zenos paradox

[crashbandicoot]

firstly, if anyone is not farmiliar with zenos paradox, it states that nobody should ever be able to get anywhere because you always have to travel half of the distance first, so for example, trying to get to two from one would be impossible if you kept on halving it
1 1.5 1.75 1.875 1.9375
you will never get to two if could keep on adding on half of the number, just like walking half the distance before you walk the full thing

so, i was wondering how we could ever touch anything or move anywhere or even be anywhere, and then i thought, maybe we can do all of the things because our relative size means that we will not notice or be affected by anything that is too large or small. we can move because we cannot detect something so small. say, a trilionth of a nanometer is so relatively small, it becomes irrelevant.

then i realised that if i use this rule that every object has its own relative maximum and minimal size, so a nanoparticle would seem massive to something that cannot be existant in our relative universe

but then i though further and realised that i can affect other things. Surely to a non - concious being, relative size is irrelevant and therefore i should never be able to affect it because o can never get close enough. I got from this that verything is concious on some tiny level. This allows us to interact with other object

so, there you go. basically, what i am trying to say is that this is proof of the fact that everything is concious.

Am i making a large mistake? what are your thoughts on the matter? Is is this a valid thread?

['Oseé]

.

I just lifted my right ring finger and placed it on the full stop key and typed a full stop right there. According to Zeno's paradox, I theoretically shouldn't have even been able to lift my finger from the l key on which it was resting, but I did it anyway. Therefore, there must be something wrong with Zeno's paradox. You seem to be trying to find reasons why Zeno's paradox might work--our relative size for instance--but the idea of infinite division behind the paradox wouldn't seem to be influenced by any such thing. Whether moving a total distance of one centimeter or 10^-33 centimeters, Zeno's paradox should still hold true.

On to the second part of what you asked, nothing you've said is proof of the fact that everything is conscious because not everything is, in fact, conscious.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by 'Oseé

I just lifted my right ring finger and placed it on the full stop key and typed a full stop right there. According to Zeno's paradox, I theoretically shouldn't have even been able to lift my finger from the l key on which it was resting, but I did it anyway. Therefore, there must be something wrong with Zeno's paradox.

I don't know if you are that familiar with the argument Zeno of Elea made, but I don't see how I am any less justified to conclude (without better argument on your part) that something is wrong with your perception or belief that you have moved. Indeed, that was Zeno's very argument that the belief and perception that we move (and by extension that we change and that all is not one) is a mistake. Your common sense objection merely bucks the intellectual challenge of making intelligible what we claim to perceive. No one, not even Zeno, denies that perception shows us what was claim to be movement, but the metaphysical problem of how movement is possible at all isn't solved by pointing this out to us.

['Oseé]

Originally Posted by iwpoe

I don't know if you are that familiar with the argument Zeno of Elea made, but I don't see how I am any less justified to conclude (without better argument on your part) that something is wrong with your perception or belief that you have moved. Indeed, that was Zeno's very argument that the belief and perception that we move (and by extension that we change and that all is not one) is a mistake. Your common sense objection merely bucks the intellectual challenge of making intelligible what we claim to perceive. No one, not even Zeno, denies that perception shows us what was claim to be movement, but the metaphysical problem of how movement is possible at all isn't solved by pointing this out to us.

We know motion to be more than an illusion, which is what Zeno's paradox at most proposes. The argument stands.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by 'Oseé

We know motion to be more than an illusion, which is what Zeno's paradox at most proposes.

You've missed the point of my reply. Zeno's argument does not propose that motion is an illusion. It argues that motion as such is unintelligible and thus that we don't know motion at all, concluding, thereby, that any claimed perception of motion is an illusion. Your reply is equivalent to a long 'Nuh-uh!', and will not serve to refute Zeno.

['Oseé]

Originally Posted by iwpoe

You've missed the point of my reply. Zeno's argument does not propose that motion is an illusion. It argues that motion as such is unintelligible and thus that we don't know motion at all, concluding, thereby, that any claimed perception of motion is an illusion. You're reply is equivalent to a long 'Nuh-uh!', and will not serve to refute Zeno.

Ha. I was refuting you. Not Zeno. As far as I can see and have heretofore demonstrated, Zeno is self-refuting.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by 'Oseé

Ha. I was refuting you. Not Zeno.

I'm speaking for Zeno. I'm not trying to support his claims (I don't believe Zeno's conclusions), but I don't think your reply is sufficient because I don't think his argument is "self-refuting" (whatever the hell that means).

Originally Posted by 'Oseé

As far as I can see and have heretofore demonstrated, Zeno is self-refuting.

This claim trivializes without argument the work of a great number of mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers who have worked (often in vain) to try and resolve the paradoxes. But, ok, I'll bite. How is Zeno self-refuting? Just for reference here is the arguments as we have them in the sources:

"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."

—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15

“That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”

—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b10

“If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.”

—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

"… if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum."

