What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[beero1000]

You're just asserting your claim again. Here is my post:

Does anybody think there's an actual argument for the 'it has to move/change the least amount possible first' thing that isn't begging the question? Or is it one of those untermensche classics?

Care to try again?

No claims.

Your claim that these clear arguments are mere claims is nonsense.

That is a dodge to enable you to run away from them.

These are statements that you asserted without justification. Claims, one might call them.

For any object to move in the real world it MUST move the smallest amount first. The very first move it makes MUST be the smallest possible move.

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

 

[untermensche]

These are statements that you asserted without justification. Claims, one might call them.

For any object to move in the real world it MUST move the smallest amount first. The very first move it makes MUST be the smallest possible move.

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

 

[Phil Scott]

For any object to move in the real world it MUST move the smallest amount first. The very first move it makes MUST be the smallest possible move.

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

How can there be a first move if time itself is infinitely divisible? The first thing you did took some time, so you must have done half that thing half the time earlier, and so your first thing wasn't a first thing at all.

You'll find that anyone talking about continuous space and time has realised that the word "first" makes no sense in that context.

 

[DBT]

3. Since a universe where motion can be divided infinitely has NO smallest possible amount to move it has no relation to the real world where all things that move ALWAYS move the smallest possible amount first.

As far as I know, nobody has proposed such a Universe. Even if the Universe happens to be infinite, this does not mean that the finite objects occupying a finite portion of space within this infinite Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc, can be divided infinitely. These are merelyl finite objects occupying a slice of finite spacetime within an Infinite Universe interacting relatively.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then you can't read.

Because the argument in terms of motion is more than that.

1. If motion can be divided infinitely that means there is no smallest motion. Any motion could be cut in half no matter how small.

2. For any object to move in the real world it MUST move the smallest amount first. The very first move it makes MUST be the smallest possible move.

3. Since a universe where motion can be divided infinitely has NO smallest possible amount to move it has no relation to the real world where all things that move ALWAYS move the smallest possible amount first.

You're just asserting your claim again. Here is my post:

Does anybody think there's an actual argument for the 'it has to move/change the least amount possible first' thing that isn't begging the question? Or is it one of those untermensche classics?

Yes, UM's argument is definitely begging the question.

I think human compassion requires that we articulate how he does that exactly.

UM wants to prove continuity cannot possibly exist. His bright idea is that in a continuous space-time there can't be any movement that would be the smallest movement possible. At least he got that right.

So far, so good.

His not-so-bright idea is that for any object to move at all it must first make the smallest movement possible.

To be fair, if that was true then his argument and the conclusion he draws would be perfectly good. So, his reasoning skills are not entirely defective.

However, his idea that movement in our world requires to move first of the smallest distance possible effectively assumes that our space-time is not continuous, which is indeed begging the question.

In a universe where there is a distance which is the smallest distance possible, movement would have to result as a sequence of smallest distance movement. Which is to say, space-time wouldn't be continuous but discrete. That may well be what our universe is like but we don't know yet, we have no good reason to assume it, and just assuming it's true, like UM does to prove space-time isn't continuous, is indeed straightforwardly begging the question.

Thanks for getting him to articulate his argument properly.

Now, the interesting thing is to see if he gets to realise his mistake and apologise for leading everybody on a goose chase fifty pages long.

Of course, the real prize would be to uncover the psychological reason underlying his claim that moving in our world requires to move of the smallest distance possible first. His emphasis in using the word "MUST" in his argument leaves no doubt he believes his own claim but the question would be, why does he believe this at all even though there's no good reason to believe it?
EB

 

[beero1000]

For any object to move in the real world it MUST move the smallest amount first. The very first move it makes MUST be the smallest possible move.

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

More incredulous questions and another restatement of the assertion with no justification. That is not an argument. If you don't post an actual valid argument then there's no reason for anyone to think you're right.

 

[untermensche]

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

How can there be a first move if time itself is infinitely divisible? The first thing you did took some time, so you must have done half that thing half the time earlier, and so your first thing wasn't a first thing at all.

You'll find that anyone talking about continuous space and time has realised that the word "first" makes no sense in that context.

How is there ANY movement if there in not a first movement?

In an object is at rest and it moves there MUST have been a very first movement.

Or there would have been NO movement.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

More incredulous questions and another restatement of the assertion with no justification. That is not an argument. If you don't post an actual valid argument then there's no reason for anyone to think you're right.

Your opinion is noted.

It is wrong and totally unsupported by any argument, but noted.

 

[beero1000]

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

How can there be a first move if time itself is infinitely divisible? The first thing you did took some time, so you must have done half that thing half the time earlier, and so your first thing wasn't a first thing at all.

