  But now we observe that the LCC so qualified implies that continuous change is contradictory. For consider any particle with equation of motion \(x = f(t)\). Then at \(t = a\) its position \(x = f(a)\). However if it is in motion then in the neighbourhood we have \(\neg(x = f(a))\), so by the LCC at the limit also \(\neg(x = f(a))\), along with of course \(x = f(a)\) as well. Priest amplifies this account by proposing that no moving body can be consistently localised. Rather, in moving at time \(t\) it inconsistently occupies a small finite (Planck length) lozenge of space, which is made up of the positions it takes in the corresponding lozenge of time surrounding \(t\). This gives a natural intrinsic account of motionlessness at \(t\), namely that there is no contradiction in its position at \(t\). One can propose an account of velocity, as varying with the length of the lozenge or spread of position in the direction of motion. There are applications in Quantum Theory, too. The Heisenberg uncertainty of position may simply be the size of the spread or smeared position. Moreover, there is a possibility for backward causation implicit in the advanced wave front of inconsistency affecting earlier states in the inconsistently identified smear of spatial positions; and backward causation may be the way to go with quantum nonlocality, as Huw Price (1996) has argued.