How Movement Happens
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.
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.
Comments (25)
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[b]. if there is something which is actually x and potentially
y, motion is the making actual of its y-ness."[/b]
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.
Clearly?! Now that's what I call sorcery.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic
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.
Quoting 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.
Continuous motion.
Quoting tim wood
Yes.
However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests.
You need a Prime Mover.
Time is traditionally closely connected with motion. Does this mean that time is discontinuous too?
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 [math]\frac{1}{2^n}m[/math] point in order from 0 to 1m) is impossible for the same reason that counting every [math]\frac{1}{2^n}[/math] in order from 0 to 1 is impossible: because there is no first step. 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.
Agreed!
Really?
Yes, really!