I wasn't explicitly stating the question, It was paraphrasing a common test question for world knowledge.

That you don't need to have a ball, cup, table, or even the ability to perform physical actions in order to consider where the ball ends up is in-itself required knowledge.

The thing is we tried that for decades, using more formal logic to build reasoning engines. And we never got it to be even a fraction as good and generic as learning-based LLMs are today.