Is Motion Possible?

[Farid7]

Hello everyone,

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

Unless, it disappears and reappears somewhere else. That seems to solve the problem, but there might be an issue with this idea.

An object called A is not object called B because they are different. Object A cannot become object B because they are different. That would result in something being something that is different than it. Therefore, for something to first disappear and reappear somewhere else, it must first become something different.

So, how is motion possible?

 

[Aaron112]

Therefore, for something to first disappear and reappear somewhere else, it must first become something different.

So, how is motion possible?

Every moment , everything becomes new/ becomes something else at least in time-space coordinates , even if it does not move, as well as when it moves. Each instant it exists, as a new instant ..... always subject to the Creator from whom all things flow , Who orchestrates everything for the good of those who Love (Obey) Him, who are called according to His Purpose.

 

[Occams Barber]

Hello everyone,

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

Unless, it disappears and reappears somewhere else. That seems to solve the problem, but there might be an issue with this idea.

An object called A is not object called B because they are different. Object A cannot become object B because they are different. That would result in something being something that is different than it. Therefore, for something to first disappear and reappear somewhere else, it must first become something different.

So, how is motion possible?

If you desperately need an answer to the OP's question, follow this link or Google 'Zeno's Paradoxes'.

Zeno’s Paradoxes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Warning: You will end up with a headache

(Welcome to CF @Farid7 )

OB

 

[Farid7]

If you desperately need an answer to the OP's question, follow this link or Google 'Zeno's Paradoxes'.

Zeno’s Paradoxes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Warning: You will end up with a headache

(Welcome to CF @Farid7 )

OB

Yes, I am already familiar with it. Thanks for the link.

 

[Occams Barber]

error

 

[BeyondET]

Hello everyone,

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

Unless, it disappears and reappears somewhere else. That seems to solve the problem, but there might be an issue with this idea.

An object called A is not object called B because they are different. Object A cannot become object B because they are different. That would result in something being something that is different than it. Therefore, for something to first disappear and reappear somewhere else, it must first become something different.

So, how is motion possible?

A ball that moves 2 feet and stops moving again will run out of halfways and isn't infinite thus obviously makes motion possible. A beginning and end.

 

[sjastro]

If you desperately need an answer to the OP's question, follow this link or Google 'Zeno's Paradoxes'.

Zeno’s Paradoxes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Warning: You will end up with a headache

(Welcome to CF @Farid7 )

OB

It's straight forward.
First of all you need to show the unit distance d which forms the series below converges to a finite value of one;

Let's do a mathematical trick by multiplying the series by 2.

Now let's subtract the original series from the series that has been multiplied by 2.
2*series - series = series.

Hence the unit distance d which is the original series converges to one.

Now we need to show the time t is finite to resolve the paradox.
We can do this by assuming the velocity v or motion is constant in which case d =vt or t =d/v

For any distance d.

Since v is a finite value, t is finite and the paradox is resolved.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, I am already familiar with it. Thanks for the link.

My comment was aimed at others reading your post (OP means Original Poster or Original Post in CF jargon)

I figured you were familiar with the Paradoxes since you've mentioned them in several new threads.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

Forget the halves, or you'll never get there.

Just go a third of the way.

Then you only have twice as far to go.

And you're there!

Easy-peasy!

 

[zippy2006]

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

It is said that one of the ancient philosophers responded to Zeno's paradox by demonstrating walking. I would do the same, and walk away from Zeno.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's straight forward.
First of all you need to show the unit distance d which forms the series below converges to a finite value of one;

View attachment 336325

Let's do a mathematical trick by multiplying the series by 2.

View attachment 336326

Now let's subtract the original series from the series that has been multiplied by 2.
2*series - series = series.

View attachment 336327

Hence the unit distance d which is the original series converges to one.

View attachment 336328

Now we need to show the time t is finite to resolve the paradox.
We can do this by assuming the velocity v or motion is constant in which case d =vt or t =d/v

View attachment 336329

For any distance d.

View attachment 336334

Since v is a finite value, t is finite and the paradox is resolved.

@sjastro

I have a vague recollection around something called a Planck length defined as the shortest possible distance between two points.

If my recollection is correct, wouldn't this mean that once you reach a separation of one Planck length your next step must automatically complete the trip, i.e., the Paradox can't actually exist??

OB

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro

I have a vague recollection around something called a Planck length defined as the shortest possible distance between two points.

