Continuous motion possible or impossible

[bahman]

LOL
LOL
LOL

You REALLY do make me laugh "bahman".

This is "your argument" here:

There are two types of things existing, (A and B, for example).
One of those things, ACTUALLY, does NOT even exist anyway, (B, for example).
Therefore, there is only one type of thing, ACTUALLY, existing, (which is A here).

Thee ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUS of this speaks for itself.

And, just like a LOT of your other, so-called, "arguments", they are NOT logically, sound and valid arguments AT ALL, and thus not even worth repeating.

Furthermore, and also like a LOT of your ATTEMPTS at "arguing", the MORE you 'try to' DEFEND your position, the FURTHER you CONTRADICTING and DEFEATING your OWN previous words and claims.

Yes, it is an argument if you think throughly.

You can call 'it' an "argument" if you like. But this still does NOT change the FACT that 'it', or your "argument", is CLEARLY ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, and INVALID. Which MEANS that your "argument" does NOT proof what you BELIEVE here is true.

This means you are unable to understand a simple argument.

[bahman]

In a qualified perspective 'the Mind' does move.
The mind is comprised of merely neural activities of the neurons in the brain.
That the neurons are in actions mean the mind is moving from one state to another.

However at a restricted level of abstraction with logic [with the LNC and LEM] as in the OP, continuous motion is impossible as analogous to discrete films manifesting 'continuous motion'.
Bahman asserted this is the mind-x 'cheating' the mind-y but that is only if one conflate the separate perspectives.

That is not the definition of mind in my worldview.

I believe this is the fundamental point and ground to the whole issue.

If you don't agree that the mind is merely a collective and bundle of mental activities, then you are likely to believe the mind is a sort of substance that is independent of the body. It this your belief re the mind, self and soul?
Such a concept of an independent mind is then extended to an independent soul that survives physical death.

On the contrary, note Hume's concept of self, therefrom including mind.

• Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

The point is an independent mind, self or soul has never been proven to be real.

Therefore if your theory of causality and continuous motion are grounded on an independent mind & objects independent of mind as discrete, your conclusions therefrom cannot be realistic.

I believe to deal with this issue of Causality and Continuous Motion we must dig into its most fundamental grounding issues, i.e.

All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I presume your grounding is that of 'realism' where the mind is an independent substance that is independent of all other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
On your realism basis, the default existence of independent things are discrete objects.
Therefore to you, there is no causality and no continuous motion.
But realism [an ideology] is never realistic.
Therefore all your conclusion therefrom are never realistic.

That is why you cannot grasp the various more realistic anti-realist views or the various relative views I have presented.

Therefore if you want to ensure your theories about causality and continuous motions are tenable, then first, you have to prove realism [the ideology] is realistic. Else we can debate till the cows come home.

The subject of mind is off topic so let's put it aside.

[bahman]

Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

There is no minimum period of time, less than which this period cannot be. Therefore, time is continuous, not discrete. (The minimum period of time tends to zero).

As you say. What is your proof for that?

[commonsense]

Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

There is no minimum period of time, less than which this period cannot be. Therefore, time is continuous, not discrete. (The minimum period of time tends to zero).

As you say. What is your proof for that?

A priori by, by definition time is continuous. To the extent that a definition is whatever is commonly agreed upon by most people, you have no acceptable definition of time. By definition.

[bahman]

There is no minimum period of time, less than which this period cannot be. Therefore, time is continuous, not discrete. (The minimum period of time tends to zero).

As you say. What is your proof for that?

A priori by, by definition time is continuous. To the extent that a definition is whatever is commonly agreed upon by most people, you have no acceptable definition of time. By definition.

People agree on all sorts of wrong things, some like continuous motion, they are used to it so they accept it as a fact. The reality could be different, discrete, like frames of a film. How could you be sure when you cannot rely on your experience?

[commonsense]

As you say. What is your proof for that?

A priori by, by definition time is continuous. To the extent that a definition is whatever is commonly agreed upon by most people, you have no acceptable definition of time. By definition.

People agree on all sorts of wrong things, some like continuous motion, they are used to it so they accept it as a fact. The reality could be different, discrete, like frames of a film. How could you be sure when you cannot rely on your experience?

One can only rely on what is experienced, and trust that it’s consistent with the majority of others.

[bahman]

A priori by, by definition time is continuous. To the extent that a definition is whatever is commonly agreed upon by most people, you have no acceptable definition of time. By definition.

People agree on all sorts of wrong things, some like continuous motion, they are used to it so they accept it as a fact. The reality could be different, discrete, like frames of a film. How could you be sure when you cannot rely on your experience?

One can only rely on what is experienced, and trust that it’s consistent with the majority of others.

So a film is continuous?

