Is Movement Impossible...

[Raylen]

Zeno realized that to move from point A to point B' date=' 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...

[/quote']

 

Not the best way to explain it.

 

Yes we've all heard of Zeno's paradox. We can't disprove it without violating certain rules.

[Dark]

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. 'Cause i'm quite sure l just got up and [b']moved[/b] to my bed.

 

I'm pretty sure the graph of a circle has a bunch more than just 360 points. <___<

[Tempest Dahlia]

When you're measuring degrees, no it dosen't.

A dot for every degree = 360 dots.

... Well, it serves no huge purpose to anyone else, seeing as me saying 'dots' is the equivalent of me saying 'degrees'... but l like saying dots instead

[Aximil]

When you're measuring degrees' date=' no it dosen't.

A dot for every degree = 360 dots.

... Well, it serves no huge purpose to anyone else, seeing as me saying 'dots' is the equivalent of me saying 'degrees'... but l like saying dots instead

[/quote']

 

Dots =/= Degrees

 

You need to clarify stuffs before spouting out stuffs. There are an infinite amount of points in a circle, which are also called dots from time to time.

[Tempest Dahlia]

Which l just clarified.

[Aximil]

Which l just clarified.

 

But you need to clarify it in the first place otherwise it makes things you say different from what they actually are, like back in post #18. It would be like a doctor asking for a syringe when he actually means a scalpal.

[Enma Kozato]

Another disproving of this logic: as you continue to approach point B, there eventually will be insufficient space between sent person and point B for the person to complete in the manner of halving. Which makes the theory completly obselete.

[Aximil]

Anybody else notice that the TC hasn't posted in this thread since he was disproved?

[Cloister]

Hi guys' date=' Dr. Cox is awesome.

 

That is all.

[/quote']

 

If all the other posts didn't prove this stuff either wrong or right, this sure did.

[Tempest Dahlia]

Which l just clarified.

 

But you need to clarify it in the first place otherwise it makes things you say different from what they actually are' date=' like back in post #18. It would be like a doctor asking for a syringe when he actually means a scalpal.

[/quote']

It was a mistake. I clarified. Get over it.

Moving on.

 

 

@PB: True.

When was this theory created? It would definitely explain wy it sounds so... not right.

[BehindTheMask]

I love how no one is arguing against my claims I posted.

[Tempest Dahlia]

... well What did you post? o.o

[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' date='

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)

[/quote']

[Tempest Dahlia]

You expect someone to quote that? XD

 

Well it's true for the most part. lt sounds inspirational too, a bit.

[Dark_Duelist101]

i was gone for awhile and lets get this straight.

You are at point A and want to get to B. You get half way blah blah.

You know you are going a 100 mph and B is 100 miles from A.

You can now calculate when you are going to get there.

---

Anybody else notice that the TC hasn't posted in this thread since he was disproved?

 

My laptop(gateway) was broken and i've been trying to spend not all my time on this site.

[♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥]

All I care, is that I can actually move. Sucks for those who can't.

[Rusty Shovel]

All I care' date=' is that I can actually move. Sucks for those who can't.

[/quote']

 

/topic

[Tentacruel]

I still don't understand how movement isn't possible.