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 »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:50 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:42 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:35 pm But there is a problem in the second case. The moving object ceases to exist at one point and begins to exist at the immediate point at now. This means that the object exists and exists not at the same position at now. This problem is due to the fact that the number of immediate points is unbound, even bigger than infinity. There is no problem in the first case.
Oh noooooooooooo, bahman. Just when you seemed to make sense!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RApvaQ0uGTw
What is this? An argument? By the way, do you have a position at any given moment? :mrgreen:
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
That is required for motion. If an object moves it should not exist at the previous points in order to exist at now.
You keep RE-REPEATING more or less the EXACT SAME things. However, I am NOT asking you to RE-REPEAT ANY thing AT ALL, and what I am ACTUALLY asking you is for CLARIFICATION.

Just LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS in the questions I pose, to you, for CLARIFICATION, and just answer those words alone, PLEASE.
Can you become tall without losing to being short?
If you are asking, "Can you become taller without losing shortness?" Then,

1. You do NOT YET KNOW what the 'you' is, EXACTLY.

2. There is NO 'tall' NOR 'short' here.

3. As the human body gets 'taller' (or 'longer') the 'shortness' gets less.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm The same applies to motion. An object cannot be in second place without not being in the first place.
What?

This is a GREAT example of how these adult human beings would say just about ANY thing to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and very strongly held onto BELIEFS.

What does an 'object' "being in first place" even actually mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

How can an 'object' "be in second place"?

WHY can an 'object' "not be in second place without being in the first place"?

Was EVERY 'object', in the Universe, "in first place"?

And, what is "first place" and "second place" in reference to, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
The two points is that the objects exist and exist not at now for continuous motion.
Therefore, is 'continuous motion' possible, to you?
No.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
This is illustrated in OP.
What does your use of the 'this' word here refer to, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
The question is where do get the excess energy from?
What do you mean by 'excess energy'?

Where the ACTUAL energy comes from remains the same.

Which is the EXACT SAME PLACE ALL energy comes from.
I mean the energy that is needed to bring about the new object at the new position.
Well where the energy comes from, here, is the EXACT SAME place ALL energy comes from.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
The quantum field theory is our best understanding of motion in the quantum regime.
That may be 'your' best understanding, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT 'our' best understanding.
Do you have a better theory?
I do NOT do 'theory'.

I much prefer to just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am What you have said here is equivalent to saying, "The sun revolves around the earth", and, "this is our best understanding of motion", therefore, this implies, this is THEE ACTUAL best understanding. Which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, to those who ACTUALLY KNOW better. Just like 'your' best understanding is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect to those of 'us' who ACTUALLY KNOW better.
I am not saying that the sun moves around the earth.
No you are not. But, what you are saying is just as Wrong and False as "the sun revolves around the earth". As has ALREADY been PROVED True.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
The creation field creates particles at a later time.
If ANY said to you the creator creates things at a later time, then are you able to SEE the CONTRADICTION in this?
What do you mean with the creator?
WHY do you NOT answer CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

What are you AFRAID of, EXACTLY?

ANY thing that creates some thing.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am If yes, then WHY can you NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in what you wrote?
There is no contradiction.
Yes there is. As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am If you were to say, "because there is NONE", then please EXPLAIN HOW a so-called "creation field" could create particles, AFTER the particles have ALREADY been created.
"How" is a meaningless question. It just does.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This is WHERE you FAIL, completely.

So, to you, already existing particles have NOT even been created yet.

This is EXACTLY WHY what you are saying here is a complete CONTRADICTION, and the most laughable part of this is that you are COMPLETELY BLINDED to all of this by your own BELIEFS, which are OBVIOUSLY VERY DISTORTED, Wrong, False, AND Incorrect.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:50 pm
Well, if the distance between two events is not zero then you are talking about a discrete process.
NO I AM NOT.

If the distance between "two events" is not zero, then that just MEANS there is an ACTUAL 'distance', and that would be what I was talking about, that is; if that is what I was talking about.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED True, is that I was NOT talking about ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL. And, All I did here was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY.
Well, I should have say that if the distance between two events is not zero then we are dealing with a discrete process.
What, EXACTLY, makes, let us say, ' the distance between the two events of "yesterday" and "tomorrow" ', a discrete process? The distance is OBVIOUSLY NOT zero, correct?
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm
So you are claiming that there is no motion in reality?
NO. NOT AT ALL.

And, this would be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one of the completely and utterly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, which you continually make here.

Oh, and by the way, I am claiming what I have ALREADY CLAIMED. That is; There IS motion, and that 'it' IS, ALWAYS, continuous.
Ok, but that is wrong.
LOL Okay. Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of yours?

If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:30 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:53 am
There is a space between two immediate points in the continuous limit (what calculus is based on) but there is not in the continuous regime. This however leads to another problem, the number of immediate points is unbound in the continuous regime!
If there is any space between immediate points in a so-called continuous entity, it is not continuous and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.

But if there is no space between immediate points in a continuous entity, it is truly continuous but there is no room for discreteness between the continuous points and accordingly no possibility of discreteness anywhere in a continuous motion.

