Is motion real?

[Anonymous No.14545232]

if space is indefinitely divisible, how is motion real?

[Anonymous No.14545236]

Ancient Greek fags didn't understand the essence of the calculus until guys like Archimedes came along. This is an example of that fact.

[Anonymous No.14545239]

>>14545232
The notion of covering some distance in space is an imaginary construction of the mind. Perhaps "motion" is "real" in some sense, but not in the sense of covering distance.

[Anonymous No.14545243]

>>14545236
>calculus
a mathematical abstraction can't change the fact that motion through infinite space divisions is an impossibility

[Anonymous No.14545261]

>>14545239
1st solution: there aren't divisions because limits are a cathegory only from your mind and reality is a continuous

2nd solutinon: the are minium divisions in space, something like Space atoms. And motion is due to a pre-established harmony

[Anonymous No.14545268]

>>14545261
>1st solution: there aren't divisions because limits are a cathegory only from your mind and reality is a continuous
That doesn't "solve" anything but merely restate the problem: if you subscribe both to the notion of continuity and of movement through space as gradually covering some distance, it implies a realized uncountable infinity which seems like an absurdity.

[Anonymous No.14545273]

Based thread. Modern basedence can't just keep ingoring it

[Anonymous No.14545281]

>>14545273
S-O-Y

[Anonymous No.14545292]

>>14545232
It isn't. Nothing actually moves. Sorty Anon but you just proved it. If you think you ever move anywhere, that's just an illusion. You're actually staying still.

[Anonymous No.14545341]

>>14545243
Infinitesimals exist. Sorry, chud.

[Anonymous No.14545343]

>abstractions in my head exist
>sorry, chud!!

[Anonymous No.14545347]

>>14545341
You can clearly see them in a microbescope.

[Anonymous No.14545352]

>>14545347
>microbescope

[Anonymous No.14545357]

Is "indefinitely divisible space" an abstraction, or idiocy? Both seem to exist in OP's head.

[Anonymous No.14545365]

>>14545357
Not OP, but "infinitely divisible space" is naturally just an abstraction because divisible space is just an abstraction because divisibility is just an abstraction.

[Anonymous No.14545388]

>>14545232
For christ sake this has been solved for eons. Finite time. The dimension missing in the calculation is time and reference frames. It does not matter at all if space is infinitely divisible, the same way it does not matter that on the whole you cannot determine motion if you are a point on an infinite plane.

Let me illustrate it like this: On an infinite plane you cannot be said to be moving, the same way you think infinite divisibility means you cannot move. Except you can, because by making a marker relative to yourself you plainly are moving *relative to the marker*.

The fundamental mistake of thought experiments like these is the lack of understanding that infinities don't "break" things because your reference frame IS NOT INFINITE.

[Anonymous No.14545395]

>>14545388
Excruciatingly low-IQ post. >>>/r/pseuds

[Anonymous No.14545400]

>>14545232
What does one have to do with the other? The only way moron would be impossible is if it took infinite time to cross infinitely divisible space. But it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14545402]

>>14545395
k

[Anonymous No.14545408]

>>14545268
That it seems absurd to you for some unintelligible reason is not an actual problem.

[Anonymous No.14545412]

>>14545273
>Modern basedence
Thanks for the compliment, newfag.

[Anonymous No.14545413]

>>14545408
It is an actual problem to real people. Cattle like you can be made to accept and believe anything, on the other hand.

[Anonymous No.14545434]

>>14545232
This has been debunked. Time and space is discrete.

[Anonymous No.14545477]

>>14545434
No anon OP doesn't want real answers he only wants people reeing. >>14545395

Just another trollpost.

[Anonymous No.14545479]

>>14545232
Planck length

[Anonymous No.14545514]

>>14545232
That paradox is mind bogglingly retarded.
Yeah he has to cover so-and-so distance. And he will do so, in less and less time because neither he nor the turtle are changing their speed. Just because you look at an infinitesimal subdivision of time and see they moved an infinitesimal distance in that time won't change the fact they are still moving at their respective speeds.
It's like looking at their positions at just a single time(when they pass each other), and claiming that nothing is moving... Well duh, you need more than one point in time measure speed!

[Anonymous No.14545515]

All of us on /sci would like to know how you explain to trooper Bubba that speed is a fake concept.

[Anonymous No.14545588]

>>14545514
>you look at an infinitesimal subdivision of time and see they moved an infinitesimal distance in that time
I'm sure these mental constructs make a lot of sense in your head after you've been indoctrinated with them your entire life, but it still stands that the idea of realizing a uncountable infinity is absurd.

[Anonymous No.14545612]

>>14545232
No physical infinities have been proven.

This paradox falls apart once you reach the Planck scale.

[Anonymous No.14545622]

>>14545343
You're a seething materialist wannabe philosofag who still hasn't realised that "impossibility" is an abstract claim about the nature of the world. To ignore another abstract concept (mine) whereby the supposed paradox you present may be resolved, because you consider it to be too abstract is ironic. You believe there is a paradox or impossibility but when I point out a possible logic whereby that paradox may be resolved you claim that it can't possibly have anything to do with the real world. So what is it? the world obviously exists, it is a possibility, so obviously there is no real paradox and the possibility must be due to some logic like the one that I proposed where the paradox cannot exist, but you claim it does so you ignore solutions like mine because they are "too abstract", but what's more abstract, navel gazing way of approaching this problem? believing in a reality that is intuitive conceptually for the sake of being intuitive conceptually or subscribing to the conceptual framework that best explains reality?
>>14545479
You're a pseud who doesn't know what you're talking about. Go read about what Planck units are actually about on Wikipedia and STFU forever about things you have no idea about.

