Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Age]

Something which is allowed by math is possible otherwise is impossible.

Note I stated "Pure Mathematics" which is impossible to be real in contrast to "Applied Mathematics" which deal with the real.

You did not address this;

• If an object is not changing relatively to a given frame of reference, the object is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have a constant or time-invariant position with reference to its surroundings.
  As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined.[1] Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be in motion.[2]: 20–21
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion

The motion is discrete.

The words "the motion", on their own, like you have just written here do not make sense unless you add 'an object' to those words. For example, 'the motion' 'of the ball' 'when doing something' is ..., could make sense. But, just saying, " 'The motion' is discrete ", does not make sense, "in english". Well, to me, anyway.

There may be other "english" as first language speakers here who this does make sense to, and, if there is, then could they help me out here, please?

I am arguing against the continuous motion and not motion in general.

Are you able to explain what 'continuous motion' is to you, in another way?

[bahman]

Since continuous motion is first used in the title and the OP, it is the thread’s author that should first give his ideas about what continuous motion is.

A continuous motion is a motion that an object moves through any immediate point on a continuous line.

Well OF COURSE this could NEVER EVER be possible, correct?

Why not?

Also, and by the way, in "english", your sentence here does NOT appear to even make any sense, anyway.

How could my sentence does not make any sense if you already judge it as an impossibility?

For example, HOW can an object move through 'a motion', and, what are examples of 'immediate points on a continuous line'?

The points that lay on top of each other.

[bahman]

Note I stated "Pure Mathematics" which is impossible to be real in contrast to "Applied Mathematics" which deal with the real.

You did not address this;

• If an object is not changing relatively to a given frame of reference, the object is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have a constant or time-invariant position with reference to its surroundings.
  As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined.[1] Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be in motion.[2]: 20–21
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion

The motion is discrete.

The words "the motion", on their own, like you have just written here do not make sense unless you add 'an object' to those words. For example, 'the motion' 'of the ball' 'when doing something' is ..., could make sense. But, just saying, " 'The motion' is discrete ", does not make sense, "in english". Well, to me, anyway.

There may be other "english" as first language speakers here who this does make sense to, and, if there is, then could they help me out here, please?

I am arguing against the continuous motion and not motion in general.

Are you able to explain what 'continuous motion' is to you, in another way?

When I say the motion is discrete I mean the motion in general, whether it is a motion of the ball, etc.

I am arguing against the continuous motion and not motion in general.

Are you able to explain what 'continuous motion' is to you, in another way?

I already defined it. Sorry.

[Age]

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.

In Calculus, the one theorem left out of the best detailed texts that show step by step theorems for everything else is the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Here is what James Stewart's Calculus texts mentions:

An important property of continous functions is expressed by the following theorem whose proof is found in more advanced books on calculus.

...
It is important that the function f in the theorem be continuous. The Intermediate Value theorem is not true in general for discontinuous functions.

The point is that you are thinking correctly but it goes much deeper than some here are thinking about. Note that the last sentence of Stewart's above asserts this not true in general for discrete functions. Thus the a contradiction does exist when you do question motion discretely. I hold that contradiction is the 'force' of all change and something I've raised before in various threads. Technically, even force though can be thought of as merely discrete possiblities ordered like the frame of a film strip.

All of Zeno's paradoxes dealt with this and are real if bound in time or place. I argued this in three segments on 'walls' here a long while back. The end points, such as a beginning and a final end each are two of these. The third is any point in time or space in between (versus two points needed to define an interval).

The arrow paradox was the best to describe something physics had to deal with in the way you are trying to express it. The reason for Einstein's expressing that matter cannot reach the speed of light relates to this paradox too. Aristotle originally proposed that when things moved, it had to have something in it to keep it going. Although Newton corrected this by the first law, when time itself is also required to be questioned, we have to re-look at the paradox. This is like the fact that the point has an instantaneous velocity. Einstein may have used Zeno's Arrow paradox to postulate that the information of the mass of an object spreads perpendictular to its direction of motion... as it approaches the speed of light and why this is impossible. That this impossibility is related is no coincidence. Information is held by moving objects at a point by respecting that the point expands in some perpendicular direction to account for the differences of inertial states.

What Zeno does demonstrate is that there is no actual fixed point. Change is the norm. And so you can properly interpret change of both time and space as static images. But then for each image you need those 'copies', the second point you mentioned, for instance. This can be interpreted in set theory as the same concept of 'point' being aligned with an index set. Then each point is both the same 'point' yet having different possible arrangements. Then 'continuity' is just the collection of all possible ORDERED sets of points infinitesimally intermediate between any two arbitrarily selected points in space.

