movement does not exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
No information
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.
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.
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.
I suggest learning Physics. No, that is now how you apply calculus to physics.