ABLE TO provide a CLEAR and PRECISE answer here, which will be in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then what are 'you' talking about, EXACTLY?
Time is a substance that changes and allows motion.
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:18 am And, just because ANY or EVERY thing 'changes', then this does NOT logically lead to the CONCLUSION that motion is discrete.
Not when one excludes the continuous motion.
What you said here, ONCE AGAIN, to me, does NOT logically follow, AT ALL.
So, you are hopeless when you cannot understand a simple line of reasoning.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by simplicity »

bahman wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:38 pm Tell me what is the size of a point first.
All of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences "understand" that a point is an imaginary construct, yet one critical to making both science [and it's language, mathematics] work.

If a point doesn't really exist, what makes anyone believe that any of the other non-sense does?
Post Reply