[commonsense]

People agree on all sorts of wrong things, some like continuous motion, they are used to it so they accept it as a fact. The reality could be different, discrete, like frames of a film. How could you be sure when you cannot rely on your experience?

One can only rely on what is experienced, and trust that it’s consistent with the majority of others.

So a film is continuous?

My experience is that a film consists of individual frames that are shown faster than my brain can perceive the frames. Is it not the same for you?

[bahman]

One can only rely on what is experienced, and trust that it’s consistent with the majority of others.

So a film is continuous?

My experience is that a film consists of individual frames that are shown faster than my brain can perceive the frames. Is it not the same for you?

No, your brain is fast enough to create an illusion of continuous motion depending on the frame rate you perceive. You observe discrete motion when the frame rate is small, otherwise, your brain creates an illusory continuous motion. How does the brain do that? No-one knows.

[commonsense]

So a film is continuous?

My experience is that a film consists of individual frames that are shown faster than my brain can perceive the frames. Is it not the same for you?

No, your brain is fast enough to create an illusion of continuous motion depending on the frame rate you perceive. You observe discrete motion when the frame rate is small, otherwise, your brain creates an illusory continuous motion. How does the brain do that? No-one knows.

My brain creates an illusion?

[bahman]

My experience is that a film consists of individual frames that are shown faster than my brain can perceive the frames. Is it not the same for you?

No, your brain is fast enough to create an illusion of continuous motion depending on the frame rate you perceive. You observe discrete motion when the frame rate is small, otherwise, your brain creates an illusory continuous motion. How does the brain do that? No-one knows.

My brain creates an illusion?

Yes, and your mind perceives it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is not the definition of mind in my worldview.

I believe this is the fundamental point and ground to the whole issue.

If you don't agree that the mind is merely a collective and bundle of mental activities, then you are likely to believe the mind is a sort of substance that is independent of the body. It this your belief re the mind, self and soul?
Such a concept of an independent mind is then extended to an independent soul that survives physical death.

On the contrary, note Hume's concept of self, therefrom including mind.

• Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

The point is an independent mind, self or soul has never been proven to be real.

Therefore if your theory of causality and continuous motion are grounded on an independent mind & objects independent of mind as discrete, your conclusions therefrom cannot be realistic.

I believe to deal with this issue of Causality and Continuous Motion we must dig into its most fundamental grounding issues, i.e.

All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I presume your grounding is that of 'realism' where the mind is an independent substance that is independent of all other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
On your realism basis, the default existence of independent things are discrete objects.
Therefore to you, there is no causality and no continuous motion.
But realism [an ideology] is never realistic.
Therefore all your conclusion therefrom are never realistic.

That is why you cannot grasp the various more realistic anti-realist views or the various relative views I have presented.

Therefore if you want to ensure your theories about causality and continuous motions are tenable, then first, you have to prove realism [the ideology] is realistic. Else we can debate till the cows come home.

The subject of mind is off topic so let's put it aside.

The mind is the ground for all your conclusions on this matter of causality.
We are looking into deeper grounds not wider horizontal ones.
If you do not take the mind into account, your conclusions would be groundless.

[Age]

Continuous motion as I explained requires that a moving object exists and exists not at now! This is impossible.

Just saying something occurs is NOT explaining HOW nor WHY 'it' occurs.

And, just saying or claiming that a moving object exists and exists not at now does NOT mean that this ACTUALLY occurs AT ALL.

As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN, this is just what you BELIEVE is true but which you ACTUALLY have absolutely NO proof of AT ALL.

Or, if you ACTUALLY do have proof for this claim of yours here, then you have CERTAINLY NOT produced 'it' for us to have a LOOK AT 'it'. Even though I have been continually asking you for 'it'.

Does ANY one in this forum accept and agree that "a moving object exists and exists NOT at now"?

If yes, then what PROOF do you have for this?

If you have NO proof, then WHY do you ACCEPT and AGREE WITH this claim?

In continuous motion yes. I already gave the proof in OP.

Okay. You have ALREADY PROVED that continuous motion does NOT exist and that motion is discrete.

But 'you', "bahman", are the ONLY one, here, who this has been "PROVED" to, and, very coincidentally, 'you' were holding this as true BEFORE 'you' even came up with the opening post here, anyway.

[Age]

No, the space between discrete motion can be so small that it cannot be measured simply.

If this, now, "space" "between discrete motion" can be so small that 'it' can NOT be measured, then HOW do you "KNOW" that 'it' exists?

And, WHY, EXACTLY, are you saying and claiming that 'it' does exist?

Because I have an argument against it.

1. Are you AWARE that if an 'argument' is NOT sound AND valid, then it is an 'argument' NOT worth even presenting, let alone discussing and talking about?

