Is a "smallest distance" self-contradictory?

[Kharakov]

Probably relative, the smallest movement may relate to what one object can achieve but not another object, which may move in even smaller increments. While ''the smallest possible movement'' may relate what is possible to an object that is capable of making the smallest possible movement, Planck length or whatever...

But UM, said, "And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.". There was no qualifying the object.

Yeah, well, I won't comment on that.

Would you please reformulate your response as a begged question?

 

[Juma]

That doesnt foliow:
If space consists of "tiny cubes" of miinimal position, each position is still a distance apart. Think of squares on a chess board.

That's the space that the position occupies. The minimal distance between the 2 cubes or squares next to each other wouldn't have a space less than a square. There would just be one or more squares between them or nothing at all.

The distance travelled when moving from one chess square to the next is equal to the size if the square. Not the distance vetween the squares.

 

[ryan]

That's the space that the position occupies. The minimal distance between the 2 cubes or squares next to each other wouldn't have a space less than a square. There would just be one or more squares between them or nothing at all.

The distance travelled when moving from one chess square to the next is equal to the size if the square. Not the distance vetween the squares.

What is its size of the object that moves? Use 2d if you can just to make it easier.

 

[DBT]

Probably relative, the smallest movement may relate to what one object can achieve but not another object, which may move in even smaller increments. While ''the smallest possible movement'' may relate what is possible to an object that is capable of making the smallest possible movement, Planck length or whatever...

But UM, said, "And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.". There was no qualifying the object.

Yeah, well, I won't comment on that.

Would you please reformulate your response as a begged question?

Probably not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Would you please reformulate your response as a begged question?

Begged questions can't be chosen.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's the space that the position occupies. The minimal distance between the 2 cubes or squares next to each other wouldn't have a space less than a square. There would just be one or more squares between them or nothing at all.

The distance travelled when moving from one chess square to the next is equal to the size if the square. Not the distance vetween the squares.

Ryan could be very nearly right if his explanation wasn't so confused but, you, Juma, are very seriously confused.

To travel from one square to any one of its four immediate neighbours, a Tower moves exactly 1 square according to the rules of the game of chess. So, the distance has to be 1. To move on to the next square in line, it moves exactly two squares overall so the distance travelled in this case is 2. And so on.

Your mistake is that you are mixing chess and real space. If you play chess, what matters are the rules of the game, not actual real space, although, clearly, players have to comply with the physical laws of the physical universe when moving their pieces. But there is a contradiction in insisting on talking of the chess board as a 'discrete space' if you want in fact to measure distances as physical distances.

You could be coherent still if you measured the distance between two squares as the number of moves required to go from one to the other. That would be a very different kind of distance, though, and I think it would more intuitive to talk in this case of the "speed" of the piece: slow for pawns and Kings, fast for Towers, Bishops and Queens, with the knights in between.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Probably relative, the smallest movement may relate to what one object can achieve but not another object, which may move in even smaller increments. While ''the smallest possible movement'' may relate what is possible to an object that is capable of making the smallest possible movement, Planck length or whatever...

But UM, said, "And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.". There was no qualifying the object.

Yeah, well, I won't comment on that.

Would you please reformulate your response as a begged question?

Probably not.

That... uhhh. Sir, I am a pauper of the philosophical variety, one who cannot reformulate your response into a begged question with my limited sophistic skillset. All I ask is for your response to be posed as a begged question, so I can narrate it to my 7 uneducated children, whose minds are all but starved of higher wisdom and learning. It would be a great kindness, and would certainly elevate their spirits to receive your wisdom and knowledge in the form of a begged question.

Would you be so kind? <-- that's a real begged question.

 

[DBT]

Probably relative, the smallest movement may relate to what one object can achieve but not another object, which may move in even smaller increments. While ''the smallest possible movement'' may relate what is possible to an object that is capable of making the smallest possible movement, Planck length or whatever...