[Anonymous No.14545623]

>>14545588
Does that hold up well in traffic court?
It sounds even worse than "I am a sovereign citizen, your honor."

[Anonymous No.14545633]

>>14545623
Not an argument. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.14545636]

>>14545622
>You're a seething materialist wannabe philosofag who still hasn't realised that "impossibility" is an abstract claim about the nature of the world.
Someone is off his fucking medications. I wonder what the strawman in your head actually said to trigger all of this incongruent drivel.

[Anonymous No.14545651]

>>14545232
>how is motion real?

Exactly, it's not. The illusion of motion is just how much you are being smeared over the time dimension.

[Anonymous No.14545656]

>>14545388
>On an infinite plane

Planes don't exist

[Anonymous No.14545707]

>>14545588
What kind of retard do you have to be, to believe what you said is an argument?

Literally just look at OP's picture.
Maybe seeing numbers will activate your neurons. Say the guy moves at 10km/hr and the turtle 0km/hr. And there's 1km between them.
He will run that 1.0km in 6:00minutes. No exceptions.

But first he runs 0.5km in 3:00minutes?
Then 0.25km in 1:30minutes?
Then 0.125km in 0:45minutes?
...
See both those numbers getting smaller? So what? It doesn't matter if he moves 0km in 0:00minutes, he will pass the turtle.

[Anonymous No.14545745]

>>14545636
Ahh, I see. You're not even going to bother engaging with my argument are you? Great. Well that's disappointing for sure but it not entirely unexpected.
Funny that you accuse me of being off my rocker however. You're the one who is arguing that motion is impossible or that this ancient problem invented before the advent of the calculus somehow is saying something meaningful or philosophically interesting outside of the normal slightly non-intuitiveness of the calculus. So tell me again who's barmy exactly? me or you?

[Anonymous No.14545748]

>>14545707
See >>14545588

[Anonymous No.14545751]

>>14545745
>You're the one who is arguing that motion is impossible
I'm arguing that stuff in your head is just stuff in your head, so it's unsurising that it bears all the hallmarks of head stuff, like "infinitesimals" and realized infinities. Anyway, nothing you sharted out is relevant or an argument.

[Anonymous No.14545756]

>>14545751
So explain how motion works without the calculus (i.e. no limits or infinitesimals). You can't.

[Anonymous No.14545765]

>>14545756
You could come up with countless alternative ways to model it that don't suffer from this problem, but that'd be more stuff in your head so it's moot. Either way, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14545787]

>>14545765
> You could come up with countless alternative ways to model it that don't suffer from this problem
Name one (1).
> but that'd be more stuff in your head so it's moot.
Since when is that a problem? If you have a problem with there being a difference between concepts and reality then stop using language, faggot. Calculus is too hard for you. Ooga booga boo!

[Anonymous No.14545812]

>>14545787
>Name one (1).
Well, you could just imagine the universe as a single unchanging object, and "motion" as an artifact of a brain sampling slices of this object. The math works out the same.

> If you have a problem with there being a difference between concepts and reality
I don't. You apparently do, since you can't let go of the idea of realized infinities and accept that your view of motion only makes sense as an abstract mental model.

[Anonymous No.14545834]

If space is indefinitely divisible, motion covers infinite amount of distance. Where is the problem?

[Anonymous No.14545842]

>>14545834
>Where is the problem?
The problem is that this infinite division is just a potential infinity you imagine, while actually covering these infinite divisions implies realizing an uncountable infinity.

[Anonymous No.14545845]

>>14545413
What's the problem? You can't even describe it.

[Anonymous No.14545849]

>>14545845
I can and I did. You're just too dumb and brainwashed to try to actually comprehend what I said.

[Anonymous No.14545851]

>>14545588
>realizing a uncountable infinity is absurd.
Why?

[Anonymous No.14545853]

>Why?

[Anonymous No.14545860]

>>14545842
>while actually covering these infinite divisions implies realizing an uncountable infinity.
And?

[Anonymous No.14545861]

>>14545849
>I can and I did
Where?

[Anonymous No.14545866]

>>14545853
So you can't even explain how it's absurd. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

[Anonymous No.14545868]

The problem of Achilles is that he chooses a wrong way to achieve his goal. He won't keep moving indefinitely, his brain must eventually collapse from all the taxing calculations.

[Anonymous No.14545877]

>>14545866
You could make the same retarded non-argument about anything that is absurd. It's impossible to prove that something is absurd to deranged people who embrace the absurdity.

[Anonymous No.14545879]

>>14545868
No calculations are needed for Achilles to move.

[Anonymous No.14545883]

>>14545877
>You could make the same retarded non-argument about anything that is absurd.
No, because actual absurdities are explainable using logic, which you lack.

[Anonymous No.14545892]

There are infinities larger than others. He is moving at an infinite speed that is larger than the turlte's infinite speed. The amount of irrational numbers for example is a larger infinity than the amount of rational numbers.

[Anonymous No.14545899]

>>14545892
>He is moving at an infinite speed
No.

[Anonymous No.14545907]

>>14545883
>actual absurdities are explainable using logic
You seem to be too profoundly retarded to differentiate between an absurdity and a logical fallacy.