Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Sculptor]

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.

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?

[bahman]

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.

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?

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

[Age]

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.

But this is NOT required for continuous motion, AT ALL.

[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.

But this is NOT required for continuous motion, AT ALL.

Tell me what is continuous motion.

[Age]

Where did I adjust myself?

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

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

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED some people REALLY WERE, in the days when this was being written.

Some people REALLY BELIEVED that they were NOT doing Wrong but it was ALWAYS the "others" who do.

[RCSaunders]

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.

Of course they do.

If you want to assert that any motion is discontinuous, you are obliged to explain where, between any two positions, the motion ceases (stops), and how you know it. If the motion never stops, it's continuous.

At what time did the rotation of the earth halt?

[Age]

Do you understand OP? If yes what? Since what you said has no relation with OP.

What do you mean it has no relation with the OP?

You stated in the OP that "...continuous motion is impossible...", to which I am using the example of time itself to counter that assertion.
_______

What I am trying to say in OP is not what you are saying. That is true that the position of an object changes when it is in motion. But that is not the whole point. The point is that the object should not exist at now in order to exist at a later time at another point. The object in another hand exists at now which this leads to a contradiction.

You are going to have to CHANGE the way you express, whatever 'it' is that you are 'trying to' express here, that is; if you want me to understand fully what you are 'trying to' talk about.

What do you mean, "the object SHOULD NOT exist at now, to exist at a later time at another point"?

WHY "should" an object NOT exist at now, for the rest of that claim to be true?

[Age]

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.

Now this would make sense, to me, that is; IF this is what "bahman" is 'trying to' refer to.

However, because that 'thing' is NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing', at ANY other time, 'you', human beings, may be calling that 'thing' the EXACT SAME 'thing', or in other words by the EXACT SAME name/label. For example, NO 'physical thing' is the EXACT SAME 'thing' at ANY other time/point/moment, as the physical structure is CHANGING, ALWAYS, and so is in constant motion.

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

What do you think?

[bahman]

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.

Of course they do.

No, they don't. Isn't a film made of discrete frames? Yet we experience it continuously. We are used to experiencing continuous motion since our brains cheat us but that does not mean that the reality is continuous.

If you want to assert that any motion is discontinuous, you are obliged to explain where, between any two positions, the motion ceases (stops), and how you know it. If the motion never stops, it's continuous.

At what time did the rotation of the earth halt?

It won't stop or halt. It is destroyed at a given time and created at a later time at another position. Motion in the quantum field theory is described by a term that has two fields, destruction field and creation field respectively, in which the former act at an earlier time and the latter act at a later time.

[bahman]

What do you mean it has no relation with the OP?

You stated in the OP that "...continuous motion is impossible...", to which I am using the example of time itself to counter that assertion.
_______

What I am trying to say in OP is not what you are saying. That is true that the position of an object changes when it is in motion. But that is not the whole point. The point is that the object should not exist at now in order to exist at a later time at another point. The object in another hand exists at now which this leads to a contradiction.

You are going to have to CHANGE the way you express, whatever 'it' is that you are 'trying to' express here, that is; if you want me to understand fully what you are 'trying to' talk about.

What do you mean, "the object SHOULD NOT exist at now, to exist at a later time at another point"?

WHY "should" an object NOT exist at now, for the rest of that claim to be true?

The object exists at now, but in order to move, it should cease to exist at now so it can exist at a later time. You have two copies of the object at different times if the object is moving and it does not cease to exist at now. The question is how you can get the second copy of the object? Where does it come from?

[Impenitent]

What I am trying to say in OP is not what you are saying. That is true that the position of an object changes when it is in motion. But that is not the whole point. The point is that the object should not exist at now in order to exist at a later time at another point. The object in another hand exists at now which this leads to a contradiction.

You are going to have to CHANGE the way you express, whatever 'it' is that you are 'trying to' express here, that is; if you want me to understand fully what you are 'trying to' talk about.

What do you mean, "the object SHOULD NOT exist at now, to exist at a later time at another point"?

WHY "should" an object NOT exist at now, for the rest of that claim to be true?

The object exists at now, but in order to move, it should cease to exist at now so it can exist at a later time. You have two copies of the object at different times if the object is moving and it does not cease to exist at now. The question is how you can get the second copy of the object? Where does it come from?

object...

"you" are not the same "you" since you read this

























word

-Imp

[bahman]

You are going to have to CHANGE the way you express, whatever 'it' is that you are 'trying to' express here, that is; if you want me to understand fully what you are 'trying to' talk about.

What do you mean, "the object SHOULD NOT exist at now, to exist at a later time at another point"?

WHY "should" an object NOT exist at now, for the rest of that claim to be true?

The object exists at now, but in order to move, it should cease to exist at now so it can exist at a later time. You have two copies of the object at different times if the object is moving and it does not cease to exist at now. The question is how you can get the second copy of the object? Where does it come from?

object...

"you" are not the same "you" since you read this

























word

-Imp

Ture for me and not for my mind.

[commonsense]

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

But this is NOT required for continuous motion, AT ALL.

Tell me what is continuous motion.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

None of these explains that the motion is continuous.

Of course they do.

No, they don't. Isn't a film made of discrete frames? Yet we experience it continuously. We are used to experiencing continuous motion since our brains cheat us but that does not mean that the reality is continuous.

I can agree with the above but only relatively but not absolutely.

Note Akinetopsia which is motion blindness.

• Akinetopsia (Greek: a for "without", kine for "to move" and opsia for "seeing"), also known as cerebral akinetopsia or motion blindness, is an extremely rare neuropsychological disorder, having only been documented in a handful of medical cases, in which a patient cannot perceive motion in their visual field, despite being able to see stationary objects without issue.[1]
  There are varying degrees of akinetopsia: from seeing motion as frames of a cinema reel[2] to an inability to discriminate any motion. There is currently no effective treatment or cure for akinetopsia.

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.

As I had stated whether Continuous motion possible or impossible depends on which perspective of reality one takes.

Within the common and conventional sense Framework, continuous motion is possible and is experienced by all except those with rare Akinetopsia.

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.

All humans are "programmed" with the potential for 'continuous motion' which is critical for survival. So at a certain perspective of survival and reality, continuous motion is possible and can be easily proven empirically.

Whilst continuous motion is empirically possible, it is the play-of-the-mind as in the Two-Monks Zen story above.

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.

Whether things are viewed as discrete or in continuous motion, they cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.