Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:17 pm
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. The point is that these paradoxes demonstrate contradictions that need addressing. I'll respond to Bahman for the rest of what I want to say on this.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm 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:

Calculus by James Stewart wrote: An important property of continous functions is expressed by the following theorem whose proof is found in more advanced books on calculus.

Intermediate Value Theorem wrote: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.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:55 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:30 pm
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.

But do you accept when they are right, EVERY time?

Or, only when you accept what they are saying is right?

These can be two VERY DIFFERENT things. See, what they are saying could be right, but you are just NOT YET ABLE to SEE this.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:23 pm
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.

Will you EXPLAIN WHY ANY thing "should not" 'exist at now', in order to become a new thing later?

If no, then WHY NOT?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm 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?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm 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.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:09 pm 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.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm 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.

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.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:09 pm 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?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:07 pm 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.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:53 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:23 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm 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.

This does NOT mean that continuous motion does NOT exist.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:53 pm The reality seems continuous

This is because Reality ACTUALLY IS continuous, as can be PROVEN True.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:53 pm 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".

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:53 pm 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:09 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:25 am 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.

'Continuous motion' is ONLY POSSIBLE. There is NO "other possibility".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:09 am Your OP is confined to logic and Pure Mathematics which are not realistic.

And 'you' made up "framework and system of knowledge" FAILS on just about ALL levels.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:09 am 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.

A flat earth WAS "verified" by "experience and empirical justifications", just like the earth revolving around the sun WAS "verified" by "experience and empirical justifications", and just like an expanding and beginning Universe WAS "verified" by "experience and empirical justifications", and what makes this even worse is that ALL of these things were" based on" a "framework and system of knowledge", in THOSE times. And, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS IS NONE of these were ACTUALLY Real AT ALL. Although ALL of them, laughably, WERE "confirmed" to be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:09 am Continuous motion as conditioned by whatever the specific framework can be relatively impossible and relatively possible but not absolutely impossible.

But 'continuous motion', contrary to popular BELIEF here in the times when this WAS written, IS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. In fact
'continuous motion' IS and WILL BE ALWAYS the ONLY POSSIBILITY, and therefore ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct.

As HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN True.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:45 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:58 pm
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?

WHY 'continuous motion' is a fact, is because, just like EVERY other FACT, 'it' is KNOWN and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED to be True.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:11 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:23 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:17 pm
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.

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.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:19 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:17 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:11 pm
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.

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?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:23 pm
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.

Unbroken movement.

What is 'continuous motion', to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:11 pm
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?

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.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm 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.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm
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.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:38 pm 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?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm 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.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:35 pm
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.

But EVERY object does NOT 'cease to exist at now', and then come to exist to at ANY time later.

Unless, OF COURSE, you PROVIDE us with AN EXAMPLE for us to LOOK AT and SEE if 'it' ACTUALLY does STOP existing, and then come to exist AGAIN.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm You have two copies of the object at different times if the object is moving and it does not cease to exist at now.

1. 'two copies' of ANY object is OBVIOUSLY NOT the SAME object.

2. Because NOW is ALWAYS in 'constant motion' ALSO, there is NO object, which, literally, STOPS.

3. Just about EVERY object CEASES to exist, at some given time or point of NOW, but NEVER does ANY one of these now non-existing objects, itself, EVER come back into being, or existing.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:01 pm The question is how you can get the second copy of the object? Where does it come from?

BUT, there is NO "second copy" of an object.

Will you PROVIDE an example of WHERE or WHAT you BELIEVE could even be a so-called "second copy" of an object?

If no, then WHY NOT?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:49 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:46 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:18 pm
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.

Are 'you' STILL under some ILLUSION that 'you' STILL have some "mind" thing?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:59 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:09 am
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

But there IS an ABSOLUTE 'frame of reference'.

'you', "veritas aequitas", are just NOT YET OPEN enough to learn, NOR SEE, this.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm 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.