Philosophy Now Forum

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.

at the next point in time, what was is no longer the object of reference

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:44 pm at the next point in time, what was is no longer the object of reference

-Imp

True, but I am talking about a contradiction at now.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm ...continuous motion is impossible.

Tell that to TIME.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm ...continuous motion is impossible.

Tell that to TIME.
_______

My argument applies to time too. But you need time for a change in time. That means that there are at least two times.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:06 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:40 pm ...continuous motion is impossible.

Tell that to TIME.
_______

My argument applies to time too. But you need time for a change in time. That means that there are at least two times.

You said that continuous motion is "impossible."

Well, time never - ever - stands still (thus, it is "continuous").

Therefore, you are wrong.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:06 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:03 pm
Tell that to TIME.
_______

My argument applies to time too. But you need time for a change in time. That means that there are at least two times.

You said that continuous motion is "impossible."

Well, time never - ever - stands still (thus, it is "continuous").

Therefore, you are wrong.
_______

I am not talking about stillness. I am talking that for change in a thing it must exist not at now. It exists at now too. Therefore, there is a contradiction.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:15 pm I am not talking about stillness. I am talking that for change in a thing it must exist not at now. It exists at now too. Therefore, there is a contradiction.

I can't make heads or tails of your reply.

So I'll just reiterate that time moves forward in a "continuous motion."

Therefore, continuous motion...

(at least when it comes to the concept of time)

...is NOT impossible.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:15 pm I am not talking about stillness. I am talking that for change in a thing it must exist not at now. It exists at now too. Therefore, there is a contradiction.

I can't make heads or tails of your reply.

So I'll just reiterate that time moves forward in a "continuous motion."

Therefore, continuous motion...

(at least when it comes to the concept of time)

...is NOT impossible.
_______

Time is discrete as I illustrated.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:52 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:15 pm I am not talking about stillness. I am talking that for change in a thing it must exist not at now. It exists at now too. Therefore, there is a contradiction.

I can't make heads or tails of your reply.

So I'll just reiterate that time moves forward in a "continuous motion."

Therefore, continuous motion...

(at least when it comes to the concept of time)

...is NOT impossible.
_______

Time is discrete as I illustrated.

You haven't illustrated (or demonstrated) anything that my argument about time doesn't refute.

Sure, matter (at the quantum level) may indeed move in discrete increments.

However, if you could somehow remove all matter from the universe to the point where the universe no longer existed, time (in the "ideal" sense) would still be moving forward (continuously) from the point where the universe ceased to exist.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:52 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:55 pm
I can't make heads or tails of your reply.

So I'll just reiterate that time moves forward in a "continuous motion."

Therefore, continuous motion...

(at least when it comes to the concept of time)

...is NOT impossible.
_______

Time is discrete as I illustrated.

You haven't illustrated (or demonstrated) anything that my argument about time doesn't refute.

Sure, matter (at the quantum level) may indeed move in discrete increments.

However, if you could somehow remove all matter from the universe to the point where the universe no longer existed, time (in the "ideal" sense) would still be moving forward (continuously) from the point where the universe ceased to exist.
_______

Does time change? Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:39 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:52 pm
Time is discrete as I illustrated.

You haven't illustrated (or demonstrated) anything that my argument about time doesn't refute.

Sure, matter (at the quantum level) may indeed move in discrete increments.

However, if you could somehow remove all matter from the universe to the point where the universe no longer existed, time (in the "ideal" sense) would still be moving forward (continuously) from the point where the universe ceased to exist.
_______

Does time change? Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

What's to stop it from continuously moving forward (again, in the "ideal" sense) from the point (or frame of reference) where (as mentioned above) the universe ceases to exist?
_______

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.

Note

Wiki wrote:In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

As with the above, something can still be and not be at the same instance [time] and it is not a contradiction.
To be a contradiction, it must not be at the same time.

For example a cluster of H20 can be both hard and soft at the same time but cannot be both in the same sense as a liquid, steam, ice, snow, vapors, shot at high speed, etc.

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.

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.

No, you are wrong.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:48 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:44 pm at the next point in time, what was is no longer the object of reference

-Imp

True, but I am talking about a contradiction at now.

You are talking about 'what', supposed, 'contradiction' at 'now'?