Continuous motion possible or impossible

[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.

It does NOT, as SHOWN and PROVEN True ALREADY, in EVERY thread.

Also, you were previously asked; Can you tell me something that is NOT in continuous motion?

Have you answered this CLARIFYING QUESTION already?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If yes, then WHERE?

Any motion is not continuous.

[Age]

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.

Yes VERY True. Just like in the example that "bahman" experiences that motion is NOT continuous, which is ACTUALLY VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL, and True.

To "bahman" motion appears discrete, which is VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL and ACTUALLY True.

[bahman]

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.

Yes VERY True. Just like in the example that "bahman" experiences that motion is NOT continuous, which is ACTUALLY VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL, and True.

To "bahman" motion appears discrete, which is VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL and ACTUALLY True.

What you are talking about?

[Age]

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.

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.

We are talking about the motion of an object rather than if an object, which looks solid, is mostly empty space or not.

[Age]

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.

The continuous motion requires that the motion occurs at now which this requires that cause and effect lay at the same instant so-called now. We agree that cause and effect cannot be simultaneous therefore we are dealing with a discrete process.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' that, supposedly, agrees that cause and effect cannot be simultaneous and thus does NOT happen in the 'now'?

[Age]

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.

Just google neural net. Case closed.

Just LOOK AT what IS instead of just LOOKING FOR what you currently BELIEVE is true. That way what can be CLEARLY SEEN is thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of things.

[bahman]

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.

The continuous motion requires that the motion occurs at now which this requires that cause and effect lay at the same instant so-called now. We agree that cause and effect cannot be simultaneous therefore we are dealing with a discrete process.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' that, supposedly, agrees that cause and effect cannot be simultaneous and thus does NOT happen in the 'now'?

If the effect is there at now then there is no need for a cause at now.

[Age]

What you experience is not proof of continuous motion.

Are you AWARE that this CLAIM of yours here ACTUALLY MEANS that what you experience, that is; "motion is not continuous", is NOT proof of "non continuous motion"?

If you were NOT, then you are NOW.

Motion is either discrete or continuous.

So what?

There is no other option.

This is only MORE of your DISTRACTION TACTICS to take the reader AWAY from the Fact that you are completely and utterly UNABLE to answer the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you Honestly, because if you did, then you would REFUTE what you have been saying and CLAIMING here.

You have NOT provided ANY proof AT ALL that motion is discrete, while absolutely EVERY thing within thee Universe, Itself, and even the WHOLE Universe, Itself, PROVES that motion is continuous. And, could NEVER be ANY other way.

Remember the example of film.

The example of 'film' is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS AND USELESS, for you, as 'film' is CONNECTED TOGETHER, and is thus CONTINUOUS.

So, ANY example of 'film' ACTUALLY works AGAINST your BELIEF and CLAIMS here.

But the experience you have when you watch a film is an illusion. The reality is that the film is discrete.

But the 'film' IS NOT discrete. As IS PROVEN when one LOOKS AT the 'film'.

All one HAS TO DO to SEE this Fact is just obtain a 'film', rolled it out in front of you, LOOK AT the individual frames before you and what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that ALL of those frames are JOINED TOGETHER. There are NO ACTUAL 'gaps' ANYWHERE. The 'roll of film' is LITERALLY one CONTINUOUS roll.

[Age]

I am done with you.

You are 'done' BECAUSE your "arguments" are FAULTY. So, you have absolutely NOTHING MORE of ANY substance to present in regards to your CLAIM here.

I am done with you.

You are done, ONCE AGAIN, because your own "arguments" here are just fallacious.

[bahman]

Are you AWARE that this CLAIM of yours here ACTUALLY MEANS that what you experience, that is; "motion is not continuous", is NOT proof of "non continuous motion"?

If you were NOT, then you are NOW.

Motion is either discrete or continuous.

So what?

There is no other option.

This is only MORE of your DISTRACTION TACTICS to take the reader AWAY from the Fact that you are completely and utterly UNABLE to answer the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you Honestly, because if you did, then you would REFUTE what you have been saying and CLAIMING here.

You have NOT provided ANY proof AT ALL that motion is discrete, while absolutely EVERY thing within thee Universe, Itself, and even the WHOLE Universe, Itself, PROVES that motion is continuous. And, could NEVER be ANY other way.

The example of 'film' is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS AND USELESS, for you, as 'film' is CONNECTED TOGETHER, and is thus CONTINUOUS.

So, ANY example of 'film' ACTUALLY works AGAINST your BELIEF and CLAIMS here.

But the experience you have when you watch a film is an illusion. The reality is that the film is discrete.

But the 'film' IS NOT discrete. As IS PROVEN when one LOOKS AT the 'film'.

All one HAS TO DO to SEE this Fact is just obtain a 'film', rolled it out in front of you, LOOK AT the individual frames before you and what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that ALL of those frames are JOINED TOGETHER. There are NO ACTUAL 'gaps' ANYWHERE. The 'roll of film' is LITERALLY one CONTINUOUS roll.