Glad to see that you agree that continuous motion is impossible whereas discrete one is possible.

Will you PROVIDE an example of absolutely ANY thing, which supposedly is not in continual motion, but in fact does stop and start, as would be the case NEEDED for discrete motion?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then we will WAIT.

[bahman]

In Calculus, the one theorem left out of the best detailed texts that show step by step theorems for everything else is the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Here is what James Stewart's Calculus texts mentions:



The point is that you are thinking correctly but it goes much deeper than some here are thinking about. Note that the last sentence of Stewart's above asserts this not true in general for discrete functions. Thus the a contradiction does exist when you do question motion discretely. I hold that contradiction is the 'force' of all change and something I've raised before in various threads. Technically, even force though can be thought of as merely discrete possiblities ordered like the frame of a film strip.

All of Zeno's paradoxes dealt with this and are real if bound in time or place. I argued this in three segments on 'walls' here a long while back. The end points, such as a beginning and a final end each are two of these. The third is any point in time or space in between (versus two points needed to define an interval).

The arrow paradox was the best to describe something physics had to deal with in the way you are trying to express it. The reason for Einstein's expressing that matter cannot reach the speed of light relates to this paradox too. Aristotle originally proposed that when things moved, it had to have something in it to keep it going. Although Newton corrected this by the first law, when time itself is also required to be questioned, we have to re-look at the paradox. This is like the fact that the point has an instantaneous velocity. Einstein may have used Zeno's Arrow paradox to postulate that the information of the mass of an object spreads perpendictular to its direction of motion... as it approaches the speed of light and why this is impossible. That this impossibility is related is no coincidence. Information is held by moving objects at a point by respecting that the point expands in some perpendicular direction to account for the differences of inertial states.

What Zeno does demonstrate is that there is no actual fixed point. Change is the norm. And so you can properly interpret change of both time and space as static images. But then for each image you need those 'copies', the second point you mentioned, for instance. This can be interpreted in set theory as the same concept of 'point' being aligned with an index set. Then each point is both the same 'point' yet having different possible arrangements. Then 'continuity' is just the collection of all possible ORDERED sets of points infinitesimally intermediate between any two arbitrarily selected points in space.

Glad to see that you agree that continuous motion is impossible whereas discrete one is possible.

Will you PROVIDE an example of absolutely ANY thing, which supposedly is not in continual motion, but in fact does stop and start, as would be the case NEEDED for discrete motion?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then we will WAIT.

Motion, in general, is discrete. You cannot see the discreteness because your brain emulates it continuously and because the distance between any two points is rather very very small.

[commonsense]

I NEVER said you were not.


Do you have ANY proof that EVERY thing is in motion, ALL THE TIME?

Use your brain you idiot.

Talk about being "brain dead".

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT keep up with what I have ACTUALLY been SAYING and MEANING here, based on your last post and this one.

Take a look out of your window tonight and watch the stars.

And if I did that, then HOW EXACTLY is this going to SHOW me the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF that absolutely EVERY thing is in motion, ALL THE TIME?

Look, if you have the PROOF that absolutely EVERY thing is in motion, ALL THE TIME, then just PROVIDE it. But, if you do NOT have it, then that is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE, and so just say that.

DO you really think they are moving that fast or could the earth be turning?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this PROVIDES thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF that EVERY thing is in motion, ALL THE TIME.

Just so you become AWARE and can KEEP UP with what I have been saying here. I say that I KNOW, for sure, that motion is continuous, ALWAYS, and that this is because of what thee One and ONLY Universe ACTUALLY IS and because of how this One and ONLY Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

So, I am NOT disagreeing with you, AT ALL here. (WHY you even NEED to be informed of this Fact SHOWS just how BLIND some people REALLY ARE). Anyway, I was just asking you, POLITELY, if you had ANY proof that EVERY thing is in motion, and continuous, and if YES, then would you provide that for us, PLEASE.

I ONLY ask, so, that IF you did PROVIDE ANY, then, if that was NEW proof to me, then I could add that to the list of proofs that I ALREADY HAVE.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, nearly always JUMP to the ASSUMPTION and/or CONCLUSION that when asked if they have proof for their claims, then the "other" was DISAGREEING with them.

