Is Movement Impossible...

[Dark_Duelist101]

Well there is this guy named zeno who had a paradox where movement is impossible. From Wikipedia Zeno's Paradox:

 

Zeno began his theory with a very basic idea. His idea was this: people want to move from one place to another. They want to go from their homes to the marketplace to buy food. They want to go from the sofa to the toilet. People have a sort of natural, built-in desire to move. To create a generic example, Zeno decided to label the starting point as point A, and the destination as point B. People want to move from point A to point B.

 

Zeno realized that to move from point A to point B, one must first move halfway from point A to point B. From the midpoint (which we'll call point C), one must then move halfway toward point B (from point C; placing the person in question 3/4 of the way between points A and B). From this point, D, one must again move halfway toward point B (placing him at 7/8 of the way from A to B). At this point most sane and sensible persons would become very frustrated at always moving halfway between where they are and where they want to be without ever getting to where they want to be, thus giving up on reaching point B altogether.

 

What most people don't realize however is that in order to move toward point C from point A, one must first move halfway from point A to point C. Thus it becomes impossible for anyone to reach point C, which is only halfway to where they actually wanted to go in the first place. Further, to move toward the midpoint between point A and point C from point A, one must first move halfway toward that midpoint between points A and C from the point A, thus making the movement to the midpoint between points A and C impossible. And so on and so on...

 

It is in this manner that Zeno managed to prove that all movement is impossible. To move from one place to another defied the laws of philosophics, mathematics, physics, and every other word ending in "ics".

 

If you do not belive me the link is here:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zeno's_Paradox

 

 

Interesting, isn't it. Discuss what you think about it.

[CrabHelmet]

In this topic, we don't understand that infinite actions can be taken in finite time if actions tend toward taking 0 time.

[Aximil]

So, it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[-SupernovA-]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

^Just owned the theory in 10 seconds.

[Dark_Duelist101]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

haha the movement is only impossible if the distance and speed are unknown. for example if you moved 10 fps for 10 feet you would get there because you know the speed and distance.

[CrabHelmet]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

haha the movement is only impossible if the distance and speed are unknown. for example if you moved 10 fps for 10 feet you would get there because you know the speed and distance.

 

I'm pretty sure I can move just fine without taking out a tape measure to see how far I go and using a stopwatch to time my movement.

[Yankee]

I watch a car move. I don't know how fast it's going.

 

I run. I don't know how fast I'm going, or how far..but I'm moving.

[CrabHelmet]

You seem to be getting Zeno, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg mixed together into some nonsensical combination.

[Yankee]

One flaw in the already flawed logic:

There will not be an infinite number of points before you get to your destination. Just more points every step and w/e. Eventually you will reach the point. You're thinking there will be an endless amount of points before you reach the end. However, the fact that there is an end, ruins this argument.

[Tentacruel]

lolmovement

 

what's next, Gravity?

[Akira]

ITT some guy copypastes a paragraph from wikipedia that he doesn't understand and opens discussion on it to make himself look intelligent.

[CrabHelmet]

One flaw in the already flawed logic:

There will not be an infinite number of points before you get to your destination. Just more points every step and w/e. Eventually you will reach the point. You're thinking there will be an endless amount of points before you reach the end. However' date=' the fact that there is an end, ruins this argument.

[/quote']

 

Now you're the one talking nonsense. There are an infinite number of points between you and your destination. The reason stuff works is not that the points are finite but that the infinite points have no size and can fit into a finite space.

[Tentacruel]

One flaw in the already flawed logic:

There will not be an infinite number of points before you get to your destination. Just more points every step and w/e. Eventually you will reach the point. You're thinking there will be an endless amount of points before you reach the end. However' date=' the fact that there is an end, ruins this argument.

[/quote']

 

Now you're the one talking nonsense. There are an infinite number of points between you and your destination. The reason stuff works is not that the points are finite but that the infinite points have no size and can fit into a finite space.

[Luna Lovegood]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

But, you are halfway between your computer and somewhere twice as far from your couch!

[Tentacruel]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

But, you are halfway between your computer and somewhere twice as far from your couch!

 

Ok now you're just making stuff up.

[Ghost-O]

So' date=' it's impossible for me to go sit on my couch right now? Because I was just doing that a little while ago and now I'm over at my computer (across the room), not halfway between the couch and my computer.

[/quote']

 

But, you are halfway between your computer and somewhere twice as far from your couch!

 

The other thing, twice as far from his couch, is not his destination.

[Yankee]

One flaw in the already flawed logic:

There will not be an infinite number of points before you get to your destination. Just more points every step and w/e. Eventually you will reach the point. You're thinking there will be an endless amount of points before you reach the end. However' date=' the fact that there is an end, ruins this argument.

[/quote']

 

Now you're the one talking nonsense. There are an infinite number of points between you and your destination. The reason stuff works is not that the points are finite but that the infinite points have no size and can fit into a finite space.

 

Personally, I don't see that making sense. As you will reach the destination eventually.