Continuous motion is possible. Discrete motion is impossible.

QED
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?
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:25 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:53 pm
Could you define continuous motion and provide your argument in favor of it?
To me,

'motion' is; the action or process of moving or being moved and/or the phenomenon in which an object changes its position. And,

'continuous' is; forming an unbroken whole; without interruption.

So, I define 'continuous motion' as; the process of forming an unbroken whole, through movement, without interruption.

And my argument for 'continuous motion', in regards to the Universe, Itself, or Reality, is;

What thee Universe is ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY made up of and how thee Universe ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY WORKS. Or, in other words,

If the Universe began, or will end, or if there is an interrupted movement of the Universe, Itself, then there is NOT 'continuous motion'.
There is absolutely NO proof NOR even ANY indication that there was a beginning to EVERY thing, and, from my perspective, at the moment of NOW EVERY thing is continually moving, and until ACTUAL PROOF of some thing being interrupted in movement or that thee Universe/Everything did ACTUALLY begin, or will end, then the Fact that things are 'continuously moving' NOW MEANS that they ALWAYS WILL.
Therefore, until SOME one PROVIDES ACTUAL PROOF where movement is ACTUALLY broken or interrupted, then what I have observed remains THE SAME. That is; If there is just one thing that is ACTUALLY interrupted in movement, and this can be SHOWN, then 'continuous movement' for ALL does NOT exist and thus IS IMPOSSIBLE.
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?
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm 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.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:37 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:53 pm
So what? The reality could be discrete and it is.
If ANY one wants to SUGGEST that "Reality COULD BE discrete", then just SHOW HOW Reality COULD BE discrete. You have NOT YET done this "bahman".

And, if ANY one wants to CLAIM that "Reality IS discrete", then just PROVE this.

How much more SIMPLER could this get?
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.
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:30 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:46 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:55 pm
Where is your proof?
WHERE I have been continually TELLING you. Thee PROOF is in the FUNDAMENTAL 'building blocks' of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, as well as in the way thee Universe, FUNDAMENTALLY, ACTUALLY WORKS.
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".
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:31 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:51 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:56 pm
My argument proves that motion cannot be continuous.
But I think you will find that there is NOT a thing that DISAGREES with YOUR version of 'motion' and how 'that version' cannot be continuous, anyway.

Your, so-called, "argument" only proves some thing that could NOT be disproved anyway. So, "your argument" is NOT REALLY worth talking about NOR sharing.

Also, the thing about "your argument" is that it does NOT even address what most adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would consider what 'continuous motion' even means or refers to anyway.
I am done with you.
You are DONE because you can NOT counter NOR refute ANY thing in what I have said here.
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:58 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:57 pm
There are two types of motions, discrete and continuous. Continuous is impossible so we are left with the discrete.
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.
Age
Posts: 20202
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:33 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:00 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:00 pm
A continuous motion is a motion that the object moves on any immediate point on a continuous curve.
How MANY people here, in this forum, agree with and accept this "definition" for the words 'continuous motion'?
So you disagree with my definition?
YES.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:15 pm
Mind does not move.
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.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by Janoah »

bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:39 pm 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).
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:21 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
You keep RE-REPEATING more or less the EXACT SAME things. However, I am NOT asking you to RE-REPEAT ANY thing AT ALL, and what I am ACTUALLY asking you is for CLARIFICATION.

Just LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS in the questions I pose, to you, for CLARIFICATION, and just answer those words alone, PLEASE.
Can you become tall without losing to being short?
If you are asking, "Can you become taller without losing shortness?" Then,

1. You do NOT YET KNOW what the 'you' is, EXACTLY.

2. There is NO 'tall' NOR 'short' here.

3. As the human body gets 'taller' (or 'longer') the 'shortness' gets less.
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm The same applies to motion. An object cannot be in second place without not being in the first place.
What?

This is a GREAT example of how these adult human beings would say just about ANY thing to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and very strongly held onto BELIEFS.

What does an 'object' "being in first place" even actually mean or refer to, EXACTLY?
You move from one room to another one. The first room is the first place.
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
How can an 'object' "be in second place"?
When it moves.
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
WHY can an 'object' "not be in second place without being in the first place"?
Because that is the very definition of motion.
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
Was EVERY 'object', in the Universe, "in first place"?
Yes. First however refers to a specific time.
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
And, what is "first place" and "second place" in reference to, EXACTLY?
In a reference that the object moves in.
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
Therefore, is 'continuous motion' possible, to you?
No.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am What does your use of the 'this' word here refer to, EXACTLY?



What do you mean by 'excess energy'?

Where the ACTUAL energy comes from remains the same.

Which is the EXACT SAME PLACE ALL energy comes from.
I mean the energy that is needed to bring about the new object at the new position.
Well where the energy comes from, here, is the EXACT SAME place ALL energy comes from.
The total energy is a constant. You cannot add and subtract from it.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
That may be 'your' best understanding, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT 'our' best understanding.
Do you have a better theory?
I do NOT do 'theory'.