You'll find that anyone talking about continuous space and time has realised that the word "first" makes no sense in that context.

I think you'll find he's trying to use the fact that the word "first" makes no sense in that context to argue that space cannot be continuous, while everyone else is using it to argue that his argument begs the question.

You're just asserting your claim again. Here is my post:

Does anybody think there's an actual argument for the 'it has to move/change the least amount possible first' thing that isn't begging the question? Or is it one of those untermensche classics?

Yes, UM's argument is definitely begging the question.

I think human compassion requires that we articulate how he does that exactly.

UM wants to prove continuity cannot possibly exist. His bright idea is that in a continuous space-time there can't be any movement that would be the smallest movement possible. At least he got that right.

So far, so good.

His not-so-bright idea is that for any object to move at all it must first make the smallest movement possible.

To be fair, if that was true then his argument and the conclusion he draws would be perfectly good. So, his reasoning skills are not entirely defective.

However, his idea that movement in our world requires to move first of the smallest distance possible effectively assumes that our space-time is not continuous, which is indeed begging the question.

In a universe where there is a distance which is the smallest distance possible, movement would have to result as a sequence of smallest distance movement. Which is to say, space-time wouldn't be continuous but discrete. That may well be what our universe is like but we don't know yet, we have no good reason to assume it, and just assuming it's true, like UM does to prove space-time isn't continuous, is indeed straightforwardly begging the question.

Thanks for getting him to articulate his argument properly.

Now, the interesting thing is to see if he gets to realise his mistake and apologise for leading everybody on a goose chase fifty pages long.

Of course, the real prize would be to uncover the psychological reason underlying his claim that moving in our world requires to move of the smallest distance possible first. His emphasis in using the word "MUST" in his argument leaves no doubt he believes his own claim but the question would be, why does he believe this at all even though there's no good reason to believe it?
EB

One can dream.

 

[beero1000]

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

More incredulous questions and another restatement of the assertion with no justification. That is not an argument. If you don't post an actual valid argument then there's no reason for anyone to think you're right.

Your opinion is noted.

It is wrong and totally unsupported by any argument, but noted.

Does that mean you aren't going to supply an actual argument?

Sad.

 

[untermensche]

I think you'll find he's trying to use the fact that the word "first" makes no sense in that context to argue that space cannot be continuous, while everyone else is using it to argue that his argument begs the question.

There is no begging of any question here. You are desperate for an out because you can't address the point.

If you think something can move from rest without making a very first movement explain how that is possible.

How do you go from no movement to some movement without a very first movement?

 

[Phil Scott]

How is there ANY movement if there in not a first movement?

In an object is at rest and it moves there MUST have been a very first movement.

Or there would have been NO movement.

So YOU say. I say that there CAN be movement WITHOUT a first movement. I can even repeat this three times, if you like.

Now how do we proceed?

 

[untermensche]

Can you justify them? If you won't give a valid argument as to why they MUST be true then there's no reason for anyone to assume that you're right.

If an object begins to move how does it not move the smallest amount first?

Can it move the second smallest amount first?

But if it moved the second smallest amount that means it had to have moved the smallest amount first.

How can something move without first moving the smallest possible amount?

More incredulous questions and another restatement of the assertion with no justification. That is not an argument. If you don't post an actual valid argument then there's no reason for anyone to think you're right.

Your opinion is noted.

It is wrong and totally unsupported by any argument, but noted.

Does that mean you aren't going to supply an actual argument?

Sad.

You have one.

But your brain can't seem to deal with it so you simply mislabel it and ignore it.

Address what is before you. Your squirming and avoiding is an unpleasant spectacle.

 

[untermensche]

How is there ANY movement if there in not a first movement?

In an object is at rest and it moves there MUST have been a very first movement.

Or there would have been NO movement.

So YOU say. I say that there CAN be movement WITHOUT a first movement. I can even repeat this three times, if you like.

Now how do we proceed?

How is it so?

How do you go from ZERO movement to some amount of movement without a first movement?

How is that possible?

Presenting absurdities is not really addressing anything.

 

[Phil Scott]

So YOU say. I say that there CAN be movement WITHOUT a first movement. I can even repeat this three times, if you like.

Now how do we proceed?

How is it so?

How do you go from ZERO movement to some amount of movement without a first movement?

How is that possible?

Presenting absurdities is not really addressing anything.

The maths describing continuous motion is all logically consistent, so what you find absurd is certainly not any indication of a logical contradiction. I can describe the maths of continuous motion where an object goes from stationary to non-stationary, without there being an initial displacement. That's enough for me to say that the situation is coherent, especially given the fecundity of this mathematics as applied in physics.

