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
    Zeno's paradox demonstrates the impossibility of motion i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Moving parts within an extended universe are impossible

    Zeno's paradox demonstrates the impossibility of motion in an extended universe

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    Moving parts within an extended universe are impossible

    Similar

    Motion is altogether impossible (as shown by the Arrow paradox)82%

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The paradox appears only when one wrongly believes one can do somethin...78%
    Motions can never be completed (as shown by the Dichotomy paradox)78%
    Aristotle's assumption that celestial motion has gone on for all etern...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    This begins the more purely metaphysical part of Collier’s argument: that to be visible is to be in the mind we can consider an epistemological premise, but then he argues that nothing can be both visible and invisible at the same time, which is of course quite true independently of epistemology. A further argument he makes is that since God can give created minds any ideas directly, it would be needless for him to give us our ideas indirectly, by creating independent objects to cause ideas in u

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective