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
    P2 illicitly assumes continuous transition, but ancient a... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A minimal and partless body could never be in motion

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

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Discrete space models (like cellular automata) successfully model motion without continuous intermediate positions, matching empirical physics at Planck scales.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring 'in-between' occupancy creates infinite regress: between any two positions lie infinitely many intermediate positions, making motion impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ancient atomists solved Zeno's paradoxes by denying continuous divisibility, suggesting motion needs no continuous trajectory through space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Discrete models still require a rule governing transitions between positions—this rule implicitly specifies a continuous path through state-space, not avoiding the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our direct perceptual experience of smooth motion and continuously varying velocity seems to require continuous spatial trajectories, not discrete jumps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Momentum and kinetic energy are defined relative to velocity—a time-derivative—which loses meaning if position-changes are genuinely discontinuous.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A minimal and partless body could never be in motionAncient atomists solved Zeno's paradoxes by denying continuous divisibility, sug...Discrete models still require a rule governing transitions between positions—thi...Discrete space models (like cellular automata) successfully model motion without...
    +3 moreShow less
    Momentum and kinetic energy are defined relative to velocity—a time-derivative—w...Our direct perceptual experience of smooth motion and continuously varying veloc...Requiring 'in-between' occupancy creates infinite regress: between any two posit...

    Details

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