The first statement affirms degrees or reality, such that some aspects of reality are more fundamental than others, with all aspects of reality (regardless of its metaphysical(?) degree) being existent by definition. The second statement implies a strict binary understanding: either something is real, and thereby existent, or it is not. — javra

No, this is conflating reality with existence; I hold that they are not synonymous or coextensive. Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is reaction with other things in the environment. Everything that exists is real (and discrete), but there are realities (like continuous space and time) that do not exist. Positions and instants are artificial creations, so they only exist after we have deliberately marked them for some purpose, such as description or measurement.

To address your second comment that discrete position - i.e., location - does not exist, is the computer screen that I am now seeing not located in front of me, beneath the sky and above the earth, having locations to the left and to the right at which it terminates? Are all these in fact nonexistent? — javra

A discrete position or location is established relative to a coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and unit length are all arbitrary--again, artificial creations.

Rearticulating the same, if location is to be deemed nonexistent, would the physical world (here encompassing all physical objects which are in part known via their discrete spatial positions) also be considered nonexistent? — javra

No, physical things exist regardless of whether humans ever designate their positions/locations relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.

Yet both change and quantity are nevertheless real and, thus, existent – here, in a non-binomial manner but one of degrees. — javra

Again, being real does not entail existing.

We all know where a given stick’s length starts and ends, just as we all know when a given song starts and ends – thereby making the stick’s length and the song’s duration impartially, hence objectively, real, and thereby making the stick and the song existent. — javra

Yes, but again, the unit by which we measure length or duration is arbitrary. Moreover, both the stick's length and the song's duration are subject to change--we can cut off a portion of the stick, or adjust the tempo of the song.

Parmenides said we went from being back to being. Heraclitis implies we come from nothing and go to nothing. Eternal becoming is nothingness. I want to read Heideggers book on the metaphysical foundations of logic. He thought Parmenides and Heraclitus were in agreement. That's mind blowing

No, this is conflating reality with existence; I hold that they are not synonymous or coextensive. Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is reaction with other things in the environment. [...] Positions and instants are artificial creations, so they only exist after we have deliberately marked them for some purpose, such as description or measurement. — aletheist

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Existence is a very ambiguous term in philosophy: can either imply something along the lines of “that which stands out (perceptually - sometimes, or cognitively - to some observer, some cohort of such, or all coexistent observers … such that, for example, the “points of awareness” which do the observing don’t themselves exist in this sense, for example leading to notions such as the so-called problem of other minds)” or, else, is deemed synonymous to being and, hence, that which is real (in which case, for example, we as “points of awareness” do exist). Hard to tell what gets interpreted by the term existence sometimes.

A discrete position or location is established relative to a coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and unit length are all arbitrary--again, artificial creations. — aletheist

Arbitrary relative to whom? I ask because you haven't addressed what is to me the difficult question: How does perceptual agreement between all sentient observers that causally interact in regard to the location of physical objects - very much including where they start and where they end - come about?

(While I'm aware of the "god did it" argument, I'm not of this view - nor do I want to debate issues regarding theism in this thread.)

No, physical things exist regardless of whether humans ever designate their positions/locations relative to an arbitrary coordinate system. — aletheist

Given your clarification of "existence", how can physical things (note the plurality and, hence, intrinsic quantity to this affirmation - which also entails discrete locations for each as per the law of noncontradiction) exist regardless of whether locations exist - given that the latter are mind-dependent?

Yes, but again, the unit by which we measure length or duration is arbitrary. Moreover, both the stick's length and the song's duration are subject to change--we can cut off a portion of the stick, or adjust the tempo of the song. — aletheist

We're in agreement to the second sentence in this quote. But, again, length and duration would be arbitrary relative to whom? To me "arbitrariness" loses its meaning when ascribed to that which all coexistent sentient beings do in like manner so as to result in their tacit agreement upon existent physical things that are concretely experienced and interacted with.

So as to not be misinterpreted, I've already given my own perspective in the post to which you've just replied: both continuous spatiotemporal change and discrete aspects of space and time which we quantify are real and existent, though the first is more foundational than the second.

I once found an article on Einstein's response to Zeno. When I went back to it the url was down. Just know it was out there once and you tech savvy guys might be able to locate i :)

Existence is a very ambiguous term in philosophy — javra

Yes, that it why I offered my definitions of reality and existence--which, by the way, come from Charles Sanders Peirce.

How does perceptual agreement between all sentient observers that causally interact in regard to the location of physical objects - very much including where they start and where they end - come about? — javra

I am having trouble understanding this question, and I wonder if there is a disconnect between what I mean by "position" and what you mean by "location." Again, what I primarily wish to maintain is that continuous three-dimensional space is not really composed of discrete dimensionless points. Put another way, there are no absolute positions in space, only those that we deliberately mark for some purpose. A physical thing does not occupy a discrete point or collection of discrete points, since it is always in continuous motion. We can only designate its position relative to an arbitrary reference frame, which is also always in continuous motion. We can agree that my computer monitor is consistently three feet in front of me, but we are nevertheless both hurtling through space along a very complex path as the earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, which is revolving around the center of the Milky Way, which is moving toward and away from other galaxies, etc.

