Calculus solved Zeno's paradoxes

lmao it is not tasks that are in infinite number it's segments of time that when added no converge

t. inifinitist brainlet

in your picture you misspelled "Bertrand." Easy mistake to make.

>tfw political philosophy is still relevant

they knew convergent infinite series existed back in ancient greece
they knew sum((1/2)^n) converged back in ancient greece
none of this is what Zeno was talking about
go back to twisting around in a chair, slapping your leg repititively and reading freshman calculus textbooks for fun

>implying science won't solve political philosophy eventually

>implying calculus didnt solve Zeno's paradoxes

This

hello brainlet

>tfw Wildberger retards are branching out to other boards now
pls stop

no, we know this since weierstrass
caring about foundational issues when they don't show up naturally in the maths is untermensch behavior -- i'll let you think about the square root of 2 while i do grown up stuff

t. PhD in algebraic geometry

pls elaborate i need morality

>If you assume that you can't do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time then you can't do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time
WOAH...so this is the power...of ZENfaggotry

we're not talking about math we're talking about metaphysics though

>tfw all known quantities in the universe are descrete
>tfw this can't be the result of an underlying metaphysical principle because muh freshman calculus

There's no evidence Zeno even intended to convince anyone there was a paradox of motion e.g. that concept could have been outlined to show why infinite intervals can exist in finite spans of time. All the historical writings about the interpretation of Zeno's Paradox are from writers other than Zeno.

which one

>All quantities we try to assess with limited man-made devices appear limited and finite.
Huh, what a strange coincidence!

>lolwtf is digital physics

>lolwtf is digital physics
A proposal of how the universe might be, not evidence of how the universe is. You would need to cite evidence for why we should believe in this premise if you want to use it as an argument for something.

its successful which is literally the only argument in favor of the reality of any scientific theory

Evolution is never observed. Artificial selection is. Evolution is not valid. That is accepted by many.

Neuroscience is also falsifiable under certain parameters as well.

Mathematics has indeed developed well, I can safely say we should all be so lucky to witness the development of it. It has assisted the fields of economics and logic tremendously

>its successful
No, if anything is "successful" it's a specific prediction made in accordance with that framework.
So what specific evidence to you have? What specific predictions were successful? And why do you believe these predictions are compatible with digital physics exclusively and not with any other framework?
You're being way too vague right now and haven't even begun making an argument yet.

>morality doesn't exist.
>don't murder me, that's wrong.

falsifiability is a fucking meme stfu
the demarcation problem will never be solved and that's alright because there's a lot of bullshit within science and a lot of good shit outside of it

>the "macro evolution hasn't been observed so it can't exist" mayamy
What's the magical barrier which separates macro from micro evolution pls tell me.

to all stembrainlets:

If calculus solved Zeno's paradox, then what is the length of the last interval Zeno made before making it to the end?

Neuroscience hasn't disproven dualism because neuroscience can't explain intentionality since intentionality defies explanation on the level of efficient causality.

this is precisely the reason why plato wanted people to do maths

you stupid son of a bitch

Zeno's paradox requires that he makes it through every interval.

What is the last interval motherfucker? If he can't make it though every interval, he can't make it to the end.

Calculus solved some of Zeno's paradoxes (Achilles and the Tortoise), but it did not resolve the fundamental paradox about discreteness.

Neuroscience cannot yet explain systematic knowledge.

The meaning of adaptive is unclear. Survivalist adaptation is one mechanism of change, but certainly not the sole mechanism. Rock formations certainly "evolved" but not for survival purposes. Nor would can the existence of adaptation comment on the desirability of any particular adaptation.

Science and philosophy are equivalent.

Dear Veeky Forums, please learn to read. Also, Kant.

>what is the length of the last interval Zeno made before making it to the end?
Zeno was the philosopher, not the guy in the race.
Assuming you meant to write Achilles though, the answer would be 1/ω, or ε.

>Assuming you meant to write Achilles though, the answer would be 1/ω, or ε.

>ε
>1/ω

Not an argument, try again sweetie.

the reason the (ε, δ) definition exists is to get around this kind of fuckery

What is the value of ε?? 0???? 0+(1/infinity)???

Also the whole concept rests on the idea that limits and infinitesimals are metaphysically real concepts, which I would reject.

Mfw all you rely on others to come to ideas

Brainlets all of you.

And the whole reason the "calculus solves Zeno's paradox" is brainlet tier is because it just assumes limits have this kind of application which is exactly what's being questioned.

>the reason the (ε, δ) definition exists is to get around this kind of fuckery
Abraham Robinson proved infinitesimal calculus is rigorous 50 years ago.
Also infinitesimals are a well defined part of the of set of surreal numbers.