The way they apparently can NOT seem to grasp the just idea that I am, literally, just meaning what is, literally, being said or asked for in the ACTUAL words that I use and write here, WITHOUT them adding some OTHER completely OFF TRACK meaning or intention into or behind just the ACTUAL words they see before them, seems NEVER ENDING. And, what makes this all the more humorous to observe and watch is that they also take what was written in books, like say the bible, literally, especially when they BELIEVE what that whole story is about is completely UNTRUE.

It's no wonder I normally ignore your posts.

And this EXPLAINS FULLY WHY you HAD NO IDEA AT ALL what my views ACTUALLY ARE, and WHY you were JUMPING to SO MANY Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS.

I suggest you IGNORE ALL of my posts from now on. That way you will NOT be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN as you ARE.

No one need prove that everything is in continuous motion in order to show that continuous motion is possible in at least one instance.

[Age]

Yes, it becomes a new thing later but it should not exist at now in order to become a new thing later. That is the whole point that one needs to understand.

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.

Another point is that it also exists at now. And these two points lead to a contradiction at now.

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?

In another word, the key point is a contradiction at now rather than whether the thing becomes a new thing or not later.

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?

The sequence of existence is forbidden by conservation laws since it requires a constant injection of energy to the system to ensure that the sequence is possible.

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.

In fact in quantum field theory, the motion is defined by a term that consists of two fields, one is the destruction operator at now and the other one creation operator at a later time.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

In mathematics and physics, we only have the continuous limit instead of the continuous regime. Continuous limit is defined as a discrete process when the distance between two events in the process is arbitrarily small but never zero. This just allows us to do calculations but people do not know what exactly happens in the continuous regime when the distance between two events is really zero.

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.

You are dealing with the same event when the distance between two events is zero otherwise you are dealing with a discrete process rather than continuous.

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?
[/quote]

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.

[commonsense]

A continuous motion is a motion that an object moves through any immediate point on a continuous line.

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

[Age]

There is no mathematical model for the continuous regime but the continuous limit.

This does NOT mean that continuous motion does NOT exist.

The reality seems continuous

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.

but we might get fooled by our brain.

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".

We in fact know that a film is made of frames but the movie seems continuous to us.

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?

[Age]

Why it is a fact?

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.

[Age]

None of these explains that the motion is continuous.

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.

[Age]

I am not saying that the motion is impossible. I am saying it is discrete.

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.

[Age]

Tell me what is continuous motion.

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'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As I had stated there are many relevant perspectives whether continuous motion is possible or impossible.

In the OP above the said 'thing' that is supposed to be in continuous motion is presumed to be a thing-in-itself. Such a presumption is grounded on an illusion. As such whatever conclusion derived from this presumption is illusory.

Another more realistic perspective is that so-called thing that is subject to continuous motion is not a thing-in-itself [an independent object] but an event or a state.

Here is a point from Timmer,

An event, something happening, entails that a State comes into existence which did not exist before.
It must contain something new which was not contained in the preceding appearance,
and thus perceiving an event means that one Perception follows another Perception (like Hume’s example),
but A is now followed by B (one ball followed after another),
as opposed to perceiving the pool table which is a non-event and therefore undetermined.

Thus, observing an event entails observing a determined order which is necessary, and observing an Object is not;
however, this distinction is not given by Perception, Sensibility does not think, Perception-wise both are exactly the same.[49]
The only way that one can make the distinction is if there is a Rule, a priori (else it would be inductive and contingent), which determines this,
and therefore the Experience of an event is only possible under this presupposition [of a rule]

The implication of the above is;
1. Time is not an independent thing and it flow continually into infinity.
2. The flow of one state/event A into another B is grounded on continuous time.
3. So it is not the case of one independent object A at t1 becoming object A2 at t2.
4. Therefore continuous motion is possible within an event [1 &2].

The above is a crude presentation, the detailed argument with complex premises is rather complex.

Time changes. Continuous change is impossible. Therefore, time changes discretely as well.

You may be heavily influenced by logic and mathematics.
I believe you did not understand the above re 'event' and the continual change from one event[state] to another state.

Within Philosophy, time is continuous.

Exactly What is Time?
There is general agreement among philosophers that time is continuous (i.e. we do not experience it as stopping and starting, or darting about at random), and that it has an intrinsic direction or order (i.e. we all agree that events progress from past to present to future).
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/philosophy-of-time/

Time is discrete only when humans used their discretion [same root?] to make it discrete so that they can manage time in various ways [Scientifically, mathematically, Physics, conventionally etc.]
E.g. a native was asked how long [time] it take for him to get to village A from his own village, the answer; 3 cigarettes [while smoking it].

Fundamentally time is continuous thus fundamentally motion continuous as grounded on fundamental continuous time.