Continuous motion possible or 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.

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?

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.

[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?

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?

[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.

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.

[bahman]

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.

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.

[bahman]

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

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.

[bahman]

Of course they do.

No, they don't. Isn't a film made of discrete frames?

A human made 'thing', like a film, is NEVER in a state of non-motion. Although ANY one can STOP a film, during a showing, of 'it', and just present different or 'discrete' frames, this, in NO way, has ANY thing to do with how Reality or thee Universe ACTUALLY behaves or works.

Also, there are NO ACTUAL 'discrete' NOR 'separate' 'frames of a film'. They are ACTUALLY joined together, by some thing, and ONLY APPEAR 'discrete' when the SHOWING of that continuously joined stream of film is STOPPED, and STARTED, in 'discrete' or 'separate' moments or times.

That was a counterargument against the fact that the reality seems to be continuous.

Yet we experience it continuously.

ANY film is NOT made of ACTUAL 'discrete frames'. ALL films are only made of APPARENT 'discrete frames', and ONLY to those who are NOT LOOKING, and SEEING, properly AND correctly.

Does any movie appear to you continuously?

We are used to experiencing continuous motion since our brains cheat us but that does not mean that the reality is continuous.

If Reality is NOT continuous, to you, then just PROVIDE an EXAMPLE, which you THINK or BELIEVE is NOT continuous, so then, we, at least, have SOME thing to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

If you do NOT provide this, then you have NOT PROVIDED ANY thing, which could back up NOR support ANY thing you have said here.

Read OP. I also provided the example of quantum field theory.

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.

But WHO will call and name 'matter', at a later time and at another position "earth"?

And, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that 'it' is earth being 'destroyed' and 'created' AGAIN, "at a later time at another position"?

If yes, then what are you basing this SURENESS on, EXACTLY?

Yes. Earth is made of quantum particles. The motion of quantum particles are defined in quantum field theory by a term that contains two fields, destruction and creation respectively.

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.

Describing ANY 'thing', in a 'theory', by ANY term, does NOT ACTUALLY MEAN there is ANY relation AT ALL to Reality, Itself, here.

Not, when the theory describes reality with great precision.

[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.

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.

[bahman]

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?

By discrete, I mean that the object jumps from one point to another point. It does not exist between the interval.

[commonsense]

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.

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

[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?

By discrete, I mean that the object jumps from one point to another point. It does not exist between the interval.

Yes, but that DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Movement is continuous.
It is only "discrete" in maths; a model which is palpably wrong.
If movement was discrete you could never hit a key on a keyboard.

[Age]

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.

I NEVER said that you were NOT fully aware of what the word 'discrete' means, and this is PROVED True by the Fact of the ACTUAL words I said AND USED. What I said and wrote was; The one you MAY be thinking of "sculptor". So, as can be CLEARLY SEEN what I ACTUALLY said was NOT what you just CLAIMED I did.

Also, I NEVER said that in a patronizing way AT ALL. In fact what I ACTUALLY DID was just POINT OUT the MISTAKE that I ACTUALLY made by MISTAKING the definition of 'discrete' for the definition of 'discreet'. And what I ACTUALLY SAID WAS, that that is what I DID, and which you MAY BE also doing the same. I NEVER said you WERE doing the same. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE here.

You had ALREADY CLEARED UP that you were ALREADY FULLY AWARE of what the word 'discrete' means, and I had NO reason not to accept this anyway. All I was doing was just POINTING OUT that I was AN IDIOT by making the MISTAKE of NOT recognizing the difference in those two words and their meanings PREVIOUSLY, which just SUGGESTING that you MAY BE doing the same. I also did this VERY POLITELY. You just CLEARED UP that you were NOT doing the same, and that could have been the end of this, without ANY disagreement anywhere.

So, the two ASSUMPTIONS you made here were BOTH just plain Wrong.

"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.

I KNOW this reflects VERY POORLY on me, and that is the VERY REASON I CLEARLY POINTED OUT the STUPID MISTAKE I was MAKING.

Let us NOT FORGET that if I had NOT mentioned this and made it VERY CLEAR, then NO one, besides me would have KNOWN about this.

[Age]

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.

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.

[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.

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!

[Age]

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.

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

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

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

[bahman]

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

By discrete, I mean that the object jumps from one point to another point. It does not exist between the interval.

Yes, but that DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Movement is continuous.

How do you know?

It is only "discrete" in maths; a model which is palpably wrong.

Well, if the math for continuous motion is problematic or it does not exist then continuous motion does not exist.

If movement was discrete you could never hit a key on a keyboard.

That does not follow. The motion can be discrete but the space between two points could be very small that it is hard to tell or measure.