Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position. — elucid
Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position.
This means that any existing object must be recreated at each moment of passing time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position — elucid
Consider: how much time is spent passing each point? — tim wood
which for one reason or another is said to be impossible. — Michael
Who says? And how? — tim wood
I do not find anywhere in your citation where it says what you say it said. I may have missed it. Please be good enough to point it out.
What problem, exactly? I'm not trolling you. But you have to pay close attention sometimes to what is written or said to understand it. Or an easy direct way: above you wrote that something "is said to be impossible." The thing that is said to be impossible: two questions: what exactly is it that is said to be impossible, and second, do you say it's impossible?You can't maths your way out of that problem. — Michael
I do not find anywhere in your citation where it says what you say it said. I may have missed it. Please be good enough to point it out. — tim wood
And now there is a problem, for this description of her run has her travelling an infinite number of finite distances, which, Zeno would have us conclude, must take an infinite time, which is to say it is never completed. And since the argument does not depend on the distance or who or what the mover is, it follows that no finite distance can ever be traveled, which is to say that all motion is impossible.
What problem, exactly? — tim wood
what exactly is it that is said to be impossible
— tim wood
Continuous motion.
do you say it's impossible?
— tim wood
Yes.
However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests. — Michael
Planck distances are really small. Are you suggesting motion is essentially discontinuous because of Planck-scale constraints? — tim wood
And that might make sense for Planck-scale objects, but in the macro-world, not everything is on the same Planck-brink at the same Planck-moment, so I would argue that for the macro thing, continuous motion is a no-brainer.
Continuous motion seems to me to be logically impossible.
I'm not sure why the size of an object matters. My table is 1m wide and it's possible to move it 1mm. The distance moved doesn't need to be proportional to the size of the object. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.