Kek

I create paradoxe for fun.

Does this make me smart.

yeah its rigorous but it doesnt mean that infinite summations are something you can "do" in the real world

if you think that being mathematically workable/rigorous is enough to work metaphysically then you should get back to me with a video of you dividing a sphere into two spheres as big as the original

1+1=2
Philosophy btfo

>Being intentionally ignorant and then reinventing the wheel except much worse because you'll probably make bad assumptions and your lack of outside influence means no one will point out you're being retarded.
Stupid. Best way to develop a severely limiting bad habit on a musical instrument for example is to self-teach instead of starting with lessons. Once you learn things the wrong way it's really hard to unlearn them later on. And lots of nontrivial academic topics are counterintuitive, meaning you'll probably intuit the wrong understandings for how things work in the absence of outside feedback.

samefaggot, your joke isn't funny stop posting it over Veeky Forums

*unzips will to power*
Just shut up already.

Take your pills you paranoid hack.

Basing your arguement off of
>probably
Brainlet

I am smart enough to check my work with outside sources, but I do not use other peoples work as base, unless I understand the theories before I come to theirs.

>you should get back to me with a video of you dividing a sphere into two spheres as big as the original
That's not an argument, there exist all sorts of tasks which both aren't impossible and which we ourselves aren't able to accomplish. Our not being able to personally do something isn't anywhere close to a proof for the impossibility of a given task.
Also we do move in the real world and you can model that movement in terms of infinite summations. Not sure why you're arguing that "doesn't count." It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.

Approximation is way more useful than perfection in the real world. Stop using all of your technology if "probably" isn't good enough for you, because all of it is based on notions of what probably works within a margin of error.
>I am smart enough to check my work with outside sources
That's not the same as having someone give you feedback on what you're doing wrong, unless by "checking with outside sources" you mean talking with other people about it.

dx = lim (x+h) - x = lim h = 0

>That's not an argument, there exist all sorts of tasks which both aren't impossible and which we ourselves aren't able to accomplish. Our not being able to personally do something isn't anywhere close to a proof for the impossibility of a given task.
the banach-tarski paradox is mathematically valid and straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible

>Also we do move in the real world and you can model that movement in terms of infinite summations
denying that infinite summations are mathematically sound and useful for modeling reality would definitely be brainletism. Denying that you can "do" an infinite number of tasks is not, in my opinion

>It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.
I disagree

>straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible
Proof it's impossible and not just something we as limited biological organisms can't personally do?

conservation of mass

>It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.

Gravity

>the banach-tarski paradox is mathematically valid and straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible
The "paradox" is simply a theorem about balls in R3. There is nothing "metaphysically" problematic. At most it would prove that either R3 is not a accurate model for some experiments or that we don't know how to extract non-measurable parts of a material ball (which is necessary for the theorem).

They're all wrong, that's the point.

wow what if infinite series aren't an accurate model for certain situations???

Zeno's paradox is a metaphysical question about the constitution of the world. Calculus ONLY solves the paradox if calculus IS equivalent to physical reality, which entails being a platonist about math and infinity

not even a platonist but a fucking mathematical physicalist

Analytic virgin
>encounter Zero's paradox, an antinomy in the language used by greek philosophers, that leads to a "metaphysical" paradox
>scratch head like monkey
>"solve" the problem by hypostatizing language even harder than the greeks did, concealing the wonky metaphysics even deeper beneath a formalized symbolic artificial language
>justify the use of symbolic artificial language circularly, with resort to the symbolic artificial language itself, or by claiming naive "self-evidence" of the same old implicit metaphysics that grounds the symbolic artificial language
>create lifeless spires out of the symbols to tautologically and self-referentially "prove" that the original antinomy isn't real
>ultimately just rehash a plain-spoken solution to the problem (serial infinity) that was already thought up in antiquity,
>think that because it has MORE SYMBOLS this time around it must be PERFECT!!!
>reify the original broken greek metaphysics in a way that even medieval scholastic philosophers didn't
>completely cut philosophy (now reinterpreted as "logic") off from any ontological reflexivity, forced to result to embarrassingly naive moorean "here is a hand"-tier axioms
>sit in a basement alone doing arbitrary number-cruncher puzzles that ultimately refer back to nothing except their own contingent truth conditions and can never finally describe reality
>endlessly rework embarrassingly bad cartoonish 17th century materialism
>fail to do real science because constantly trying to fit the square peg of nature into the round hole of DUHHHHH BUHHHHH ITS JUST MATTER INNIT ITS JUST QUANTIFIABLE EXTENSION IN SPACE DUHHH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Continental Chad
>encounter Zeno's paradox
>critique the conditions of the possibility of knowledge to show that knowledge always terminates in antinomies, when it attempts to grasp certain paradoxical empirical possibilities, because all empirical cognition has certain a priori rational conditions
>immediately extend the critique to the historicity of the conditions of that rationality
>extend that critique to the conditions of the critique itself
>come to the shocking realisation that all meaning is fully immanent in language, and can never transcendentally signify any pure ground of truth or reason
>come to the shocking realisation that language works in spite of itself, in spite of the lack of an anchor of ultimate transcendental rationality
>try to come up with ways of representing this situation
>begin playing with metaphor, a miraculous function of language's total immanence, to represent things while also keeping one eye on the fact that nothing can ever be fully or finally "represented"
>come up with more and more sophisticated ways of talking about the existence of meaning and its existential relationship with human life
>thereby actually employ "symbolic" reasoning in the correct and ontologically rigorous way
>unlock new dimensions of science and math never before dreamed by grubby analytics

