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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Motion is never taking place in the present moment — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Motion is never taking place in the present moment

    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.Things can be in different places at different times
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fact that an item occupies different positions at different times only entails that it has moved, not that motion is currently occurring
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A moving object occupies no single determinate position at any instant, but rather a range of positions across a temporal interval.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If motion requires an extended interval rather than an instant, then motion is precisely what is occurring across the present moment, not absent from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying motion in the present conflates the mathematical abstraction of an instantaneous point with the lived, physically real present interval.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's 'at-at' theory establishes that being at different places at different times is not merely evidence of past motion but constitutes the complete analysis of what motion is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If occupying different positions at successive times fully defines motion, then a body currently undergoing this process is, by definition, currently in motion.
      ?

      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 moving object occupies no single determinate position at any instant, but rath...Denying motion in the present conflates the mathematical abstraction of an insta...If motion requires an extended interval rather than an instant, then motion is p...If occupying different positions at successive times fully defines motion, then ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Russell's 'at-at' theory establishes that being at different places at different...The fact that an item occupies different positions at different times only entai...Things can be in different places at different times

    Similar

    The present moment exists only as a boundary between past and future.74%Neither 'The battle will take place' nor 'The battle will not take pla...70%If the past and future do not exist, there is nowhere and nowhen for '...69%Temporal neutrality holds that no moment is privileged simply for bein...69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: diodorus-cronus
    View source passageHide passage
    Although he here denies that things move, Diodorus is not rejecting ordinary experience, as Zeno of Elea is generally held to have done. He concedes the empirical fact that things are in different places at different times, and therefore that an item can be said to ‘have moved’. What he denies is that motion could ever be taking place in the present. It may nevertheless be true that something has moved. The result, a staccato analysis of motion comparable to a series of film frames, is quite suf
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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