What I said is very relevant. You need to think through.

[bahman]

You are 'done' BECAUSE your "arguments" are FAULTY. So, you have absolutely NOTHING MORE of ANY substance to present in regards to your CLAIM here.

I am done with you.

You are done, ONCE AGAIN, because your own "arguments" here are just fallacious.

Believe it as you please but you are wrong.

[Age]

Sure, but I am moving on a grid.

WHAT 'grid'?

The grid that any moving object jumps from one point to another point.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of 'things' existing in IMAGINATION ONLY, but NOT ACTUALLY ANYWHERE ELSE. And, this ONLY occurs because this one BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, but which they have absolutely NO proof for, let alone there being ANY actual evidence for.

Cause and effect.

Cause and effect ACTUALLY SUPPORTS and PROVES 'continuous motion', while rejecting and refuting ANY NOTION or IDEA about "non continuous motion".

Realy? Can cause and effect lay at the same time?

Not just 'can' cause and effect lat at the same place AND moment, cause and effect ONLY ACTUALLY happens AND occurs this way. As evidenced AND PROVEN True by the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

Remember, they cannot lay at the same point.

WHAT, EXACTLY, SUPPOSEDLY can NOT lay at 'some point'?

WHAT 'point' are you referring to, EXACTLY? And,

'That point' in relation to what, EXACTLY?

I am referring to the same point at a time.

I asked you THREE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, but because of your INABILITIES you were ONLY able to respond the way you have here, and not actually CLARIFY ANY one of those questions.

Well I will refer to the same point at a time. Therefore, this PROVES that 'motion' IS continuous.

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUS of this CLAIM here is AS ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as your CLAIM IS here.

[Age]

It does as I elaborated in another thread.

It does NOT, as SHOWN and PROVEN True ALREADY, in EVERY thread.

Also, you were previously asked; Can you tell me something that is NOT in continuous motion?

Have you answered this CLARIFYING QUESTION already?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If yes, then WHERE?

Any motion is not continuous.

'Motion', itself, IS continuous.

The RIDICULOUSNESS of speaking like this, to "each other", SPEAKS for itself.

[Age]

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

Yes VERY True. Just like in the example that "bahman" experiences that motion is NOT continuous, which is ACTUALLY VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL, and True.

To "bahman" motion appears discrete, which is VERY DIFFERENT to what IS REAL and ACTUALLY True.

What you are talking about?

You CLAIM that 'we' cannot rely on 'experience', because what 'it' APPEARS to 'us' could be different to what IS ACTUALLY True and REAL.

I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING the readers that what APPEARS to "bahman" is that 'motion' is NOT continuous, AND that 'we' can NOT rely on the 'experience' of "bahman" to guide 'us' to what is True and REAL. Because what APPEARS to "bahman" could be and ACTUALLY IS different to what IS REAL.

Although "bahman" ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what "bahman" 'experiences' IS ACTUALLY what IS REAL.

So, what I am ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT is that "bahman" makes the CLAIM that 'it' cannot rely on 'experience' BUT is ACTUALLY relying on 'its' own 'experiences' to make 'its' CLAIMS here. Which is EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL as well as being VERY CONTRADICTORY.

Do you KNOW what I am talking about NOW? Or, do you STILL do NOT YET KNOW?

By the way, most of your questions, and some of your statements, are written incorrectly, in english.

"What you are talking about", is a STATEMENT. Whereas, "What are you talking about", is a QUESTION. Just adding a question mark onto a STATEMENT can just create confusion in readers, who are Truly OPEN, which leads to MORE CLARIFYING questions being posed towards you.

[bahman]

WHAT 'grid'?

The grid that any moving object jumps from one point to another point.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of 'things' existing in IMAGINATION ONLY, but NOT ACTUALLY ANYWHERE ELSE. And, this ONLY occurs because this one BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, but which they have absolutely NO proof for, let alone there being ANY actual evidence for.

Cause and effect ACTUALLY SUPPORTS and PROVES 'continuous motion', while rejecting and refuting ANY NOTION or IDEA about "non continuous motion".

Realy? Can cause and effect lay at the same time?

Not just 'can' cause and effect lat at the same place AND moment, cause and effect ONLY ACTUALLY happens AND occurs this way. As evidenced AND PROVEN True by the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

WHAT, EXACTLY, SUPPOSEDLY can NOT lay at 'some point'?

WHAT 'point' are you referring to, EXACTLY? And,

'That point' in relation to what, EXACTLY?

I am referring to the same point at a time.

I asked you THREE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, but because of your INABILITIES you were ONLY able to respond the way you have here, and not actually CLARIFY ANY one of those questions.

Well I will refer to the same point at a time. Therefore, this PROVES that 'motion' IS continuous.

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUS of this CLAIM here is AS ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as your CLAIM IS here.

If the cause and effect lay at the same instant in time then what is the use of cause? What you have is just a continuous effect.