But, again, length and duration would be arbitrary relative to whom? — javra

To clarify, I said that the unit of length (e.g., one inch) and the unit of duration (e.g., one second) are arbitrary.

--which, by the way, come from Charles Sanders Peirce. — aletheist

I like some of his takes as well.

I am having trouble understanding this question, and I wonder if there is a disconnect between what I mean by "position" and what you mean by "location." Again, what I primarily wish to maintain is that continuous three-dimensional space is not really composed of discrete dimensionless points. Put another way, there are no absolute positions in space, only those that we deliberately mark for some purpose. A physical thing does not occupy a discrete point or collection of discrete points, since it is always in continuous motion. We can only designate its position relative to an arbitrary reference frame, which is also always in continuous motion. — aletheist

That geometric points don’t really hold being other than in our abstract contemplations I too take as a given. To try to better explain my own perspective:

Like the meaning applicable to specific words as percepts - be they written, auditory, or, as is the case with braille, tactile - specific units of length will hold their designation due to communal accord; alternatively stated, they hold an inter-subjective reality ... But not a reality that is solely applicable to one individual (such as would be awareness of some previously experienced, language-less, REM dream), nor one that is universally applicable to all coexistence sentient beings in manners impartial to the wants or needs of any one individual or cohort of such (as is the case with the physical universe).

Then, as with the specific, here visual, percept used to address a concept - as with a word - so too will the use of feet or meters (for example) be inter-subjectively arbitrary. But - here focusing in on the issue of spatial lengths - the spatial length will remain the exact same length regardless of which unit of measurement is used (and even if no unit of measurement is used), thereby making the discrete position at which a given length starts and ends something that is not inter-subjectively arbitrary; instead, these as discrete positions will be universally applicable to all causally interrelated, coexistent beings regardless of a) their individual idiosyncratic properties of body and mind and b) their shared mindsets. Here the discrete positions (what I’ve termed “locations” for brevity) of where the given length starts and ends will not be in any way arbitrary but, by all accounts I can currently think of, objective.

Importantly, I am of this opinion while fully agreeing that there is no objective center to the physical universe, nor any objective top/down, front/back, left/right to it.

Nevertheless, by virtue of there being multiple physical things, there will likewise be multiple discrete positions – such as the start and end of each physical thing’s longest extension (to nitpick, even if this is equally applicable in all directions as is the case with a perfect sphere … which is likely solely conceptual).

To now try to bring this back to the arrow paradox, remember I discussed the point-free topology notion of spatially extended “spots” as an alternative to volumeless geometric points, this in terms of contemplating what space is constituted of. The same conceptual dilemma emerges: if there is a distance - a start-spot and an end-spot to a given length - which has to be traversed, then there will logically be a mid-spot to this distance, this whether or not it is marked by anyone. And, also logically, there will then be an endless quantity of mid-spots getting ever closer to the end-spot but never actualizing a perfectly identical location relative to it.

Hence, in my view, this logic will hold for as long as there is some objective length that needs to be traveled. It doesn’t matter if the length is measure in feet, in meters, some other unit of measurement, or is not measured at all via any inter-subjectively established unit of measurement. The mid-points or, alternatively, mid-spots will be - not because one individual discerns them, nor because of some interpersonally established means of measurement (including those of geometric points and topological spots) - but, it seems to me, these will be just as objectively present as is the very start and end of the given length. And devoid of some start and end to length, width, and height no physical object could itself be - instead, all of physicality would be one center-less and volume-less whole.

Don't know if I expressed myself well enough. At any rate, to me the spatial aspects of the arrow paradox are just an interesting thing to think about at times, this as a distraction of sorts. But I don’t want to beat a proverbial dead horse. I think I get the perspectives you’ve presented, which is what I was interested in. And its clear to me that we both agree on space and time being continuous, with no absolute spatial (or temporal) locations (or durations) to be found in the spatiotemoral universe.

Thanks for the exchange.

I believe Zenos paradox applies to a block of stone. Your imagination can draw perfect triangles on marble to. The modern error strayed to far from Plato. They forgot there were perfect shapes in all of nature. Today we call that geometrical symmetry

The same conceptual dilemma emerges: if there is a distance - a start-spot and an end-spot to a given length - which has to be traversed, then there will logically be a mid-spot to this distance, this whether or not it is marked by anyone. And, also logically, there will then be an endless quantity of mid-spots getting ever closer to the end-spot but never actualizing a perfectly identical location relative to it. — javra

Logically, yes; actually, no. Again, what dissolves the paradox is that the arrow need not move to each subsequent midpoint as a discrete step. Even the line itself does not exist until the arrow traverses it, since a gust of wind might alter its actual path.

Thanks for the exchange. — javra

Likewise!