If my recollection is correct, wouldn't this mean that once you reach a separation of one Planck length your next step must automatically complete the trip, i.e., the Paradox can't actually exist??

OB

The Planck length is the scale at which quantum effects dominate.
It's not applicable to the example in this thread unless the entire distance from start to finish is reduced to this scale.

This leads to a different paradox known as known as Zeno's arrow paradox where if you shoot an arrow it cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there.
At every instant of time there is no motion occurring since everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

The paradox at quantum scales is known as the quantum Zeno effect which is fairly complicated involving some deep ideas in quantum mechanics and is described in this video.

 

[Farid7]

Since v is a finite value, t is finite and the paradox is resolved.

True, but Zeno's paradox doesn't rely on the distance being infinite to be logical. Basically, it is the divisibility of it that is infinite.

 

[Farid7]

@sjastro

I have a vague recollection around something called a Planck length defined as the shortest possible distance between two points.

If my recollection is correct, wouldn't this mean that once you reach a separation of one Planck length your next step must automatically complete the trip, i.e., the Paradox can't actually exist??

OB

Yes, the Planck length does seem to resolve the paradox, if the Planck length does in reality exist.

 

[Farid7]

Sorry, I was not able to edit my last post, so I will continue here.

"Yes, the Planck length does seem to resolve the paradox, if the Planck length does in reality exist."...

The Planck length only seems to be possible with a length of space with no space in it, which might result in zero length of space. So, if I understand correctly, the Planck length cannot exist.

 

[Pommer]

Hello everyone,

For something to move, it first must go halfway, but first it must go half the way of the halfway, and so on and so on. That obviously makes motion impossible, since it must go through infinite halfways to reach it's destination.

Unless, it disappears and reappears somewhere else. That seems to solve the problem, but there might be an issue with this idea.

An object called A is not object called B because they are different. Object A cannot become object B because they are different. That would result in something being something that is different than it. Therefore, for something to first disappear and reappear somewhere else, it must first become something different.

So, how is motion possible?

It’s not, it’s all in our imaginations, nothing ever “happens” and this is all a dream

 

[Occams Barber]

The Planck length is the scale at which quantum effects dominate.
It's not applicable to the example in this thread unless the entire distance from start to finish is reduced to this scale.

This leads to a different paradox known as known as Zeno's arrow paradox where if you shoot an arrow it cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there.
At every instant of time there is no motion occurring since everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

The paradox at quantum scales is known as the quantum Zeno effect which is fairly complicated involving some deep ideas in quantum mechanics and is described in this video.

Thanks Sjastro,

I watched the video this morning (my time).

Now I have a Quantum headache.

OB

 

[sjastro]

True, but Zeno's paradox doesn't rely on the distance being infinite to be logical. Basically, it is the divisibility of it that is infinite.

The reason why the paradox occurs is the total travel time it takes from point A to point B is indefinite or infinite.

The way of resolving the paradox is to examine the divisibility of the time intervals rather than the distance intervals.
Of course we know the distance is finite, but in terms of a mathematical proof it is still required to show the series below converges as we are now dealing with time intervals.

Since we are assuming velocity is constant distance is proportional to time in which case the series also applies to the time intervals.
Since the series converges for the time intervals, the total travel time is finite and the paradox is resolved.

 

[sjastro]

Sorry, I was not able to edit my last post, so I will continue here.

"Yes, the Planck length does seem to resolve the paradox, if the Planck length does in reality exist."...

The Planck length only seems to be possible with a length of space with no space in it, which might result in zero length of space. So, if I understand correctly, the Planck length cannot exist.

Here is a thought experiment to think of a ball you can shrink down to any size.
Initially the ball is at a macro scale in which case its position and momentum as defined by classical Newtonian physics can be measured with 100% precision.
If we shrink the ball down to a certain scale known as the Compton limit, quantum mechanics applies instead of classical physics, where position and momentum can no longer be measured with certainty.

The Planck length is the Compton limit for the universe and has a value of 1.62 x 10⁻³⁵ metres.
While this is an extremely small value it is not a zero length.
The Planck length is essentially unfalsifiable at this stage, its existence or non-existence cannot be proven with current levels of technology.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry, I was not able to edit my last post, so I will continue here.

At the bottom left of any post you've written you'll find an 'Edit' button

After hitting 'Edit' you'll be able to amend the post or post title. When you've finished, hit 'Save' to repost the amended post.

OB