Continuous motion possible or impossible

[bahman]

You would if you were open to others’ way of thinking.

I am open. The problem is that some of the others are close.

If you are open, you should be able to restate the argument(s) that they are trying to use to discredit what you are saying. Try to do that, in order to find out how open you are.

Ok.

[commonsense]

I am open. The problem is that some of the others are close.

If you are open, you should be able to restate the argument(s) that they are trying to use to discredit what you are saying. Try to do that, in order to find out how open you are.

Ok.

Do you dare post it in the thread? Maybe, maybe not I suppose.

[commonsense]

True, but I am talking about a contradiction at now.

You are talking about 'what', supposed, 'contradiction' at 'now'?

That something cannot exist and exist not at the same instant which this required for continuous motion.

Maybe it becomes a new thing at not the same time. That would make the whole matter of continuous motion separate from when the something exists twice.

What do you think?

[bahman]

If you are open, you should be able to restate the argument(s) that they are trying to use to discredit what you are saying. Try to do that, in order to find out how open you are.

Ok.

Do you dare post it in the thread? Maybe, maybe not I suppose.

Yes, I dare to explain what people mean and I would accept if they are right.

[bahman]

You are talking about 'what', supposed, 'contradiction' at 'now'?

That something cannot exist and exist not at the same instant which this required for continuous motion.

Maybe it becomes a new thing at not the same time.

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. Another point is that it also exists at now. And these two points lead to a contradiction at now. In another word, the key point is a contradiction at now rather than whether the thing becomes a new thing or not later.

That would make the whole matter of continuous motion separate from when the something exists twice.

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. 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.

What do you think?

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. 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.

[Sculptor]

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.

This is only a problem for Xeno.
The fact is that we are all in constant motion. The earth goes round, it cucles the sun, the entire sole system id orbiting the centre of the Galaxy and there are other motions related to proximity of the vicinity cluster.
If there seems to be a problem with our notion of movement, then the problem is with the maths model.

[bahman]

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.

This is only a problem for Xeno.
The fact is that we are all in constant motion. The earth goes round, it cucles the sun, the entire sole system id orbiting the centre of the Galaxy and there are other motions related to proximity of the vicinity cluster.
If there seems to be a problem with our notion of movement, then the problem is with the maths model.

There is no mathematical model for the continuous regime but the continuous limit. The reality seems continuous but we might get fooled by our brain. We in fact know that a film is made of frames but the movie seems continuous to us.

[Sculptor]

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.

This is only a problem for Xeno.
The fact is that we are all in constant motion. The earth goes round, it cucles the sun, the entire sole system id orbiting the centre of the Galaxy and there are other motions related to proximity of the vicinity cluster.
If there seems to be a problem with our notion of movement, then the problem is with the maths model.

There is no mathematical model for the continuous regime but the continuous limit. The reality seems continuous but we might get fooled by our brain. We in fact know that a film is made of frames but the movie seems continuous to us.

Yes it is absolutely a mathematical problem. Xeno's paradox is caused by maths which is a digital phenomenon, whereas reality is purely analogue.
It is based on existing as a mathematical "value" of position. To acquire the next position that values has to change continually rather than atomistically. Maths assumes atomistic place values such as 1, 2, &3. But nature abhors an integer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Continuous motion is possible when something is pushed in a vacuum like in space where there is nothing to stop it.
Since the Big Bang, all things are supposedly in continuous motion.

By the same instant, I mean the same time.

Ok.

Note my second point and also 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

In other words, continuous motion is possible as conditioned by a realistic Framework and System of Knowledge which is ultimately mind-interdependent.

Your OP is confined to logic and Pure Mathematics which are not realistic.

The point is logic and pure mathematics are highly theoretical. Logic and Pure Mathematics will only work within their defined framework where things are stripped off ALL the realistic elements therein and what they work with are merely Forms, pro-forma and the abstract, i.e. not the real.
So to be realistic, whatever is inferred therefrom must be verified by experience and empirical justifications to confirm they are real.

Continuous motion as conditioned by whatever the specific framework can be relatively impossible and relatively possible but not absolutely impossible.

[bahman]

Continuous motion is possible when something is pushed in a vacuum like in space where there is nothing to stop it.
Since the Big Bang, all things are supposedly in continuous motion.

By the same instant, I mean the same time.

Ok.

Note my second point and also 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

In other words, continuous motion is possible as conditioned by a realistic Framework and System of Knowledge which is ultimately mind-interdependent.

Your OP is confined to logic and Pure Mathematics which are not realistic.

The point is logic and pure mathematics are highly theoretical. Logic and Pure Mathematics will only work within their defined framework where things are stripped off ALL the realistic elements therein and what they work with are merely Forms, pro-forma and the abstract, i.e. not the real.
So to be realistic, whatever is inferred therefrom must be verified by experience and empirical justifications to confirm they are real.

Continuous motion as conditioned by whatever the specific framework can be relatively impossible and relatively possible but not absolutely impossible.

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

[bahman]

This is only a problem for Xeno.
The fact is that we are all in constant motion. The earth goes round, it cucles the sun, the entire sole system id orbiting the centre of the Galaxy and there are other motions related to proximity of the vicinity cluster.
If there seems to be a problem with our notion of movement, then the problem is with the maths model.

There is no mathematical model for the continuous regime but the continuous limit. The reality seems continuous but we might get fooled by our brain. We in fact know that a film is made of frames but the movie seems continuous to us.

Yes it is absolutely a mathematical problem. Xeno's paradox is caused by maths which is a digital phenomenon, whereas reality is purely analogue.
It is based on existing as a mathematical "value" of position. To acquire the next position that values has to change continually rather than atomistically. Maths assumes atomistic place values such as 1, 2, &3. But nature abhors an integer.

Could you explain continuous motion without using a discrete process?

[Sculptor]

There is no mathematical model for the continuous regime but the continuous limit. The reality seems continuous but we might get fooled by our brain. We in fact know that a film is made of frames but the movie seems continuous to us.

Yes it is absolutely a mathematical problem. Xeno's paradox is caused by maths which is a digital phenomenon, whereas reality is purely analogue.
It is based on existing as a mathematical "value" of position. To acquire the next position that values has to change continually rather than atomistically. Maths assumes atomistic place values such as 1, 2, &3. But nature abhors an integer.

Could you explain continuous motion without using a discrete process?

I do not need to. Continuous motion is a fact. The problem is the math's failure to adequately describe it, that is the point I am making.

[bahman]

Yes it is absolutely a mathematical problem. Xeno's paradox is caused by maths which is a digital phenomenon, whereas reality is purely analogue.
It is based on existing as a mathematical "value" of position. To acquire the next position that values has to change continually rather than atomistically. Maths assumes atomistic place values such as 1, 2, &3. But nature abhors an integer.

Could you explain continuous motion without using a discrete process?

I do not need to. Continuous motion is a fact. The problem is the math's failure to adequately describe it, that is the point I am making.

Why it is a fact?

[Sculptor]

Could you explain continuous motion without using a discrete process?

I do not need to. Continuous motion is a fact. The problem is the math's failure to adequately describe it, that is the point I am making.

Why it is a fact?

1) Its a fact for the simple reason that you answered my post and I, in my turn have answered yours. None of that would have been possible without continuous motion.
2) It's a fact because the sun rose this morning.

[bahman]

I do not need to. Continuous motion is a fact. The problem is the math's failure to adequately describe it, that is the point I am making.

Why it is a fact?

1) Its a fact for the simple reason that you answered my post and I, in my turn have answered yours. None of that would have been possible without continuous motion.
2) It's a fact because the sun rose this morning.

None of these explains that the motion is continuous.