Continuous motion possible or impossible

[bahman]

That is your counterargument?

A counter argument is not required when no argument of substance has been presented.

I am done with you.

[Sculptor]

That is your counterargument?

A counter argument is not required when no argument of substance has been presented.

I am done with you.

[bahman]

A counter argument is not required when no argument of substance has been presented.

I am done with you.

You are hopeless as usual.

[Sculptor]

I am done with you.

You are hopeless as usual.

And yet you are still moving

[bahman]

You are hopeless as usual.

And yet you are still moving

Sure, but I am moving on a grid. Cause and effect. Remember, they cannot lay at the same point.

[commonsense]

So that is your counterargument?

A counter argument is not required when no argument of substance has been presented.

But I have a few arguments against the continuous motion: 1) The OP, 2) here, etc.

The cause and effect are unique events. One follows the other sequentially. This doesn’t make continuousness impossible.

[bahman]

A counter argument is not required when no argument of substance has been presented.

But I have a few arguments against the continuous motion: 1) The OP, 2) here, etc.

The cause and effect are unique events. One follows the other sequentially. This doesn’t make continuousness impossible.

It does as I elaborated in another thread.

[commonsense]

But I have a few arguments against the continuous motion: 1) The OP, 2) here, etc.

The cause and effect are unique events. One follows the other sequentially. This doesn’t make continuousness impossible.

It does as I elaborated in another thread.

You posited that gaps are possible, but not that the absence of a gap is impossible.

[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?

When a film is moving, it appears to be moving. When the film is not moving, it appears to be a series of individual frames.

[bahman]

The cause and effect are unique events. One follows the other sequentially. This doesn’t make continuousness impossible.

It does as I elaborated in another thread.

You posited that gaps are possible, but not that the absence of a gap is impossible.

No, I posited that the gap between cause and effect is certain if cause and effect are not simultaneous.

[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?

When a film is moving, it appears to be moving. When the film is not moving, it appears to be a series of individual frames.

My point was that we cannot rely on experience. What it appears and what is real could be different things.

[simplicity]

So a film is continuous?

When a film is moving, it appears to be moving. When the film is not moving, it appears to be a series of individual frames.

My point was that we cannot rely on experience. What it appears and what is real could be different things.

Experience is the ONLY thing you can rely on [but you must have the correct expectations], e.g., reality is relative to the distance you are from an object of interest.

[commonsense]

It does as I elaborated in another thread.

You posited that gaps are possible, but not that the absence of a gap is impossible.

No, I posited that the gap between cause and effect is certain if cause and effect are not simultaneous.

I see you’re saying not that gaps are possible but that they are certain. If you explain how that is so, you will have convinced me that I have been wrong.

[commonsense]

So a film is continuous?

When a film is moving, it appears to be moving. When the film is not moving, it appears to be a series of individual frames.

My point was that we cannot rely on experience. What it appears and what is real could be different things.

[redacted]

[Age]

Don't you know what a neural net is? Do you know what a neuron is? If yes then a neural net is a net of neurons.

Is that thee One and ONLY definition?

Also, and ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that while a human being has and holds a BELIEF, then they are NOT OPEN to SEEING what thee ACTUAL Reality IS, around them.

I asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, so do you KNOW WHY you did NOT answer it?

Yes, it is only a definition.

ONCE AGAIN, you 'TRY TO' DETRACT from what thee ACTUAL QUESTION was asking.

YOUR definition was OBVIOUSLY 'only a definition', but was it thee One and ONLY definition?

And, YOUR definition, which is 'only a definition' is NOT thee definition that MOST people use.

Also, noted is you did NOT answer my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you here.

Your questions are completely irrelevant to the topic.

This OBVIOUSLY is a complete and utter False, Wrong, AND Incorrect CLAIM of yours here.