• elucid
    94
    Hello,

    This is a post about how movement happens. It's very simple. If an object moves from one point, to another, clearly there will be space between the objects previous position and it's new one. Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position. So, we have to deduce that the object disappeared, and then reappeared in the new position without ever being in the space between.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k
    Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position.elucid

    Huh? That isnt clear at all. How else would the object get to the new position except by moving through the space between its positions?
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    Hello Elucid! I think your question can fit in the answer of Aristotle's theory of motion (Aristotle )

    Motion," says Aristotle, "is the actualization of what potentially
    is"

    W. D. Ross writes:
    For Aristotle "motion is 'the actualization of that which is potentially, as such.' I.e. if there is something which is actually x and potentially
    y, motion is the making actual of its y-ness."
  • Cuthbert
    1.1k
    Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position.

    Perhaps the object did go through all that in between space to get to the new position. The dog comes into your room having previously been in the living room. Perhaps he was present at every point in between the two places. At any rate, I would not say it is clear that he wasn't present throughout the journey.

    Zeno's paradoxes work on different assumptions about the infinite or finite divisibility of space and time.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    What the capacity of free will demonstrates to us, is that there is no continuity of existence from past to future. This means that any existing object must be recreated at each moment of passing time. In theology this principle is understood as God being required to maintain existence, It is why Newton proposed his first law of motion as supported by the Will of God.
  • Apollodorus
    3.4k


    I think "movement" is change in sensory perception, especially, but not exclusively visual perception.

    What we really perceive are invisible particles or units of color that our mind builds into an "object" or patch of color that undergoes changes in relation to itself and other "objects" or patches of color.
  • MondoR
    335
    There are no particles. What you are observing are continuous wave movements. Everything is waves. Observe waves in an ocean to understand the process.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    This means that any existing object must be recreated at each moment of passing time.Metaphysician Undercover

    And that solves the problem of motion? Just what is the problem of motion?
  • Michael
    15.6k
    If movement is infinitely divisible then to move from one point to another requires having passed an infinite sequence of points in between, which for one reason or another is said to be impossible.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Movement in space is real. The concept of infinity is an illusion.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    :point: Spontaneous symmetry breakings. Quantum uncertainty. Thermodynamic gradients.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new positionelucid

    Clearly?! Now that's what I call sorcery.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    If movement is infinitely divisible then to move from one point to another requires having passed an infinite sequence of points in between, which for one reason or another is said to be impossible.Michael

    Who says? And how? Consider: how much time is spent passing each point?
  • Michael
    15.6k
    Consider: how much time is spent passing each point?tim wood

    The issue about the time it takes to pass each point is only one of the issues to resolve (one that can be resolved if the time taken per point is a convergent series), but it's not the only one.

    Consider that instead of just running past each point you also speak out the point ("half way", "quarter way", etc.). Even if we assume that we can speak arbitrarily quickly, the key question is "what is the first thing I say"? There can't be a first thing I say; there's no "first point" to pass (after "start"). If I can't even begin speaking each point then I can't even begin passing each point. You can't maths your way out of that problem.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    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.

    You can't maths your way out of that problem.Michael
    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?
  • Michael
    15.6k
    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

    There is no first point to pass, and so motion cannot start. Just as there is no first fraction to count, and so counting the fractions (in order) cannot start.
  • Michael
    15.6k
    what exactly is it that is said to be impossibletim wood

    Continuous motion.

    do you say it's impossible?tim wood

    Yes.

    However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests.
  • frank
    15.8k
    There is no first point to pass, and so motion cannot start. Just as there is no first fraction to count, and so counting the fractions (in order) cannot start.Michael

    You need a Prime Mover.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    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

    All conceded. But the movement is through language, logic, math, and modern physics: these not the same thing. Planck distances are really small. Are you suggesting motion is essentially discontinuous because of Planck-scale constraints? 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.

    Edit. Do you suppose there is any such thing as a rope?
  • Joshs
    5.7k
    However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggestsMichael

    Time is traditionally closely connected with motion. Does this mean that time is discontinuous too?
  • Michael
    15.6k
    Planck distances are really small. Are you suggesting motion is essentially discontinuous because of Planck-scale constraints?tim wood

    Not because of Planck-scale constraints, although it may be that the Planck-scale happens to be the smallest movement possible. I would say that continuous motion (moving through every point in order from 0 to 1m) is impossible for the same reason that counting every in order from 0 to 1 is impossible: because there is no first step. Continuous motion seems to me to be logically impossible.

    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.

    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    You need a Prime Moverfrank

    Agreed!
  • frank
    15.8k
    Agreed!TheMadFool

    Really?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Really?frank

    Yes, really!
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    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

    The table is a very large number of very small particles. At a sufficiently small scale, the movement of each particle may have to negotiate a Planck-abyss - is energy subject to Planck constraint's? - but the table itself not. Sense? Which is to say that logical and physical possibility are not the same thing. It thereby can be a mistake to try to resolve one in terms of the other or interpret one in terms of the other. Proof would be that the impossible, in this case, happens all the time.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.