How did this piece of Aristoteles ever even manage to become a paradox

The proof the slit exists, is the fact the photon bounced off it?

It was about catching not passing.

And the idiot answer to Zeno's Paradox has always been, "Go just a little bit in front of the tortise and pick it up." Or the classic "watch me do it in real life, what now, idiot?

>It's based on the notion that space and distance is infinitely subdividable, which we expect is not the case.
why are there so many mathematically illiterate philosophers now.

3000 years ago is hardly now

Well if you pass something, that also means you caught it.. Touched it, choose the most adequate word that satisfies.

But those "idiots answers" have a good point,
it's not a paradox, it's just an "idiotic claim" by Zeno's.

you could also say the photon bounced off of a surface that did not contain a slit

but really, should a hole in something too small for anything to pass through be considered a hole?

Oh you are so correct, there is no proof of a hole,
just that something that made it bounce.

I guess the question is simply irrelevant, all comes down to what we call a hole. Let's a call a hole something a photon can pass through, if it can't, it's not a hole.

Smallest hole, until it becomes just a wall.

Even if space is continuous it is not a paradox. The implicit assumption is that infinitesimal distances require non-zero amounts of time to cross. This is obviously false.

This. I've always thought this was obvious. Velocity is dx/dt not dx/t. I still don't understand how philosophers can talk about these paradoxes for such lengthy periods of time. It's an impressive waste of time.

The Greeks favored natural order above everything.

The idea of a mathematical concept that was not real was problematic for them.

The Greeks new about infinitesimals but couldn't reconcile it with their math. Xenos paradox was an illustration of this.

Id say that the absence of limits and the insistence of a geocentric universe were the biggest two hindrances to science.

Imagine where we'd be if these had been resolved 4500 years earlier.

You said it.

You shouldn't favour anything when doing sciences, or care if your feelings start hurting.
Nature is what it is, Greeks, but still, good job anyways.

I don't think any modern philosopher still considers this to be a "paradox" worth thinking about. It is resolved quite easily via

Should someone fix wikipedia now, and take off the word paradox off it, replace it with something else, like.. bullshit? You?

>edit wikipedia
It used to be easy. Nowadays people have edited the pages that are actually about them, and the changes were undone within minutes because the "information" that was there was so widely believed to be true that it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Plus they lock pages now and I think you have to have an account or something.

>Widely believed to be true,
Do you also think that is the opposite we should be doing with wikipedia? And everything else that matter.

>how would you know the slit exists?
Use a photon of lower wavelength.

>The implicit assumption is that infinitesimal distances require non-zero amounts of time to cross. This is obviously false.

And yet in the same breath Veeky Forums dismisses the Zeno machine [1], which is built on this obvious principle.

[1] As evidenced in the replies to this post:

You mean that we should be intentionally changing things that are widely believed to be true? Or what?

I think the more academic pages on wikipedia are really poorly constructed. But that's a conversation for another time.

That we should start using words correctly, that is not a paradox, it shouldn't be named as a paradox on wikipedia.

>And yet in the same breath Veeky Forums dismisses the Zeno machine

I don't think it was dismissed for the reason you might think it was. I personally don't know a damn thing about computation or anything along those lines, but the concept of a machine that does this does not seem ludicrous or impossible at all. Perhaps it's not possible with the computer architecture we use right now. I don't think Veeky Forums absolutely dismisses it.

Oh yeah absolutely it's not a paradox. That implies it's actually true but at first glance appears to be false. The reality is that it appears to be false because clearly it is false. One only needs to move two objects at different speeds to show the argument of OP's picture is ridiculous.
I don't think most people know the definition of paradox.

The smugness in this thread is disgusting.

Sounds like you don't know what a paradox is. It is correctly labeled and does not need to be adjusted to "bullshit".

> You are so right, most people don't know the definition of a paradox!
One of the biggest reason for that is, because sites such as Wikipedia use it the wrong way.

But that is what it is, it's not a paradox, why call it a paradox on Wikipedia, just confuses people. In sciences we need precision! It's necessary for proper communication!

Yes, it definitely does not need to be adjusted to bullshit, obviously, I agree.

But it truly is something not worth really thinking about, more of history what people used to think of the world during those days this was created.

