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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

There are no particles. What you are observing are continuous wave movements. Everything is waves. Observe waves in an ocean to understand the process.

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?

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.

Movement in space is real. The concept of infinity is an illusion.

:point: Spontaneous symmetry breakings. Quantum uncertainty. Thermodynamic gradients.

Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position — elucid

Clearly?! Now that's what I call sorcery.

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?

Who says? And how? — tim wood

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic

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.

which for one reason or another is said to be impossible. — Michael

Who says? And how? — tim wood

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic — 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests — Michael

Time is traditionally closely connected with motion. Does this mean that time is discontinuous too?

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 $\frac{1}{2^n}m$ point in order from 0 to 1m) is impossible for the same reason that counting every $\frac{1}{2^n}$ 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.

You need a Prime Mover — frank

Agreed!

Agreed! — TheMadFool

Really?

Really? — frank

Yes, really!

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.