Thread: Movement Can't Exist

Originally Posted by Kiza

I don't want to get in a stupid argument or anything here, but we're forgetting one thing: people don't fucking move by halving distances.

Yes they do. You move half a distance, then half that distance, then half that distance, infinitely. There is no way around that. It does not mean you stop for a moment at every half way point. That has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I solved the paradox lol, why are people still arguing over it?

I don't agree with your premise. If A moves toward B, the distance between them stays the same, but the same is not true of the distance between A and C? You have a double standard. You threw in C, as if it would somehow be different from B. C works like B does. The paradox applies to every distance travelled. Also, your point does not address the infinite divisions aspect of the paradox, which is what makes the paradox a paradox.

I am not saying this about anybody in particular, but I think I know why the subject of Zeno's Paradox brings out more snobbery and hostility than any other subject ever discussed on this site, aside from politics and religion. The paradox stumps EVERYBODY. That causes blood to boil and defense mechanisms to go ape shit. People who pride themselves on being intellectuals don't like facing it when they are eternally stumped.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes they do. You move half a distance, then half that distance, then half that distance, infinitely. There is no way around that. It does not mean you stop for a moment at every half way point. That has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I didn't put that right. What I was saying was kind of agreeing with DD: that just because something is infinitely divisible, that does not mean it's actually infinite.

I mean, let us say I was to jump off a building. I would hit the pavement, or someone, or something. I wouldn't never get to the pavement or whatever it I was going to hit. I would hit something and splat. That's pretty much a certain.

Originally Posted by Kiza

I mean, let us say I was to jump off a building. I would hit the pavement, or someone, or something. I wouldn't never get to the pavement or whatever it I was going to hit. I would hit something and splat. That's pretty much a certain.

I agree with that. Motion does exist, and distances are travelled. I just think motion involves a paradox that has never been resolved beyond mere labels and appeals to authority.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree with that. Motion does exist, and distances are traveled. I just think motion involves a paradox that has never been resolved beyond mere labels and appeals to authority.

See time for a similar problem. The origin of motions altogether is the origin of the paradox. Where it begins, where the rules originate from, that is where the inconsistency lies.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't agree with your premise. If A moves toward B, the distance between them stays the same, but the same is not true of the distance between A and C? You have a double standard. You threw in C, as if it would somehow be different from B. C works like B does. The paradox applies to every distance travelled. Also, your point does not address the infinite divisions aspect of the paradox, which is what makes the paradox a paradox.

I am not saying this about anybody in particular, but I think I know why the subject of Zeno's Paradox brings out more snobbery and hostility than any other subject ever discussed on this site, aside from politics and religion. The paradox stumps EVERYBODY. That causes blood to boil and defense mechanisms to go ape shit. People who pride themselves on being intellectuals don't like facing it when they are eternally stumped.

LOL it's hard for you to get it I think. A moves in the direction of B, so the "distance" between A and B will halve. But since the space is infinitely divisible, you could consider the distance stayed the same. Yes, of course. BUT.. When the distance between A and B halved, the proportion of that distance, when compared to other distances (like A to C or B to C) changed. That is the reason why we adopt units of measurement for distances. Say the original distance between A and B was the size of a pen. When they moved, the distance between them was, in absolute terms, unchanged, but in relative terms (in relation to the pen, and other things) changed, because the size of the pen didn't change with it. The distance between A and B became a fraction of the size of the pen.

And seriously, I see nothing so special about this paradox in particular. I came to it on my own and solved it when I was introduced to very primitive physics, namely units of measurement, when I was 14 or so. I've seen much, much worse discussions on the number infinity.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL it's hard for you to get it I think.

LOL... It's hard for you to know what you are talking about, I think.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

A moves in the direction of B, so the "distance" between A and B will halve. But since the space is infinitely divisible, you could consider the distance stayed the same. Yes, of course. BUT.. When the distance between A and B halved, the proportion of that distance, when compared to other distances (like A to C or B to C) changed. That is the reason why we adopt units of measurement for distances. Say the original distance between A and B was the size of a pen. When they moved, the distance between them was, in absolute terms, unchanged, but in relative terms (in relation to the pen, and other things) changed, because the size of the pen didn't change with it. The distance between A and B became a fraction of the size of the pen.

The proportions change AND the absolute distance changes. What about it? That does not resolve the paradox. It does not even address it. Do you understand the paradox?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And seriously, I see nothing so special about this paradox in particular. I came to it on my own and solved it when I was introduced to very primitive physics, namely units of measurement, when I was 14 or so.

Well, when I was 2, I painted the ceiling of a huge Sistine Chapel I built, only to find out later that Michelangelo painted one centuries ago.

The paradox applies to that distance too. The stuff about "getting to" is hypothetical. It says to do this, you would have to do that. It doesn't say you actually get anywhere. The point of the original post is that you can't cover any of those distances.