—Aristotle Physics IV:1, 209a25

"… there is no part of the millet that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why any such part should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole bushel moves in falling. In fact it does not of itself move even such a quantity of the air as it would move if this part were by itself: for no part even exists otherwise than potentially."

—Aristotle Physics VII:5, 250a20

"The fourth argument is that concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as they proceed with equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row originally occupying the space between the goal and the middle point of the course and the other that between the middle point and the starting-post. This...involves the conclusion that half a given time is equal to double that time."

—Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b33

Show me how each argument "refutes itself" . At least that will require you to give an argument, an exposition, or else do anything other than say 'nuh-uh!'. After all, it's not evident to me in reading any of those arguments that they have given their own refutation. They might indeed be false, but if I am to make the claim that they are false I must show why (since the arguments themselves don't seem to show why). If I have to show why, and I do, then it's not the argument that has refuted itself but rather me who has refuted it.

[crashbandicoot]

Originally Posted by 'Oseé

.

I just lifted my right ring finger and placed it on the full stop key and typed a full stop right there. According to Zeno's paradox, I theoretically shouldn't have even been able to lift my finger from the l key on which it was resting, but I did it anyway. Therefore, there must be something wrong with Zeno's paradox. You seem to be trying to find reasons why Zeno's paradox might work--our relative size for instance--but the idea of infinite division behind the paradox wouldn't seem to be influenced by any such thing. Whether moving a total distance of one centimeter or 10^-33 centimeters, Zeno's paradox should still hold true.

On to the second part of what you asked, nothing you've said is proof of the fact that everything is conscious because not everything is, in fact, conscious.

there are laws that restrict the size of something in our universe - something can become so small they defy our laws, but what are these things made out of?
theories have been proposed that it goes into a different universe with its own relative size, therefore, we are only affected to a certain size, because of the laws in our universe.

[standardstate]

I don't see your claim that zeno's paradox has to do with consciousness, and so am not going to address it.

As for the paradox itself, there are at least two ways of addressing it...

If the universe is quantized in space, as has been suggested by some people, then the paradox disappears as the division of steps into smaller and smaller sizes at some point ends.

If the universe is not quantized in space the paradox still runs into problems re the concept of infinity. Say you are travelling a distance L at a constant speed c. Then the time to travel L/2 is simply L/2c, which takes care of the first interval. The time it takes to traverse the second interval, L/4, is L/4c, and so forth. While it is true that it takes an infinite number of steps to traverse the distance L, the time it takes for successive steps diminishes from step to step. If one carries out the mathematical sums involved, then we simply have

L = L/2 + L/4 + L/8 + L/16 + ...

t = L/c = L/2c + L/4c + L/8c + L/16c + ...

which is always the way I have seen the paradox - as a comment on mathematical representations in terms of infinite sums.

For what it is worth, there are some problems with the physical and scientific representation of change, which requires information over and above that existing at a particular instant in time. These seem to be more theoretical problems than practical problems (they don't prevent launching missiles at airplanes, for example) but are likely worth at least some thought.

[merle234]

Yes you're making a large mistake.
We can reach stuff by not slowing down as we move.
i.e. we don't keep halving our distances, we go the whole way.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by merle234

Yes you're making a large mistake.
We can reach stuff by not slowing down as we move.
i.e. we don't keep halving our distances, we go the whole way.

That's not the argument. The argument is that to get from point A to point B I have to traverse half the distance between them and half the distance between the half and A and half that... so on ad infinitum ad absurdum.

[rebellious_teen]

I have never heard of this paradox though I have heard of something similar when I am doing exponentials in math. Anyway, I don't see why there must be a rule that says we can only travel in proportions? Or measure the distance we travelled in proportion.

[merle234]

Originally Posted by iwpoe

That's not the argument. The argument is that to get from point A to point B I have to traverse half the distance between them and half the distance between the half and A and half that... so on ad infinitum ad absurdum.

Yes but the sum to infinity is only infinite is the sequence is >1 or <-1.
The formula is a/1-r where a= first distance and r = common multiple.
So in this example a= 1(because that's how far you went in the first step) and r=0.5 (because you're halving it every time.
1/1-0.5 = 2
This distance can be reached.

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by merle234

Yes but the sum to infinity is only infinite is the sequence is >1 or <-1.
The formula is a/1-r where a= first distance and r = common multiple.
So in this example a= 1(because that's how far you went in the first step) and r=0.5 (because you're halving it every time.
1/1-0.5 = 2
This distance can be reached.

Yeah, all your math is right, but I don't understand how that maps the argument. It doesn't even seem continuous with your previous claim about not slowing down.

[standardstate]

Originally Posted by iwpoe

That's not the argument. The argument is that to get from point A to point B I have to traverse half the distance between them and half the distance between the half and A and half that... so on ad infinitum ad absurdum.

I think what he is trying to say is that the argument neglects that the second step takes half the time of the first, the third takes half the time of the second, and so forth.

I likely have a blind spot re zeno because I knew about infinite sums before I had heard of the paradox. So his argument has never seen that compelling...