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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A statue occupying different locations at different times (via relocation) exhibits the same spatiotemporal pattern as motion, yet lacks motion's essential quality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The at-at theory cannot distinguish between continuous motion and discontinuous teleportation—both satisfy the location criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Phenomenologically, motion feels like a continuous process, not merely a static distribution of positions across time; this suggests motion is more than position alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Motion requires no mysterious intrinsic property beyond spatiotemporal location; Occam's Razor favors simpler ontologies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The at-at theory successfully explains all observable motion phenomena without positing unobservable metaphysical entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Instantaneous velocity can be mathematically defined via calculus without requiring a primitive notion of motion itself.
      ?

      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.