Every halfway point you make IS an advancement in distance traveled...

[Tempest Dahlia]

By this logic, there are 0 dots in a circle, when in actuality there are 360.

lt's not infinite, it's more like a variable with an unknown number: it's there, we just don't know it. 'Cause i'm quite sure l just got up and moved to my bed.

[BehindTheMask]

What has been moved is not moving.

What has not been moved is not moving.

Apart from what has been moved and what has not been moved,

Movement cannot be conceived.

 

Where there is change, there is motion.

Since there is change in the moving,

And not in the moved or not-moved,

Motion is in that which is moving.

 

How would it be acceptable

For motion to be in the mover?

When it is not moving, it is not acceptable

To call it a mover.

 

For whomever there is motion in the mover,

There could be non-motion

Evident in the mover.

But having motion follow from being a mover.

 

If motion is in the mover,

There would have to be a twofold motion:

One in virtue of which it is a mover,

And one in virtue of which it moves.

 

If there were a twofold motion,

The subject of that motion would be twofold.

For without a subject of motion, there cannot be motion.

 

If without a mover

It would not be correct to say that there is motion,

Then if there were no motion,

How could there be a mover?

 

Inasmuch as a real mover does not move,

And a non-mover does not move,

Apart from a mover and a non-mover,

What third thing could move?

 

When without motion,

it is unacceptable to call something a mover,

How will it be acceptable

To say that a mover moves?

 

For him from whose perspective a mover moves,

There would be the consequence that

Without motion there could be a mover.

Because a mover moves.

 

If a mover were to move,

There would be a twofold motion:

One in virtue of which he is a mover,

And one in virtue of which the mover moves.

 

Motion does not begin in what has moved,

Nor does it begin in what has not moved,

Nor does it begin in what is moving.

In what, then, does motion begin?

 

Prior to the beginning of motion,

There is no beginning of motion in

The going or in the gone.

How could there be motion in the not-gone?

 

Since the beginning of motion

Cannot be conceived in any way,

What gone thing, what going thing,

And what non-going thing can be posited?

 

Just as a moving thing is not stationary,

A non-moving thing is not stationary.

Apart from the moving and the non-moving,

What third thing is stationary?

 

If without motion

It is not appropriate to posit a mover,

How could it be appropriate to say

That a moving this is stationary?

 

One does not halt from moving,

Nor from having moved or not having moved.

Motion and coming to rest

And starting to move are similar.

 

That motion just is the mover itself

Is not correct.

Nor is it correct that

They are completely different.

 

It would follow from

The identity of mover and motion

That agent and action

Are identical.

 

It would follow from

A real distinction between motion and mover

That were could be a mover without motion

And motion without a mover

 

When neither in identiy

Nor in difference

Can they be established,

How can these two be established at all?

 

The motion by means of which a mover is manifest

Cannot be the motion by means of which he moves.

He does not exist before that motion,

So what and where is the thing that moves?

 

A mover does not carry out a different motion

From that by means of which he is manifest as a mover.

Moreover, in one mover

A twofold motion is unacceptable.

 

A really existent mover

Doesn't move in any of the three ways.

A non-existent mover

Doesn't move in any of the three ways.

 

Neither an entity nor a non-entity

Moves in any of the three ways.

So motion, mover and

And route are non-existent.

 

(taken from Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, translated by Jay L. Garfield)

[CrabHelmet]

By this logic' date=' there are 0 dots in a circle, when in actuality there are 360.

lt's not infinite, it's more like a variable with an unknown number: it's there, we just don't know it.

[/quote']

 

You're an idiot. Go take a high school Geometry class. Until you do, shut up.

[Maghion Syaoran Light]

lolmovement

 

what's next' date=' Gravity?

[/quote']

 

So if we are falling, we will never hit the ground because if we have to reach point B, then we have to fall to point C, which is a half way point...

[Aximil]

lolmovement

 

what's next' date=' Gravity?

[/quote']

 

So if we are falling, we will never hit the ground because if we have to reach point B, then we have to fall to point C, which is a half way point...

 

I CAN FLY!!!

By this logic' date=' there are 0 dots in a circle, when in actuality there are 360.

lt's not infinite, it's more like a variable with an unknown number: it's there, we just don't know it.

[/quote']

 

You're an idiot. Go take a high school Geometry class. Until you do, shut up.

 

Aren't there an infinite amount of dots in a circle?

[Cyber Altair]

Hi guys, Dr. Cox is awesome.

 

That is all.

[bury the year]

You seem to be getting Zeno' date=' Schrodinger, and Heisenberg mixed together into some nonsensical combination.

[/quote']

 

Dammit. You beat me to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Yay for quantum theory~

[Tempest Dahlia]

By this logic' date=' there are 0 dots in a circle, when in actuality there are 360.

lt's not infinite, it's more like a variable with an unknown number: it's there, we just don't know it.

[/quote']

 

You're an idiot. Go take a high school Geometry class. Until you do, shut up.

 

Your immaturity is not going to make me come out of my face, Crab.