Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Age]

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.

How could one 'see' "stationary objects" if you have just been 'trying to' "argue" that there are, actually, NO 'stationary objects'?

And, what could a 'stationary object' be 'stationary' RELATIVE to here, EXACTLY?

You, after all, just through TELLING us that, "there is no absolute frame of reference", correct?

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.[/list]

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.

The two monks might have just been wondering that human being was meaning or referring to EXACTLY, when it CLAIMS that there is a thing such as "your mind".

Also, the flag moves, the wind moves, and the thoughts, within human bodies, move, or change, ALSO. So, that human being was Wrong, and Incorrect.

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

LOL But there is ONLY One Reality, no matter how many DIFFERENT perspectives there are, from 'you', human beings.

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

1. WHY do you commonly LOOK FOR 'diseases' or 'conditions' within "other", human beings, and use them in your ATTEMPTS at "arguing"?

2. I have ALREADY informed you that 'continuous motion' is NOT just possible but is the ONLY ACTUALITY.

3. What is within "the common and conventional sense framework", from "bahman", there is NO 'continuous motion'.

4. EVERY thing you write is from your OWN "sense framework", including what 'you' consider is "common and conventional".

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.

LOL " potential for 'continuous motion' ".

Either there IS 'continuous motion' or there IS NOT. And, human beings could NOT have the "potential" for some thing that does NOT even exist, and conversely, human beings do NOT have the "potential" for some thing that DOES exist. They, INSTEAD, have THAT 'thing'.

If there IS 'continuous motion', which there OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE, then human beings are just PART of that 'continuous motion', again OBVIOUSLY.

So at a certain perspective of survival and reality, continuous motion is possible and can be easily proven empirically.

If 'continuous motion' or ANY 'thing' can be easily PROVEN EMPIRICALLY, then EVERY one HAS TO agree with and accept that 'thing', including 'continuous motion'.

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

LOL
LOL
LOL

If ONLY these human beings, back in those days when this was being written, KNEW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

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.

LOL

There is NOT even a so-called "human mind". End of story.

[Age]

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"?

To me, the trickery, intentional or not, in "zeno's" words STAND OUT, VERY CLEARLY.

The point is that these paradoxes demonstrate contradictions that need addressing.

I have addressed some them previously here, in this forum.

Not that I am expecting you to have SEEN nor read them. But anyway, if you would like to share what you consider are "paradoxes" here, which demonstrate 'contradictions', then we CAN address "them".

Just remember, that for some of us, "they" have ALREADY BEEN 'addressed'.

I'll respond to Bahman for the rest of what I want to say on this.

Okay.

We look forward to your response.

[Sculptor]

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.

You are not making any sense.
What do you think you mean by "discrete". Discrete from what?

[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.

Suppose that f is continuous on the closed interval [a, b] and let N be any number strictly between f(a) and f(b). Then there exists a number c in (a, b) such that f(c) = N.

...
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.

This is ONLY "not true" because if it is important that the function, in the theorem, be continuous, AND, the theorem is ACTUALLY NOT continuous, then the theorem would OBVIOUSLY be so-called "not true".

Also, when 'you', human beings, use letters, like 'you' are here, to supposedly prove or invalid things, then if, and when you ever decide to use Real or ACTUAL physical things INSTEAD, AND THEN do 'your' calculations, then things will be MUCH DIFFERENT.

Thus the a contradiction does exist when you do question motion discretely.

But motion does NOT happen NOR occur 'discretely. So, there is NO contradiction here.

I hold that contradiction is the 'force' of all change and something I've raised before in various threads.

You are FREE to HOLD whatever you so wish. But, just HOLDING things does NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Also, HOW and WHY would 'contradiction' be the 'force' of ALL change?

Technically, even force though can be thought of as merely discrete possiblities ordered like the frame of a film strip.

But 'thinking' of ANY thing as "discrete possibilities ordered like the, SEPARATED, frames of a film strip", OBVIOUSLY, only happens in 'thought', and could NEVER happen in ACTUALITY.

All of Zeno's paradoxes dealt with this and are real if bound in time or place.

But because ONLY 'continuous motion' exists, there is NOTHING that could be bound in time NOR in place.

I argued this in three segments on 'walls' here a long while back.

Unless your arguments were sound AND valid, then there is NO use in repeating them.

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).

There is NO beginning and was NO end, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.

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.

But there is NO 'paradox', (in the way you use the word 'paradox'), in what "zeno" said.

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.

If you REALLY want to START 're-looking', then just START with the way 'you', human beings, define the words you use. When the definitions of the word 'paradox' are understood, then what will be found is a True 'paradox'.

This is like the fact that the point has an instantaneous velocity.

What, EXACTLY, is 'the point'?

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.

I will WAIT till the experiment has ACTUALLY been accomplished to SEE if it is ACTUALLY impossible or NOT, BEFORE I make thee ASSUMPTION that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

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 you can INTERPRET absolutely ANY thing absolutely ANY way you like. This is because you are absolutely FREE to.

