Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Age]

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.

'you', adult human beings, can make up, what are called, "counterarguments" for just about EVERY thing say to each "other". But what 'you', adult human beings, seem to FORGET is that NONE of them necessarily PROVE absolutely ANY thing, AT ALL. 'you' seem to ALSO FORGET that 'arguments' or 'counterarguments' are, REALLY, NOT even worth repeating if they are NOT sound AND valid arguments. And, if they ARE sound AND valid arguments, then there is NO one who could REFUTE 'it' anyway. Which means ALL sound AND valid arguments hold and express what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS. Which THEN means they express IRREFUTABLE Facts.

Oh, and by the way, if you have NOT YET REALIZED, there is NO sound AND valid 'counterargument' against a fact.

What you have provided here are YOUR, supposed and alleged, "counterarguments", which ACTUALLY do NOT counter facts, as they are NOT sound AND valid counter arguments. In fact most of "your arguments" do NOT even 'logically follow', let alone being sound AND valid.

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?

OF COURSE they APPEAR continuously. That is the way movies are made, by 'you', human beings, to APPEAR.

But what has this got to do with ANY thing here.

Does the sun revolving around the earth appear to you continuously?

And, what APPEARS to 'you', human beings, does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing whatsoever on what is thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

What is thee ACTUAL Truth of things is based on IRREFUTABLE Truth. Now, do you have absolutely ANY IRREFUTABLE Truth that the motion of thee Universe, Itself, is discrete and NOT continuous?

If yes, then just PROVIDE 'that', and then we can ALL move along here.

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.

STOP telling me to "read OP". This WHOLE thread is based on 'your opening post'.

Now, if you can NOT name just one solitary thing that is, supposedly, NOT continuous, then just maybe what you are going on about here is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

Also, I do NOT want to hear what is in a 'theory', as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED 'theories' are just based on ASSUMPTIONS and/or GUESSES alone, and so they may in fact have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct. Is this UNDERSTOOD, this time?

Look, are you able to name one ACTUAL thing that is NOT in 'continual motion'?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

We look forward to your replies here.

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.

OF COURSE the earth is made up of particles.

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

Who cares what is said in some 'theory'?

How many times do you have to be TOLD that 'theories' are NOT necessarily based on what is ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct?

And, even if the motion of 'quantum particles' is defined in 'quantum field theory' by a term that contains two fields, being; destruction and creation, respectively, then, AGAIN, so what?

Also, what do you mean by the use of the word 'respectively' here?

For an order to occur where 'destruction' is, supposedly, first, then, OBVIOUSLY, some thing would have NEEDED to be 'created' PRIOR, to 'destruction'. So, what are you 'trying to' get at here, EXACTLY?

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If a 'theory' describes 'Reality', Itself, with GREAT precision, as in the 'theory' being ABSOLUTELY Right AND Correct, then 'it' is NOT a 'theory' AT ALL, but INSTEAD thee ACTUAL Truth of things. Which ALL 'theories' are NOT, necessarily.

Now, back to HOW is it even possible, in "bahman's world", that 'destruction' COULD OCCUR BEFORE some thing is even 'created'?

Are you able to answer this CLARIFYING question?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT, and will you?

[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.

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.

There is NO proof that 'time changes'.

There is NO proof that 'continuous change' is impossible. And,

There is NO proof that 'time' changes discretely, as well.

Unless, OF COURSE, you ACTUALLY have some but will NOT present it here, for some reason.

[Age]

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.

OF COURSE absolutely NO 'thing' exists SOMEWHERE at some point between its CHANGE from one thing, or point, to another thing, or point.

But what has this got to do with 'continuous motion', supposedly, being IMPOSSIBLE?

[Sculptor]

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!

Calculus and other forms of mathematical modelling are not reality. The problem is not reality. The problem lies in the methematical models.
There are no points in nature. That is a pur artefact of maths.
We are all in constant and continual motion. Maths may try to model that but there are anomalies as there are so many in maths.

[Sculptor]

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,.

Age stamps her feet

[Sculptor]

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?

Because the sun moves in the sky

[Age]

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?

I NEVER said it could not. I was just asking you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION.

Like this one, WHY do you not just answer my clarifying questions, instead of ASSUMING that I am saying or meaning some OTHER thing?

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?

1. I NEVER judged it as an impossibility. I just asked you a CLARIFYING question, INSTEAD.

And,

2. I NEVER said your sentence does not make any sense. I, INSTEAD, said, your sentence does not APPEAR to even make any sense, anyway.

BUT, for all I know, your sentence could make PERFECT sense, to you, and/or others.

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.

Although this did NOT APPEAR to make ANY sense BEFORE, you are CERTAINLY NOT adding ANY sense on to it, so you are NOT making this any more clearer.

Now, 'what points', lay on top of each othe? And, STILL, HOW can an object move through 'a motion'?

[Age]

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.

So, in other words, you are NOT able to explain what 'continuous motion' is, to you, in another way, correct?

Also, when EXACTLY is the motion of a ball 'discrete', separated or interrupted.

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.

Do you NOT know what the words, 'in another way', means or refers to?

And, what are you sorry for, or about, EXACTLY?

[Age]

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.

Will you PLEASE STOP repeating the EXACT SAME thing?

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

If you have NOT YET SEEN this separateness, then HOW do you, supposedly, KNOW that 'it' exists?

Do you have ANY PROOF of this phenemona?

If yes, then will you PROVIDE 'it' for us?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, you will NOT provide an example of absolutely ANY thing, which supposedly is not in continual motion, but will you CLARIFY if EVERY thing is NOT in continual motion or only some things?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

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.

This is True. But just PROVING that EVERY thing is in continuous motion is probably EASIER and SIMPLER than showing that continuous motion is possible in at least one instance anyway.

[Age]

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

This is NOT necessarily true.

and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.

This is necessarily true.

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

If discrete motion is impossible, then would this mean that motion is continuous?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

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.

'Qualified' relative to 'what', EXACTLY?

The mind is comprised of merely neural activities of the neurons in the brain.

If this is what "the mind" is supposedly comprised of, then what are 'thoughts' composed of, EXACTLY?

That the neurons are in actions mean the mind is moving from one state to another.

And what are these 'states', EXACTLY?

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.

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.
[/quote]

[Age]

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,.

Age stamps her feet

LOL And what are you basing this on, EXACTLY?

Also, I was just POINTING OUT that YOUR ASSUMPTION there was Wrong, AGAIN.

[commonsense]

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

This is NOT necessarily true.

and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.

This is necessarily true.

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

If discrete motion is impossible, then would this mean that motion is continuous?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If we may employ LEM, then yes, the impossibility of one leads to the possibility of the other, and vv.

[commonsense]

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.



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.



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.



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.

This is True. But just PROVING that EVERY thing is in continuous motion is probably EASIER and SIMPLER than showing that continuous motion is possible in at least one instance anyway.

Yes