You appear to be incredulous, which is fine, but it's not an argument, and restating your incredulity isn't going to convince anyone.

 

[untermensche]

How is it so?

How do you go from ZERO movement to some amount of movement without a first movement?

How is that possible?

Presenting absurdities is not really addressing anything.

The maths describing continuous motion is all logically consistent, so what you find absurd is certainly not any indication of a logical contradiction. I can describe the maths of continuous motion where an object goes from stationary to non-stationary, without there being an initial displacement. That's enough for me to say that the situation is coherent, especially given the fecundity of this mathematics as applied in physics.

You appear to be incredulous, which is fine, but it's not an argument, and restating your incredulity isn't going to convince anyone.

You have abandoned my question. We are not talking about your maths. We are talking about real movement in the real world.

Fine.

I can't force anyone to address things.

But don't tell me there is a problem with something if you completely avoid it.

You are the incredulous one here.

 

[Phil Scott]

You have abandoned my question.

I don't know what your question is actually asking. Normally, I would answer your question by providing the high school mathematical model. You're not happy with this. So what is it that you want, exactly? Are you asking me to suggest an experiment? Am I supposed to give an old school metaphysical argument? Help me out here.

 

[untermensche]

You have abandoned my question.

I don't know what your question is actually asking. Normally, I would answer your question by providing the high school mathematical model. You're not happy with this. So what is it that you want, exactly? Are you asking me to suggest an experiment? Am I supposed to give an old school metaphysical argument? Help me out here.

The questions are simple.

Take a toy train just sitting on a track. Not moving.

Now imagine that train being pushed forward an inch. The train was stationary and now it has moved.

How did it move without making the smallest possible move first?

How does it move without making a first movement?

How far was it's first move?

Was the first move a move shorter than the smallest possible movement? How is that possible?

If one says the first movement is longer than the shortest possible movement this can't be true either. Because if it moved longer than the shortest possible movement it also moved the shortest possible movement first.

If you address this with math you can pretend the shortest movement can be divided infinitely.

Math gets you nowhere.

 

[Phil Scott]

I don't know what your question is actually asking. Normally, I would answer your question by providing the high school mathematical model. You're not happy with this. So what is it that you want, exactly? Are you asking me to suggest an experiment? Am I supposed to give an old school metaphysical argument? Help me out here.

The questions are simple.

Take a toy train just sitting on a track. Not moving.

Now imagine that train being pushed forward an inch. The train was stationary and now it has moved.

How did it move without making the smallest possible move first?

The mathematics for this is pretty basic. Motion does not require a smallest possible move first. If you don't want maths, what do you want instead?

How does it move without making a first movement?

As above.

How far was it's first move?

There was no first move.

Was the first move a move shorter than the smallest possible movement? How is that possible?

There was no first move. There is no smallest possible movement.

If one says the first movement is longer than the shortest possible movement this can't be true either. Because if it moved longer than the shortest possible movement it also moved the shortest possible movement first.

As above.

If you address this with math you can pretend the shortest movement can be divided infinitely.

Math gets you nowhere.

So you say. I suggest that mathematical physics has got us pretty far. If you don't want maths, what do you want? Us to simply agree with you?

Now at now point above did you tell me exactly what you want with your question. All you did was repeat your previous claims, but now in the context of a toy train. If you're just going to repeat yourself, I'll assume I'm able to do the same.

 

[untermensche]

The questions are simple.

Take a toy train just sitting on a track. Not moving.

Now imagine that train being pushed forward an inch. The train was stationary and now it has moved.

How did it move without making the smallest possible move first?

The mathematics for this is pretty basic. Motion does not require a smallest possible move first. If you don't want maths, what do you want instead?

This is a train on a track.

Motion is defined as motion of the train in relation to the track.

Tell me how a train moves on a track without making a first move.

Then tell me how a train makes a first move that is anything but the smallest move possible.

You can use words and ideas.

But this is not about any math. It is about a real train on a real track.

Mathematics is an imaginary world that does not define the real one.

 

[fast]

This reminds me of the time a philosophy professor spoke about (and I don't recollect the exact words) the imperfection of logic. I vividly recall the example. He picked someone and told her that he could use logic and prove that it would be impossible for her to make it from one side of the room to the other. He said in order to make it from one side to the other, she'd have to cross the halfway point. He continued and said that she wouldn't even make it that far because from where she is and the halfway point is yet another halfway point. The expressed idea was that she won't make it across the room because there's an infinite number of halfway points.

He assured us there was no flaw in the logic, yet the conclusion was absurd, as it was obvious that we could walk across the room. All of this was to point out something about the limits of logic.