Instigator / Pro

Elmasgenio

1484

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#3493

movement does not exist

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

loko

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 06.21.2022 12:15AM
Last updated date: 07.05.2022 04:17AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two hours
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

loko

1516

rating

debates

75.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Elmasgenio

06.21.2022 01:18AM

Pro

argument 1:

consider that a train travels at 100 kilometers per hour, before crossing 100 kilometers it must cross 50 kilometers before crossing 50 kilometers it must cross 25, before crossing 25 it must cross 12.5, this can go on ad infinitum, since it is impossible to complete a infinite task, it is impossible to complete the task of traveling 100 meters, this applies for any distance x that anything x tries to travel.

argument 2:

Let's imagine the smallest instant in which the time x that it takes for any object x to travel a distance x can be divided, at that instant the object cannot move since if it did, the time would be divisible, since the distance traveled would be divisible, given that at that instant, the object x does not move, nor can it do so at any other instant of equal magnitude, joining 2 of those instants does not produce any movement, if you join 10, neither, if you join 100, neither, the movement never occurs.

loko

06.21.2022 01:50AM

Con

Pro's arguments are essentially variants of Zenon's paradoxes.

The first is a variation of the Achilles paradox:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Achilles-paradox

the second is a variation of the arrow paradox:

https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Math/Milnikel/calci/Zeno.html

answer 1:

Archimedes and other mathematicians have shown that as distance geometrically decreases, so does time:

https://towardsdatascience.com/archimedes-and-the-integral-calculus-4cf875c6fee4

when we finish adding the infinite distance divisions and the infinite time divisions, we get the total distance and the time (for the example of the pro, 100 km/h)

answer 2:

the definition of motion is "change of position", the position of the object at time b is different from that at time a, so object x moves even in the shortest possible time.

Round 2

Elmasgenio

06.21.2022 02:41AM

Pro

1.infinitesimal calculus is a part of mathematics, the impossibility of movement is a philosophical question, on the other hand, it is irrelevant if time is reduced geometrically, it is only possible to arrive at the sum total of the infinite divisions of time and distance (100 km/h) if it is possible to complete an infinite series of additions, however the definition of infinity is "something that never ends", it is not possible to travel at 100 km/h because this requires completing an infinite series of movements, which which is a logical contradiction.

2. At time b there is no change in position with respect to time a, since no distance can be traveled at any instant.

loko

06.21.2022 03:12AM

Con

answer 1:

Convergent series are series of infinite sums, all of them are complete, it is possible to finish a series of infinite sums:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series

answer 2:

it is an empirical fact that objects are continuously in positions different from their other instants, the proposition of pro implies too strong a solipsism let us not forget that zenon of elea was a student of parmenides, who defended that everything that exists has always existed, that everything is cohesive and that everything we see is illusory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

Round 3

Elmasgenio

06.21.2022 04:13AM

Pro

1. not really, "convergent" in math means that it is

equal to the value of an infinite series, if you look at these convergent series, you will see that they are finite, they occupy a finite space, they all have a finite number of sums, the convergent series are not infinite series, but representations of infinite series, my opponent has shown that an infinite series can be represented, not that an infinite series can be terminated.

2. I am willing to accept the degree of solipsism that my position requires, logic prevails over empiricism, the senses fail, I never look at objects, I look at the light that comes out of them, I never feel the objects, I feel the signals of electricity that occur, the idea that there is a movement between each instant is contradictory.

loko

06.21.2022 04:17AM

Con

I disagree, we observe things and then we reason, not the other way around, also, how is light and electrical signals transferred without movement?

FLRW

06.28.2022 02:45PM

Zeno’s arrow paradox says that motion is impossible. However quantum mechanics says that the underlying assumption is wrong.

Assumption: in any given moment, an arrow in flight is motionless. Then it remains stationary at every moment. Thus the arrow never moves. Mazur, Joseph; The motion paradox (New York: Dutton), p. 4-5.

Here is quantum mechanics explanation:

One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. “The Uncertainty Principle”, SEP. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

It appears that quantum mechanics says that the initial assumption is wrong. The arrow paradox assumes certainty of both position (stationary) and momentum (none). That premise allows the distances over a range of moments to add up to zero. But quantum mechanics says that part of this assumption can never be known.

(1) If the position of the arrow is known to a certainty, then its momentum is unknown. The arrow might be moving at that moment. The possibility of movement resolves the paradox by allowing for momentum at any given instant.

(2) If the momentum (zero) is known to a certainty, then its position is unknown. The arrow might be in any of a range of places. If the arrow might be anywhere over a range of places, then it must be moving.

Intelligence_06

06.21.2022 03:50AM

I suggest learning Physics. No, that is now how you apply calculus to physics.

Kritikal

06.28.2022 09:13AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

In R1, Con is able to directly answer both arguments put forth by Pro.

Pro’s R2 response on C1 is inadequate, because as Con points out, all convergent series are complete.

On C2 both sides are somewhat lacking in R2, but again I go Con. Solipsism is probably irrelevant, so essentially that leaves me with one side telling me objects move in an instant, and the other side telling me the opposite with no real argument from either side. Because of this, I have to default to the arguments made in R1, and I end up giving this to Con.

R3 from Pro turns this into a very close debate, especially with C1 on convergence.

Con answers solipsism, but not this, so I end up awarding this point to Pro. I am not entirely sure that the point made here is correct, but Con should respond to it in the final round at least or I will award that point to Pro without fail.

At the end of the debate, this leaves Pro access to the arrow paradox, which proves the resolution true.

Sourcing is not close, Con uses several reliable sources while Pro does not use any.

On a side note: “how is light and electrical signals transferred without movement” is definitely a new argument in the final round. I will not deduct a conduct point because this was probably done more out of inexperience than intentional malice. So that is just something to watch out for, but good debate to both parties.

ComputerNerd

06.21.2022 06:03AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

PRO fails to explain that movement between 2 places is impossible. While they do state that " I look at the light that comes out of them, I never feel the objects, I feel the signals of electricity that occur, the idea that there is a movement between each instant is contradictory." Which is ironic, since they essentially concede that electricity is able to move, deeming movement a existing state.

CON does reasonably defend his position with sources and explanations. I have awarded PRO conduct due to the fact that CON presents a argument/question "how does electricity and light transferred without movement?" in the final round, which is typically deemed poor conduct.

A weakness on both sides would be the lack of utilization of the characters they had available, instead sticking to 300-500 character arguments. I would work on length and robustness, but for a first debate, this was relatively decent. Props to both debaters.