2. Are you AWARE that there is NOT one person, besides you, who agrees with and accepts your so-called "argument"? But, if you want to CLAIM that there is ANOTHER person, then bring them forward so we can talk to them and discuss this. They may be able to enlighten the rest of us here because you CERTAINLY ARE NOT "bahman".

3. Just because you, or ANY one, has a so-called "argument" for or against some thing, that in itself does NOT make the 'thing' True, Right NOR Correct.

Moreover, I already mentioned that the brain cheats us when we watch a film.

So, because the brain within that head CHEATS 'you' when it is watching films, that brain then TELLS (cheats) you into BELIEVING that there is separation in the motion of thee Universe, Itself.

Also, is it possible that the brain within that head is CHEATING you to BELIEVE things, which ACTUALLY are NOT true, and then TRICKS you into using examples of how films are somehow separated into, who knows how many, MANY different segments.

No, that is not my argument.

I KNOW that is NOT your "argument". And, I certainly HOPE it would NOT be your "argument", because those Facts are being said AGAINST your "argument".

My argument is OP.

And just how UNSOUND and INVALID that so-called "argument" REALLY IS has ALREADY been POINTED OUT, HIGHLIGHTED, and SHOWN by just about EVERY one in this thread.

But, unfortunately, for you, you are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of SEEING this as well.

I am just saying that because the motion seems, what we experience, continuous then it does not mean that in reality is continuous too. SO it is not a fact.

OF COURSE just because motion seems to be continuous does NOT mean that, in Reality, motion is continuous. What makes motion continuous is the Fact that motion IS continuous, correct?

And, if you DISAGREE with this, then you REALLY do NOT YET understand the way I write.

There is motion. Continuous motion is impossible as it is illustrated in OP. Therefore, the motion is discrete as the only alternative which is left.

'you', "bahman", is one of the most DISILLUSIONED ones in this forum.

This, so-called, "argument" of yours here, in the opening post, is just an example of what BELIEVE is true, but which you do NOT have ANY ACTUAL evidence, let alone proof, for. So, what you do is just make up just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that that will back up and support your BELIEFS. But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, what you said in the opening post, which was;
To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible. is ONLY your DISTORTED BELIEFS, alone.

Your first sentence is just nonsensical AND illogical. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and WILL make it make sense and logical.

Let us say that the 'it' word, in your sentence, refers to 'a ball', for example,. Now, 'To move, a ball, MUST NOT be at 'now', at the ball's current location, and then, be at the 'next instance' at another point'.

WHY do you make this CLAIM here?

And, did you get to the, so-called, "next instance", through a continuous process or did you just JUMP to the "next instance"?

By the way, the reason WHY you have such a DISTORTED BELIEF can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post, in this thread.

Your second sentence has just so MANY faults, flaws, and CONTRADICTIONS I am not even going to bother exposing them ALL. Or, maybe it is the way you LOOK AT and SEE what 'now' means or refers to, EXACTLY, WHY you have this view and BELIEF that you have here?

Your "conclusion' is just your BELIEF, which you had PRIOR anyway to when you came up with the first two sentences. Your first two sentences, again, is just you 'trying to' find absolutely ANY thing to help in supporting and backing up your ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEF.

I have no time to read all this nonsense.

And, ONCE AGAIN, when I PROVE the "other" is Wrong, in their BELIEFS and CLAIMS, responses like this are given.

ONCE AGAIN, absolute COWARDICE to just ADMIT when one was ACTUALLY Wrong, and PROVEN Wrong, prevails severely among the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

That is your problem if you cannot understand a simple argument.

Are you even slightly AWARE that just about NO one here so-called "understands your "simple" argument"?

REALLY, can you comprehend this Fact?

[Age]

That is not a proof but a claim.

OF COURSE that is a CLAIM, and NOT thee PROOF.

The CLAIM is; thee PROOF is in those things, which I have said and CLAIMED it was.

When people are READY TO, and have ENOUGH INTEREST, then they will FIND and SEE thee PROOF, which I am talking about here.

How much distance there is between when this is being written, and, when people are READY TO, and have become INTERESTED ENOUGH, is a whole other matter.

But if and when ANY one is INTERESTED ENOUGH, then I can SHOW them how they can FIND and SEE thee PROOF, "themselves".

Where is your proof for continuous motion?

ONCE AGAIN, WHERE the PROOF IS, is IN those things, which I have ALREADY said and CLAIMED it was, STILL IS, and ALWAYS WILL REMAIN.

That is, for thee umpteen time, Thee PROOF for 'continuous motion' is in the FUNDAMENTAL 'building blocks' of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, as well as in the way thee Universe, FUNDAMENTALLY, ACTUALLY WORKS.

Did you comprehend, THIS TIME, WHERE the PROOF IS?