I much prefer to just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead.
Ok.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am What you have said here is equivalent to saying, "The sun revolves around the earth", and, "this is our best understanding of motion", therefore, this implies, this is THEE ACTUAL best understanding. Which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, to those who ACTUALLY KNOW better. Just like 'your' best understanding is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect to those of 'us' who ACTUALLY KNOW better.
I am not saying that the sun moves around the earth.
No you are not. But, what you are saying is just as Wrong and False as "the sun revolves around the earth". As has ALREADY been PROVED True.
What you are talking about?
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am

If ANY said to you the creator creates things at a later time, then are you able to SEE the CONTRADICTION in this?
What do you mean with the creator?
WHY do you NOT answer CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

What are you AFRAID of, EXACTLY?

ANY thing that creates some thing.
Ok. There is no contradiction in creator creating things at a later time.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am If yes, then WHY can you NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in what you wrote?
There is no contradiction.
Yes there is. As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN.
Where?
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am If you were to say, "because there is NONE", then please EXPLAIN HOW a so-called "creation field" could create particles, AFTER the particles have ALREADY been created.
"How" is a meaningless question. It just does.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This is WHERE you FAIL, completely.

So, to you, already existing particles have NOT even been created yet.

This is EXACTLY WHY what you are saying here is a complete CONTRADICTION, and the most laughable part of this is that you are COMPLETELY BLINDED to all of this by your own BELIEFS, which are OBVIOUSLY VERY DISTORTED, Wrong, False, AND Incorrect.
Whatever.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am NO I AM NOT.

If the distance between "two events" is not zero, then that just MEANS there is an ACTUAL 'distance', and that would be what I was talking about, that is; if that is what I was talking about.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED True, is that I was NOT talking about ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL. And, All I did here was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY.
Well, I should have say that if the distance between two events is not zero then we are dealing with a discrete process.
What, EXACTLY, makes, let us say, ' the distance between the two events of "yesterday" and "tomorrow" ', a discrete process? The distance is OBVIOUSLY NOT zero, correct?
Yes. By discrete process, I mean that the distance between immediate events is not zero.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am NO. NOT AT ALL.

And, this would be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one of the completely and utterly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, which you continually make here.

Oh, and by the way, I am claiming what I have ALREADY CLAIMED. That is; There IS motion, and that 'it' IS, ALWAYS, continuous.
Ok, but that is wrong.
LOL Okay. Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of yours?

If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?
What is your proof?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:27 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:30 am
If there is any space between immediate points in a so-called continuous entity, it is not continuous and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.

But if there is no space between immediate points in a continuous entity, it is truly continuous but there is no room for discreteness between the continuous points and accordingly no possibility of discreteness anywhere in a continuous motion.

Continuous motion is possible. Discrete motion is impossible.

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

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:25 am To me,

'motion' is; the action or process of moving or being moved and/or the phenomenon in which an object changes its position. And,

'continuous' is; forming an unbroken whole; without interruption.

So, I define 'continuous motion' as; the process of forming an unbroken whole, through movement, without interruption.

And my argument for 'continuous motion', in regards to the Universe, Itself, or Reality, is;

What thee Universe is ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY made up of and how thee Universe ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY WORKS. Or, in other words,

If the Universe began, or will end, or if there is an interrupted movement of the Universe, Itself, then there is NOT 'continuous motion'.
There is absolutely NO proof NOR even ANY indication that there was a beginning to EVERY thing, and, from my perspective, at the moment of NOW EVERY thing is continually moving, and until ACTUAL PROOF of some thing being interrupted in movement or that thee Universe/Everything did ACTUALLY begin, or will end, then the Fact that things are 'continuously moving' NOW MEANS that they ALWAYS WILL.
Therefore, until SOME one PROVIDES ACTUAL PROOF where movement is ACTUALLY broken or interrupted, then what I have observed remains THE SAME. That is; If there is just one thing that is ACTUALLY interrupted in movement, and this can be SHOWN, then 'continuous movement' for ALL does NOT exist and thus IS IMPOSSIBLE.
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.
Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm 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. My argument is OP. 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.

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:37 am If ANY one wants to SUGGEST that "Reality COULD BE discrete", then just SHOW HOW Reality COULD BE discrete. You have NOT YET done this "bahman".

And, if ANY one wants to CLAIM that "Reality IS discrete", then just PROVE this.

How much more SIMPLER could this get?
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. That is your problem if you cannot understand a simple argument.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:08 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:30 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:46 am

WHERE I have been continually TELLING you. Thee PROOF is in the FUNDAMENTAL 'building blocks' of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, as well as in the way thee Universe, FUNDAMENTALLY, ACTUALLY WORKS.
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?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:10 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:31 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:51 am

But I think you will find that there is NOT a thing that DISAGREES with YOUR version of 'motion' and how 'that version' cannot be continuous, anyway.

Your, so-called, "argument" only proves some thing that could NOT be disproved anyway. So, "your argument" is NOT REALLY worth talking about NOR sharing.

Also, the thing about "your argument" is that it does NOT even address what most adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would consider what 'continuous motion' even means or refers to anyway.
I am done with you.
You are DONE because you can NOT counter NOR refute ANY thing in what I have said here.
I am tired of teaching you elementary things, yet you don't understand.
Post Reply