But then for each image you need those 'copies', the second point you mentioned, for instance.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are 'trying to' get to and/or argue for here?

This can be interpreted in set theory as the same concept of 'point' being aligned with an index set.

'Theory's' are only ALWAYS EVER just a GUESS or an ASSUMPTION of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, so this means that 'set theory' is NOT necessarily True and Correct by itself, let alone whatever ANY one wants to 'interpret' in 'set theory'.

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.

'In space' is NOT even a Correct term, in relation to thee Truth, and 'space', it will be found, was NOTHING like what most of 'you', human beings, envisioned it was, in the days when this was being written.

[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.

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.

Thee One Universe, Itself, IS a 'Thing-in-Itself', (or an independent object), which is just One event, in the One state of 'continual change or 'continuous motion'.

Here is a point from Timmer,

An event, something happening, entails that a State comes into existence which did not exist before.

This is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

It must contain something new which was not contained in the preceding appearance,

AGAIN, this OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily correct AT ALL.

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.[/quote]

'Time' is just the word used in relation to the measuring a duration between perceived events.

2. The flow of one state/event A into another B is grounded on continuous time.

There is only One True state/event. States or events are just perceived, based on the terms or language one uses.

3. So it is not the case of one independent object A at t1 becoming object A2 at t2.

OF COURSE One independent object, by itself, could NOT become another object. To think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE otherwise would be just ABSURD.

4. Therefore continuous motion is possible within an event [1 &2].

Continuous motion is not just possible but ACTUALITY.

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

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of one NOT actually KNOW what 'it' is, which they are 'trying' so hard to say and claim is true.

[Age]

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.

You are not making any sense.
What do you think you mean by "discrete". Discrete from what?

When "bahman" uses the word 'discrete', "bahman" means; individually separate and distinct. Which is the correct meaning. The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential.

But you ask a very good question, what could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from, EXACTLY?

And, 'motion' is OBVIOUSLY individually separate and distinct from 'idle' or 'still', but HOW, EXACTLY, could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from itself?

[Sculptor]

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

You are not making any sense.
What do you think you mean by "discrete". Discrete from what?

When "bahman" uses the word 'discrete', "bahman" means; individually separate and distinct. Which is the correct meaning. The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential.

But you ask a very good question, what could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from, EXACTLY?

And, 'motion' is OBVIOUSLY individually separate and distinct from 'idle' or 'still', but HOW, EXACTLY, could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from itself?

I am fully aware of what the word means.
Stillness of idelness is alwasy relative, since everything is in motion all the time.

[Age]

You are not making any sense.
What do you think you mean by "discrete". Discrete from what?

When "bahman" uses the word 'discrete', "bahman" means; individually separate and distinct. Which is the correct meaning. The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential.

But you ask a very good question, what could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from, EXACTLY?

And, 'motion' is OBVIOUSLY individually separate and distinct from 'idle' or 'still', but HOW, EXACTLY, could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from itself?

I am fully aware of what the word means.

I NEVER said you were not.

Stillness of idelness is alwasy relative, since everything is in motion all the time.

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

If yes, then will you PROVIDE that ACTUAL PROOF?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative', to the observer, correct?

[Sculptor]

When "bahman" uses the word 'discrete', "bahman" means; individually separate and distinct. Which is the correct meaning. The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential.

But you ask a very good question, what could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from, EXACTLY?

And, 'motion' is OBVIOUSLY individually separate and distinct from 'idle' or 'still', but HOW, EXACTLY, could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from itself?

I am fully aware of what the word means.

I NEVER said you were not.

Yes you did. And you you said it in a patronising way too.
"The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential."
Which reflects pretty poorly that you think such a definition could be associated with the laws of time and morion.

[Sculptor]

When "bahman" uses the word 'discrete', "bahman" means; individually separate and distinct. Which is the correct meaning. The one you may be thinking of "sculptor", and the one that I was thinking of before when discussing this with "bahman", is actually spelled 'discreet', which means; careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential.

But you ask a very good question, what could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from, EXACTLY?

And, 'motion' is OBVIOUSLY individually separate and distinct from 'idle' or 'still', but HOW, EXACTLY, could 'motion' be individually separate and distinct from itself?

I am fully aware of what the word means.

I NEVER said you were not.

Stillness of idelness is alwasy relative, since everything is in motion all the time.

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

Use your brain you idiot. Take a look out of your window tonight and watch the stars. DO you really think they are moving that fast or could the earth be turning?
It's no wonder I normally ignore your posts.

[bahman]

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.

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

[bahman]

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

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

[bahman]

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.

I was aware of this. This in fact suggests that our brains are cheating us by experiencing continuous motion.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

Suppose that f is continuous on the closed interval [a, b] and let N be any number strictly between f(a) and f(b). Then there exists a number c in (a, b) such that f(c) = N.

...
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.

[bahman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The question is where do get the excess energy 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?