Movement... Disproved?

[CanadaAotS]

I was chatting away on a gaming server, minding my own business, when a guy in the channel mentions, "So, I can disprove movement."

 

I was skeptical to say the least.

 

But when he finished I was amazed... He actually disproved movement xD

 

Anyway it goes like this.

 

To go from point A to point B, assuming A =/= B, you'll have to go through a point C.

Let's say C is halfway between A and B. What's halfway between those 2 new points? And half way between that? And that?

Essentially, it's impossible to move in any direction.

 

How about that?

I understand where this is coming from. Movement is essentially time moving through 3 dimensional space. And imo it's just a construct of our minds. We percieve time...

 

But yeah, if this little proof isn't correct, could someone tell me where it goes wrong? And if it doesn't, does that mean that it disproves time as well?

 

[Edtharan]

To go from point A to point B, assuming A =/= B, you'll have to go through a point C.

Let's say C is halfway between A and B. What's halfway between those 2 new points? And half way between that? And that?

Essentially, it's impossible to move in any direction.

That is Zeno's Paradox and it has been around for over 2,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox

[ydoaPs]

Zeno's paradoxes are crap. For Zeno's paradox to work, your gait would have to half every time you take a step. A person walking, for instance, has a relatively constant gait.

[Severian]

This is Zeno's paradox. Not exactly original....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

 

Edit: bah - that will teach me to open a thread, so away for a few minutes and them reply without rechecking the thread to see if anyone has posted.

[CanadaAotS]

I assumed the guy that told me about didn't make it up. Haha. I just never heard of it before.

 

Pretty interesting, and yourdad, the proof hinges on the fact that movement is a function, aka continuous. So to get from point a to point b, if a and b aren't equal you HAVE to go through some point c.

 

Doesn't matter if c is halfway between a and b, in fact it can be anywhere between the two points.

[ydoaPs]

I assumed the guy that told me about didn't make it up. Haha. I just never heard of it before.

 

Pretty interesting, and yourdad, the proof hinges on the fact that movement is a function, aka continuous. So to get from point a to point b, if a and b aren't equal you HAVE to go through some point c.

 

Doesn't matter if c is halfway between a and b, in fact it can be anywhere between the two points.

 

And in one step, you can go through a, b, and c. If one were to travel as in Zeno's "Paradox", then one would be slowing down until they are motionless. That just isn't how motion occurs.

[CanadaAotS]

Yeah. That's what's interesting about it... According to this proof we shouldn't be able to move at all. Continuous movement is impossible... however we manage it everyday

 

That's why it's a paradox. lol.

[Mr Skeptic]

I prefer to turn Zeno's Paradox backwards. To get from a to b, you need to first get half way there. To get half way there, you first need to get a quarter of the way there. To get a quarter of the way there, you first need to get an eighth of the way there...

 

Which just goes to show that if there are an infinite number of points between a and b, you can easily move through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time.

 

Nevermind, that is the way it was originally stated, I just heard it backward before.

[CanadaAotS]

Yeah. The fact that you can move through an infinite amount of points in a finite time seems strange. lol.

-my mind... hurts...- =_=

 

haha.

[ydoaPs]

Then don't try calculus. You add up an infinite number of rectangles to get a finite area.

[CanadaAotS]

Yeah. I've taken calculus actually haha.

[ydoaPs]

Then it should be no surprise that you can subdivide a finite distance into an infinite number of points. That is all Zeno's "Paradox" is.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah. I've taken calculus actually haha.

 

Then consider [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math], the instantaneous velocity. This is opposed to Zeno's idea that at any instant in time, an object is motionless.

[Fred56]

Isn't falling into a black hole a bit like Zeno's "paradox"? I mean the matter isn't supposed to be able to accelerate past c? But it does, or something.

[D H]

Matter does not accelerate past c to enter a black hole. Once inside, it has to go faster than the speed of light to get out.

[alan2here]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but reality is analogue not digital. It's unfortunately not a computer simulation.

[Sisyphus]

"Infinitely divisible" is not the same as "an infinite quantity." You could divide the distance again and again indefinitely, but distance itself is not inherently a divided thing. It's a continuous and finite quantity.