But UM, said, "And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.". There was no qualifying the object.

Yeah, well, I won't comment on that.

Would you please reformulate your response as a begged question?

Probably not.

That... uhhh. Sir, I am a pauper of the philosophical variety, one who cannot reformulate your response into a begged question with my limited sophistic skillset. All I ask is for your response to be posed as a begged question, so I can narrate it to my 7 uneducated children, whose minds are all but starved of higher wisdom and learning. It would be a great kindness, and would certainly elevate their spirits to receive your wisdom and knowledge in the form of a begged question.

Would you be so kind? <-- that's a real begged question.

Seven uneducated children? My God, you need all the help you can get!

 

[Speakpigeon]

But what is the nature of the medium the object is moving in?

And my position is there no smallest movement, that is an imaginary concept not a real world possibility, only a smallest movement possible.

And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.

What's the difference between the smallest movement and the smallest movement possible?

Let me try to guess.

UM thinks that there are real movements but no smallest movement, at least not in actual fact. So, the smallest movement is nothing but a bare concept.

So what does he mean by there's only "a smallest movement possible"? Well, this is explained by what follows.

So, let's look further down the line.

He says that "anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves". You see? If that's true then there is something which is the smallest movement possible since anything that moves, which presumably is a lot of things, makes this smallest movement possible first. So, basically, if it moves, it can't fail to make this smallest movement possible. So it's do all the time everywhere by all those little things that move like particles and people and stars.

Yet, how is it possible that no real movements is the smallest movement and yet everything that moves inevitably makes the smallest movement possible first. Well, I can only assume here, sorry.

So, my assumption is that real movements according to UM are only from start to finish and so the initial part of a movement isn't a movement in itself, not a real one anyway. It has to be seen as just a concept, the concept of a certain movement that never was. So conceptually, we can think of something that makes a real movement as having done first, inevitably but only in the abstract, the smallest movement possible. The actual movement may be bigger but the distance covered may also be the same as that of the smallest movement possible. If so, the movement made still is a real movement, not a possible one, and so not the smallest movement possible.

Anyway, I will have tried.

No wonder.

It's a lost cause.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

so I can narrate it to my 7 uneducated children, whose minds are all but starved of higher wisdom and learning.

You're Snow White's husband?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So You're the source of that flash at the top of the building in SW Raqqa./derail

All of this is logically possible. /rerail

 

[untermensche]

But what is the nature of the medium the object is moving in?

And my position is there no smallest movement, that is an imaginary concept not a real world possibility, only a smallest movement possible.

And anything that moves makes the smallest movement possible first when it moves.

What's the difference between the smallest movement and the smallest movement possible?

The smallest possible movement is something real. It is the smallest movement something real can make.

The smallest movement is an imaginary concept. It never ends.

 

[Kharakov]

No, in reality, we have not seen any evidence that there is a smallest movement.

If there was a smallest movement, energy would "disappear" as there would have to be a smallest velocity/momentum as well.

What happens when a photon hits an asteroid? It changes the asteroid's momentum a very slight amount. It might even do so in such a way that heat is created and dissipates through the asteroid, changing the asteroid's total apparent momentum even less.

Whatever, right? No. What we end up with is a physical system that adjusts to apparently immeasurably small quantities of momentum. This means that we must have a smooth continuous system for physical reality.

Otherwise we'd end up with reality missing tons of energy (gravitational potential energy) over time, and we'd see evidence of this in galaxy formation. We don't see evidence of energy dissipating over time, if we did, it would be BIG news. Then again, dark matter, right? mehhh....

 

[untermensche]

No, in reality, we have not seen any evidence that there is a smallest movement.

If there was a smallest movement, energy would "disappear" as there would have to be a smallest velocity/momentum as well.

The smallest possible movement is just a movement.

No different except in length from any other movement.

The claim is absurd.

The real question is: How can there NOT be a smallest possible movement?

Are the properties of space and matter arbitrary?

If not then how do these properties not establish a smallest possible movement for something made of matter to make in space?

 

[Kharakov]

No, in reality, we have not seen any evidence that there is a smallest movement.

If there was a smallest movement, energy would "disappear" as there would have to be a smallest velocity/momentum as well.

The smallest possible movement is just a movement.

It doesn't exist in physical reality, for the reasons (corrections- energy would increase, not decrease) mentioned. There is no "smallest possible movement" in physical reality.

If there was a smallest possible movement, there would be a smallest possible velocity, which would mean that energy (stress/energy) of the universe that contributes to the stress energy tensor of general relativity would slowly increase in regions of spacetime, which would be something we would have detected already.

Why? Simple. Momentum would be imparted on astronomical bodies by photons or individual electrons. This momentum is part of the stress-energy of the system. A single electron from a star's solar wind's inertial energy would contribute to a planet's overall velocity at the moment of interaction. Now, it doesn't contribute a lot, but if there is a minimum velocity change that is greater than the actual velocity change of the system, then when the particle and astronomical body interact, there will be a greater momentum (and thus stress energy) increase to the astronomical body than if there was no minimum velocity change.

A minimum possible velocity change would guarantee anything that had a velocity change of less than the minimum would experience the minimum velocity change. Energy of all systems would increase over time. We don't see evidence of this, or at least I haven't read about it.

***You could also say "there is no smallest possible time interval, but there is a smallest possible length", but you'd still have something infinitely dividable in reality- time intervals. Either time or length has to be infinitely dividable, because otherwise we would end up with a system that increases energy over time.

Are the properties of space and matter arbitrary?

No. Evidence pretty much indicates spacetime is smooth. If it wasn't smooth for the aforementioned reasons, we would have detected indications of increasing overall stress energy of the universe at large scales, which would have been detected.

 

[none]

come on untermensche say no

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your mistake is that you are mixing chess and real space. If you play chess, what matters are the rules of the game, not actual real space, although, clearly, players have to comply with the physical laws of the physical universe when moving their pieces. But there is a contradiction in insisting on talking of the chess board as a 'discrete space' if you want in fact to measure distances as physical distances.

This exact question was mocked in a book mocking certain aspects of D&D.
A character traveling through mountainous terrain made really good time, as travelers sometimes do. Good weather, good roads, a sound vehicle. He got to the very edge of the hex that was the last Mountain terrain on his journey. Just a few feet away was the softer, much more comfortable ground of the valley. But his movement allowance was a firm 4, thus he was trapped in the Mountain hex, able to see, but not reach, the Grassland hex.
As he pounded tent stakes into the rocky ground, he mumbled about the gods be damned rules.

 

[Speakpigeon]

D&D Official Homepage | Dungeons & Dragons

<snip>

D&D <snip>

the very edge of the hex <snip>

his movement allowance was a firm 4 <snip>

he was trapped in the Mountain hex <snip>

the Grassland hex <snip>

That's when I know I'm getting real old. This lingo doesn't make any sense to me.

Had to ask our big brother friend Google.

Damn!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A minimum possible velocity change would guarantee anything that had a velocity change of less than the minimum would experience the minimum velocity change.

Precisely, I'm not too sure about that.

You could have a different protocol in place, one based on probabilities, somewhat like in QM. Sometimes the galaxy hit by a particle having the minimum momentum m would get no increase in its own momentum and at other times it would get an increase of just m, so that overall, on average, there'd be no long term increase of momentum for the whole system, only short-lived fluctuations around the minimal value.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The smallest possible movement is just a movement.

It doesn't exist in physical reality, for the reasons (corrections- energy would increase, not decrease) mentioned. There is no "smallest possible movement" in physical reality.

It's just a movement. Your hand waving won't make it more or less.

A smallest movement MUST exist in reality.

It is impossible for there to be movement and not a smallest possible movement.