Awkward Paradoxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_paradoxes

Achilles and the tortoise & The dichotomy paradox:

Ok, So.. This whole, \"You must reach point A before you reach point B\" is perfectly understandable.. But they make it sound as if reaching all these points will be impossible.. Surely they don\'t mean you have to step on every damn point, because due to the size of any mans foot, that would be impossible. So we would cover said limit of points in a said limit of time.. We\'d cover these points at a rapid rate.. So when they say it would take all of eternity, it wouldn\'t. And we know it doesn\'t, because logically speaking we know 100% that Homer ( Read the link) will reach the bus. I don\'t really see this as a paradox.. it\'s just more of a statement.. The idea of there being an infinite number of points between Homer and the bus is fine.. but like I\'m trying to say.. It wouldn\'t take forever because we travel quickly. So what do you guys think? Maybe arguing over this \"paradox\" is pointless.. but I still find it very interesting.

Also, you can also read the thing about the arrow.. and how nothing in a captured point of time is in motion, because to be moving means to be moving constantly. So if you were to take an image, the arrow would not be moving, so it is not in motion.. but thats only for THAT point in time.. and we can\'t freeze time.. so things in motion ARE in motion.. and they always will be.

Badly-executed copy pasta is badly executed.

The answer boils down to the premise being the "wrong" way to look at it. Both are traveling at a constant rate relative to each other and the distance between them decreases linearly until they meet. The infinite recursion effect is a Red Herring, distracting you from how Time really works (a constant flow, not a series of infinitely shrinking slices). Or something like that.

>>3
Actually, the greek just didn't have a good mathematical understanding of infinite sequences and their sums. Same with Achilles and the tortoise. It all converges to an exact answer, no matter how many times you divide it.

Zeno's paradoxes aren't paradoxes. It's just that zeno was a dick.

>>4
No, read the Wikipedia article. 3 was more or less correct. Zeno's "paradoxes" were all easily dismantled by his contemporary peers. Zeno was just an idiot.

>>4
How does it magically "converge" then?  The paradox does not resolve just because you say it does with a mathematical invention of the mind.

>>3
time isn't constant

>>7
You might as well say the paradox does not exist just because you say it does with a mathematical invention of the mind.

>>9
sorry dude what

On the topic of paradoxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch%27s_paradox_of_knowability

Zeno's paradoxes were not actual paradoxes. Zeno created them to prove time does not have a minimal unit and is therefor infinitely divisible. At the time, people believed this for space (distance).

If an infinite amount of action must be taken (reaching the next point), then the time for this to occur must be divided instantly, something not believed possible at the time. Zeno wins.

The whole thing is that most people believed time to be constructed of a finite number of moments, much like frames in today's movies.

>>11
I believe those fall under the category of "philosophical masturbation".

Cogito ergo sum, bitch.

>>13
I nver understood this attitude.

Clearly, we won't get any physical results out of such things, but why does every pursuit of knowledge have to end with real-world applications? I think it's important to realize to what extent we can acquire knowledge and the limits of such knowledge. Those two paradoxes were absolutely fascinating to me.

>>14
i'm with you, 13 is a fag.

All of Zeno's paradoxes are the same. He divides time up into exponentially smaller bits, and does the same for space. All this means is that he's looking at smaller and smaller bits of time, and never actually looking past a certain point in time. It's like if you watched a movie of a guy walking, then paused the VCR. You wouldn't say,"That guy will never go any further than he is" because you know time's stopped. He just thought that because time was still moving a bit, that it would still get past that point, when it wouldn't. Honestly, it was just due to the limited understanding of the concepts behind math and its application that the Greeks had.

>>13
I hate haughty scifags like you. Before you dismiss "philosophical masturbation" remember "scientific truth" relies on a philosophy too, and it's a far from infallible one.

>>13

...And? Surely you don't expect that to be any greater an insult than simply insisting that nerds are smart because they read books... Or do you?

>>14,15,17,18
ITT people don't understand the difference between productive/interesting philosophising and philosophical masturbation amounting to nothing more than potheads saying "duuude" at each other.

>>19
Tell us the difference, and give examples.

>>19

Yes, please do.