Please explain how this particular example is a paradox. it has been resolved to be false, and I think that the majority of people on first inspection of the argument would agree that it is obviously false. There is nothing self contradictory in the premise or conclusions.

Why is the twins paradox in special relativity a paradox if we know it's false?

>The reality is that it appears to be false because clearly it is false.
>Achilles will not overtake the turtle
ok m8

> I don't think Veeky Forums absolutely dismisses it.
I will admit that. I'll also admit that I was playing devil's advocate (read: trolling) when I posted that link, in response to the rest of the thread which essentially claims that Zeno's paradox is settled and no longer controversial.

Although it did get me thinking: in any physical realization of a computer, performing a computation step (moving a ticker, flipping a bit etc.) necessarily involves some kind of physical movement. So if Zeno's paradox (that movement of a finite distance can be subdivided into infinitely many movements of infinitesimal distances) holds, then wouldn't that computer be already a hypercomputer by definition?

Well because before applying the solution it appears as if the twins will disagree about who has aged more, but in fact there is no disagreement at all. There's a contradiction between the immediate thought and the thought once more analysis has been done.

In the case of Zeno, I argue that anyone of sound mind (so not this guy ) immediately knows by intuition that it does take a finite amount of time to walk from point A to point B or to catch up with someone who is slower than you.

>I was playing devil's advocate (read: trolling)
get out

We are allowed to do whatever we want. I recommend you to spend your time a better way than saying get out. We're all friends here.

It's disingenuous to refute the arguments conclusion using "common sense" when the point of the argument is motion is an illusion. "hurrr I see things moving though". Refute the argument not the conclusion please. Most people can't readily so even by your stupid populist definition of paradox it still stands.

As the distance between two points decreases to an arbitrarily small, perhaps immeasurable value, so also does the time to cross that distance become arbitrarily small.

>Refute the argument not the conclusion please.
When a theory disagrees with observation it means that the theory is wrong, not that the observation is an illusion.

If you can't refute the argument then it stands and is in contradiction to common sense. Thus it is a paradox.

What happens is that you finally reach him

and you wait for him to move, but he doesn't move

so you move instead, finally surpassing him

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if infinitesimal distances required zero time to cross, would travel not be instantaneous as the sum of infinitesimal distances?

It means that motion is not a sequence of points in function of time, with exact position and velocity. That would be rather in agreement with the uncertainty principle. So it let Zeno correctly deduce that there's something wrong with the understanding of motion at his time, I just fail to see how would anyone conclude from this that motion itself is impossible.

Just assure me you understand and agree with its classification as a paradox.

If you care so much about what I think, I've joined the discussion here and yeah, I understand why it's considered a paradox.

...

Yes I am to which you replied My point in is to refute the misconception that the average person believing it takes a finite time to move between two points implies zeno's paradox is not a paradox.

To address you here , simply having a theory(that objects do move) that seems reasonable and is supported by observation does not constitute a refutation of another contradictory theory(that they do not) also supported by observations. Rather, it is paradox. If they are truly contradictory then in at least one case either the observations or logic connecting observation to theory must be flawed. You must refute zeno's argument, not his conclusion.

It is just unimaginable stupidity. Speaking about 'always' and splitting a single second.
One short chunk of time != forever, it is more then obvious.

>simply having a theory(that objects do move)
By "theory" I meant that "something undergoing motion must visit each point along the way", thus having an exact position and velocity if you'd stop time at any given instant. This leads to Zeno's paradox, and I'm not arguing with his reasoning. I just think that the right conclusion is "motion just doesn't work like stated in the premise", not "motion is an illusion". Although I admit I'm not ready to discuss the precise philosophical meaning of "illusion".

>In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Is it not more correct to conclude that, so long as time is not passing, motion is impossible?

This is calculus

This is strictly false. The correct conclusion is that despite moving at a finite speed, one can cross an infinite number of points in finite time.

.999... = 1

zeno BTFO

There is no paradox. As long as you are dividing the distance remaining to cover in half, you are simultaneously dividing the time to travel that distance in half.

The "paradox" is basically a what does 0/0 mean. We now have good understanding of the concept of limits.