Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Denying motion in the present conflates the mathematical abstraction of an instantaneous point with the lived, physically real present interval.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The 'present interval' objection merely relocates the boundary problem; any finite interval contains sub-intervals where motion again becomes mysterious.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Physics successfully describes motion using instantaneous velocities (derivatives); appeal to 'lived experience' conflates epistemology with metaphysics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Grounding motion in extended present intervals requires explaining what makes that interval fundamental rather than arbitrarily chosen.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Physics describes instantaneous states, but conscious experience spans finite durations; conflating these domains mistakes mathematical tools for ontology.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Motion requires temporal extension to be intelligible; a point-instant cannot contain velocity, acceleration, or change of any kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The specious present—a measurable psychological interval—is phenomenologically real and physically causally relevant to perception and action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.