Continuous motion possible or impossible

[bahman]

Will you EXPLAIN WHY ANY thing "should not" 'exist at now', in order to become a new thing later?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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? The same applies to motion. An object cannot be in second place without not being in the first place.

If some thing is the WHOLE point, that one needs to understand, then there can NOT be "another point". Anyway, what is the 'it', and what do you mean that it 'also' exists at now?

And, what EXACTLY are the two points, which supposedly lead to a contradiction at now?

The two points is that the objects exist and exist not at now for continuous motion.

Therefore, is 'continuous motion' possible, to you?

No.

To me, this is NOT following, logically. And, I am not even able to think of a clarifying question to ask you here, which could help me in better understanding you. Are you at all able to say what you have here in another way?

Also, here you talk about 'the whole point', 'another point', 'these two points', and 'the key point' and how there is some support contradiction, which I am YET to SEE at all.

This is illustrated in OP.

What does your use of the 'this' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Well there is NOTHING wrong NOR contradictory here, well for me anyway.

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.

So what? It is ONLY a 'theory', which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT necessarily have absolutely ANY thing to do with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

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?

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.

How EXACTLY could a field, which is a so-called "creation operator', exist at a later time? ALL 'creators' would HAVE TO exist PRIOR to their creation, correct?

Or is this NOT correct, to you.

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?

If yes, then WHY can you NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in what you wrote?

There is no contradiction.

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.

How could it even be a POSSIBILITY that the 'distance' between two, perceived, separate or different 'events' be 'zero', let alone be an ACTUALITY?

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.

If there is NO 'distance', then there NEVER could be TWO EVENTS.

By the way, just to make this MORE CONFUSING for some of 'you', there is REALLY EVER ONLY One 'event'. The appearance of different or separate 'events' exist ONLY in human thought AND language.

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.

[bahman]

Is there any space on a continuous line between an immediate point and the one next to it?

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.

[bahman]

This does NOT mean that continuous motion does NOT exist.


This is because Reality ACTUALLY IS continuous, as can be PROVEN True.

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

There are MULTITUDES of examples where 'you', human beings, are FOOLED by the very brains within human bodies. These examples can be CLEARLY SEEN in some of your writings here "bahman".


So what?

What has another of 'your', human created, things got to do with Reality, Itself.

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.

[bahman]

WHY 'continuous motion' is a fact, is because, just like EVERY other FACT, 'it' is KNOWN and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED to be True.

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.

[bahman]

It is ACTUAL EVERY thing, which SHOWS, and thus EXPLAINS, that motion is continuous.

The Fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that SHOWS motion is NOT continuous is what EXPLAINS that motion is continuous.

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.

[bahman]

WHY do you say 'motion' is "discrete", "broken", or "separated"?

What ACTUAL things in thee Universe SHOWS you that 'motion' is 'discrete'?

And, what does the word 'discrete' mean or refer to, to you?

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.

[bahman]

Unbroken movement.

What is 'continuous motion', to you?

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?

[bahman]

Note this Zen Story;

• Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
  One said, "The flag moves."
  The other said, "The wind moves."
  They argued.
  Hui Neng, The Sixth Patriarch said, "Dear fellows! It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves."
  The two monks were struck with awe.

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.

So this issue whether Continuous motion possible or impossible must be considered within the specific Framework or perspective.
Bahman has merely considered one specific perspective [logic] and imposed that an conflate it with other more realistic perspectives.

I am saying that continuous motion cannot exist in reality. I don't see what is the problem with using logic.

Surely you understand logic is merely a tool to understand reality, but logic do not work all the time to represent reality.

In this case, your logical conclusion are not in alignment with empirical reality where continuous motion is possible.

You are not saying anything useful as far as you don't provide a counterargument.

[bahman]

Is there any space on a continuous line between an immediate point and the one next to it?

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!

Calculus and other forms of mathematical modelling are not reality. The problem is not reality. The problem lies in the methematical models.
There are no points in nature. That is a pur artefact of maths.
We are all in constant and continual motion. Maths may try to model that but there are anomalies as there are so many in maths.

So now does not exist?

[commonsense]

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.

Are you saying my 2 paragraphs above are lies?

[commonsense]

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

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.

But the OP has been resoundingly refuted by everyone here.

[commonsense]

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.

Even if an object in motion exists now but not at then, the process of changing from an object to its replacement is a smooth process. At no point between now and then is there anything other than the object or its replacement. Since motion is change and change is continuous, motion is continuous. QED.

Please say something substantive in replying, rather than repeating the same claim you have already made. Please don’t say that motion is discrete—we’ve all heard you say that. Please don’t deny that you’ve been presented with counter arguments when nearly everything written in reply to your same old refrain is an argument opposing your hackneyed phraseology.

I thank you in advance for your cogent response in advancing this discussion.

[Sculptor]

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!

Calculus and other forms of mathematical modelling are not reality. The problem is not reality. The problem lies in the methematical models.
There are no points in nature. That is a pure artefact of maths.
We are all in constant and continual motion. Maths may try to model that but there are anomalies as there are so many in maths.

So now does not exist?

Yes.
"Now" has no value. It is everything and nothing we are all travelling into the future, whilst remaining in the present. We take "now" with us, but as soon as it is mentioned - it is passed.

No points in time exist. They are only references.

[bahman]

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.

Are you saying my 2 paragraphs above are lies?

There is no space between immediate points in a continuous entity. That is true but that is not the whole story. The point is that to have a motion along a continuous curve, the object must not exist at one point and exist at the immediate point. But there is a contradiction here since there is no space between two immediate points which means that the object must exist and exist not at now.

[bahman]

Calculus and other forms of mathematical modelling are not reality. The problem is not reality. The problem lies in the methematical models.
There are no points in nature. That is a pure artefact of maths.
We are all in constant and continual motion. Maths may try to model that but there are anomalies as there are so many in maths.

So now does not exist?

Yes.
"Now" has no value. It is everything and nothing we are all travelling into the future, whilst remaining in the present. We take "now" with us, but as soon as it is mentioned - it is passed.

No points in time exist. They are only references.

But if now or any other point in time does not exist then we have two separate segments of time.