Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Age]

But that is not the point whether cause and effect are continuous. The point is whether effect comes after cause.

What part does time play in continuity if not everything?

Time changes so it follows the same principle. It is discrete.

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.

[Sculptor]

What part does time play in continuity if not everything?

Time changes so it follows the same principle. It is discrete.

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.

[bahman]

Re-read my post. Explain how that one thing works and you will have converted me to believing your claim. Nothing else will do the same. Don’t tell me how something else doesn’t work. Don’t assume that a previous agreement still stands. The ball is in your court now.

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? 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.

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.

[Scott Mayers]

If you can't figure that out it is no wonder that you are confused by Xeno's paradox.
How did you type the post you just wrote?

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. 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. 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.

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. Note that when one introduces an apparently shocking fact, like that "motion is impossible", as Zeno himself supposedly introduced it, it is unfortunately rhetorical; but because it actually contradicts a logical inspection, it proves that either the logic is incomplete or the reality itself is contradictory. 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. 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. [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.]

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. 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.

[commonsense]

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? 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.

[bahman]

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? 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?

[bahman]

What part does time play in continuity if not everything?

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. 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. Time, therefore, changes if there is a motion.

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.

[bahman]

Time changes so it follows the same principle. It is discrete.

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.

[Sculptor]

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.

THen somehow he does the "impossible"

[bahman]

Bahman can't answer this, because no matter how hard he tries, he cannot move his fingers to type.

I already answered that.

THen somehow he does the "impossible"

No, in fact, it is very simple. Feel free to read my response to Age.

[Sculptor]

I already answered that.

THen somehow he does the "impossible"

No, in fact, it is very simple. Feel free to read my response to Age.

I can't do that because motion is impossible.
On you can do magic

[bahman]

THen somehow he does the "impossible"

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.

On you can do magic

There is no magic involved. Just simple logic.

[commonsense]

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?

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.

[bahman]

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?

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?

[commonsense]

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?

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?