'the constituion of the world' is entirely meaningless you complete mongrel, metaphysics, physics, maths are all in our heads read Kant you utter pleb

wrong read Leibniz

Zeno's paradox assumes space behaves the same at all scales, which is physically not true.

At some scale, order of magnitude of the planck length, the behavior of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects and classical notions of distance become irrelevant.

It is you who needs to read Kant because he never said that. He just said that the concepts do not leave our head in a physical manner, as in, the formula does not move those things around it like a machine assembly. Meaning that they are part of the theological and divine world, rather than the physical world. Like trees being certain colors or sizes.

the thing is we don't really know how spacetime works with quantum physics since we havent been able to work gravity into it

We know when quantum effects on spacetime become dominant, we just know exactly what those effects are.

Unless you choose a particular model, like string theory. And even the geometry is so complicated it very hard to interpret physically.

whos worse,

pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein or pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Heidegger or pseud who read the wikipedia article on Nietzsche

hotheads

The worst is pseuds who actually read Nietzsche but it's the only thing they've read and then they go on Veeky Forums and make threads about society or some misanthropic view they've developed because of him.

its funny because nietzsche actually considered himself to be very anti-misanthropic

>science can solve ethical problems

>It's another "Continentals keep trying to escape the limits of knowledge with their shitty Heideggerian discourse that is incommensurate with rational discourse and thus instead of stating deeper truths, states nothing at all" episode

that's....good??

Yeah, I do both.
Its an active philosophy that I create, I really try not to taint it with "names" of people, so it's really just from everything, and I do not "seek" names in literature.

Nice

No? The math at the time said that the race could never be finished. But the physical reality is that it can. There lies the paradox. The math today says that the race can be finished, so it's solved.

The math wasn't Zeno's impetus for posing the paradox. It's a natural consequence of assuming the world is pluralistic - infinity divisible - as Heraclitus and Protagoras believed. Zeno was trying to demonstrate, through a reducto ad absurdum, that this is impossible. If calculus solves the problem, that is a strong case for believing that calculus has some physical significance beyond formalism

>And even the geometry is so complicated it very hard to interpret physically.
Both of you are Brainlets.

Physical reality is not bound by Time.
All of things are co-current in the substance of Time.

Time is an "aethor".

So when this "paradox" is asked, it's not accepting that time and physical realities can be dualistic, which is inherrently wrong.

We cannot prove physical matter is bound by time, only that experience is bound by time and physicality.

It is not even a fucking paradox, just a stupid questiom for toddlers to twiddle their thumbs over.

thats interesting where should i look exactly

>Calculus solved Zeno
No way anyone actually believes this, even children ought to know Aristotle did this by asserting that in the same way space is infinitely divisible, so is time.

>Morality is a set of diplomatic rules/values conditioned into humans so they can cohabit a set area or more than ten minutes without killing each other
This is real to you?

>I don't know what supertasks are
>I don't know how newtonian physics work
Last two are silly, though.

this

>The math today says that the race can be finished, so it's solved.
the math says the race can be finished if you ignore the premises of zenos paradoxes

or in other words: "if zenos paradox didnt exist Achilles could finish the race"

WOAH

there are people that are UNIRONICALLY arguing this ITT.

jesus christ Veeky Forums

>>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
Explain to a brainlet why this is false other than muh evidence of absence

>Dualism isn't wrong

there's no physical explanation for anything that dualists claim is immaterial

i mean i wouldnt really consider myself a dualism (im more of a neutral monist) but dualism needs to be debunked on a priori grounds

Lmao this is the classic STEMfag excuse not to read and nothing more.

evertyhing in past is dum

hurrrrrrrrrrrr

>(implying you cannot read Archimedes for the reasoning, even though he believed in a Geocentric universe)