By the way, I believe movement exists. I just think the paradox is interesting.

I don't think you understand the whole point of his solution.

He isn't trying to get to C at all, he's just trying to get to B. But if you pretend you're trying to get to C and halve the distances, you'll have no 'trouble' at all in getting to B.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think you understand the whole point of his solution.

He isn't trying to get to C at all, he's just trying to get to B. But if you pretend you're trying to get to C and halve the distances, you'll have no 'trouble' at all in getting to B.

There would be trouble/paradox because even that is hypothetical. The ifs about getting to anything are not statements of actual accomplishment. They are hypotheticals. The paradox applies to all motion. ALL motion.

Everything you just said has no deducable meaning.

Say there is a house at the midpoint between A and B.

Surely according to your description of the person's motion from A to B, there was no 'paradox' in reaching the house?

So surely in this instance the paradox doesn't apply to his motion to the house, hence it doesn't apply to all motion.

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything you just said has no deducable meaning.

Say there is a house at the midpoint between A and B.

Surely according to your description of the person's motion from A to B, there was no 'paradox' in reaching the house?

So surely in this instance the paradox doesn't apply to his motion to the house, hence it doesn't apply to all motion.

False, on all counts.

You would definitely fail a STEP paper...

Originally Posted by Xei

You would definitely fail a STEP paper...

Oh yeah? OH YEAH????? Well, I'm rubber, and your glue....

You would definitely fail a lie detector test. And... your momma.

Let me know when you can counter my philosophical arguments.

What I said was a joke, you people need to chill out. You're behaving like we have to solve the paradox before we can start moving lol.

Anyway, this is a more serious interpretation. I got from A to B in half an hour, the proof is me being at B while people saw me at A half an hour ago. My speed was constant during the whole trip. Now if we start dividing distances, we divide the time it took me to cross them, too. Since my speed didn't change, for any, no matter how small division of lenght, a proportionate small dividion of time will exist. Now, you still can divide time infinitely, but you can't stop it, which means in half an hour I'm there. Or you can apply to paradox to time as well (for every second to pass, half a second needs to pass too, and half of half a second etc.). But then we could apply it to anything really (Before you digest a hamburger, you need to digest half of it, before that you need to digest half of half of it etc. therefore, you can't digest a hamburger).

Let me know when you can counter my philosophical arguments.

False, on all counts.

No justification whatosever.

You're just wrong.

Seriously it's as if you're trying to win the world record for irony.

Originally Posted by Xei

Seriously it's as if you're trying to win the world record for irony.

I was talking about your points as a means of addressing the issue itself. I never suddenly started talking about your abilities or personal life outside of the issue. If you want to make the subject all about me, like you pretty much always do, talk shit about me in the rap battle thread. Now try countering my points... on the issue of this thread.

I'll interpret that as meaning you're not going to try to respond to mysterious dreamer's argument... so I guess he won you over.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'll interpret that as meaning you're not going to try to respond to mysterious dreamer's argument... so I guess he won you over.

I agree with him. Motion does exist, and the paradox can be applied to time, digestion, and lots of other things. He made a good and interesting point.

Are you ready to counter my arguments yet?

Which arguments?

MD just solved it by creating a vector 2(B-A)... what I'm waiting for is a counterargument to that. I thought it was extremely elegant.

Originally Posted by Xei

Which arguments?

MD just solved it by creating a vector 2(B-A)... what I'm waiting for is a counterargument to that. I thought it was extremely elegant.

Proving that motion exists is not the same as resolving a paradox involved in the fact that motion exists. I don't take issue with what MD said. Perhaps the thread starter does.

This thread is about disproving Zeno's paradox, not proving motion...

How can you ever prove the existence of something without employing the scientific method?

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread is about disproving Zeno's paradox, not proving motion...

Are you telling me that?

Originally Posted by Xei

How can you ever prove the existence of something without employing the scientific method?

The scientific method is not used to "prove" things. It is used to form and support theories. Proofs are for logic and math.

Are you telling me that?

Yes, I just told you that... :\

prove the existence

Just think about it, please.

Use maths and logic to prove that you exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, I just told you that... :\

You said it, but you did not address anybody specifically. Why did you tell me that? I was talking about what somebody else did.

Originally Posted by Xei

Just think about it, please.

Use maths and logic to prove that you exist.

I can only prove it to myself. Descartes summed up the reasoning. I can only argue probability as it relates to your mental history. For all you know, my posts are figments of your imagination and I do not exist.

Okay, if you want to go for Cartesian hyperskepticism then nothing except yourself is real and motion certainly isn't real. It's a bit of a redundant point.

This isn't a thread about Descartes though, so I think we can assume that scientific truth is objective truth.