Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A minimal and partless body could never be in motion — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A minimal and partless body could never be in motion

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A minimal and partless body always exactly fills the minimal space that it occupies
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For a body to transition from one space to an adjacent space, the body must be partly in and partly not in the original space during the transition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A body with no parts cannot be 'partly' in anything
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Motion can be reconceived as discrete positional succession: a body occupies space S1 at t1 and space S2 at t2 with no intermediate state required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2 illicitly assumes continuous transition, but ancient atomists like Epicurus and modern discrete-space theorists deny that motion requires any 'in-between' occupancy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If motion just is a series of discrete positional facts, a partless body moves by being wholly at S1 then wholly at S2, never requiring partial occupancy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument conflates the absence of spatial parts with the impossibility of relational change, but a partless entity can still stand in different spatial relations at different times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's own account in Physics VI distinguishes between a thing's internal divisibility and its capacity to traverse divisible magnitudes, allowing indivisibles to move across divisible paths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    A body with no parts cannot be 'partly' in anythingA minimal and partless body always exactly fills the minimal space that it occup...Aristotle's own account in Physics VI distinguishes between a thing's internal d...For a body to transition from one space to an adjacent space, the body must be p...
    +5 moreShow less
    If motion just is a series of discrete positional facts, a partless body moves b...Motion can be reconceived as discrete positional succession: a body occupies spa...P2 illicitly assumes continuous transition, but ancient atomists like Epicurus a...The argument conflates the absence of spatial parts with the impossibility of re...Therefore, a minimal and partless body cannot be in transition between spaces

    Similar

    A partless body cannot be partly in anything85%A minimal and partless body always exactly fills the minimal space tha...85%Therefore, a minimal and partless body cannot be in transition between...85%A minimal partless body cannot transition between adjacent minimal spa...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: diodorus-cronus
    View source passageHide passage
    Certainly some of those puzzled by Zeno’s dichotomy argument against motion (see Zeno of Elea 2.2.1) had sought to resolve the puzzlement by postulating a smallest magnitude. That solution, although rejected by Aristotle, was defended by his contemporary Xenocrates, a leading Platonist. Diodorus, a generation later, can be seen taking up this supposed solution to the Zenonian paradox and showing that it itself in fact generates a new motion paradox, the first of his four. (1) A minimal and partl
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit