/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11639563]

plato discusses this in parmenides. now, there is a lot to dig into in parmenides, but let's start with zeno's paradox...
>it's a limit!
>this can be solved with maths
okay, okay, now that the children have stopped their tantrum, how can we resolve this without overthrowing the most basic metaphysic that grounds nearly all of our conceptions about reality? can we?

[Anonymous No.11639594]

The paradox doesn't take time into account
Assuming both move at a constant speed, the time required to pass these points on the line will decrease exponentially as the distance between them also exponentially decreases. These two decreases perfectly counteract all the way up until the points are infinitely dense and crosses infinitely frequently, after which Achilles will have overtaken the tortoise and the distance and frequency will continue to increase to infinity.
Essentially, Achilles is performing a supertask

[Anonymous No.11639596]

>>11639594
if only that's how time worked anon...

[Anonymous No.11639613]

>>11639596
Please point out my error, then
If Achilles made a deliberate step that took a specific amount of time to cross every point, then yes, it would be impossible to overtake the tortoise, because he'd be multiplying the time it takes to makes each step by the number of steps, which is infinite. Instead, the time it takes to cross each point is determined by its distance from the previous point. This is what allows motion

[Anonymous No.11639618]

>B-but calculus

[Anonymous No.11639623]

Reality is not divisible anon.
Humans live in a world of human concepts, made up divisions of reality that we can easily manipulate in our heads, but you must never confuse the map with the territory, the paradoxes are map problems, the territory is indivisible

[Anonymous No.11639841]

>>11639623
this

[Anonymous No.11639894]

>>11639563
Why did you take this very same thread from /sci/ over to here, even though people wasted the time in their day to try and explain these concepts to you?
>>9943071

[Anonymous No.11639902]

>>11639894
>>>/sci/9943071

[Anonymous No.11639920]

>>11639594
>>11639613
Quality posts here

[Anonymous No.11639959]

>>11639596
/x/

[Anonymous No.11639969]

>>11639894
because /sci/ is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.11639987]

>>11639969
its not retarded, just myopic

[Anonymous No.11640134]

>>11639987
alright

[Anonymous No.11640135]

I don't understand how this is still considered a paradox if you avoid imagining Achilles pausing every time he reaches a prior position of the tortoise, and/or avoid describing every overlap Achilles makes in a way that takes a set amount of time or space to communicate

[Anonymous No.11640452]

>>11639563
Because Achilles movies faster then the turtle, the time intervals must become exponentially smaller for the turtle to stay ahead. Because time is not a well ordered set (having no smallest unit), it can be decided into infinitely small instances. Eventually, after infinitely many intervals, the time distance between the Nth and (N+1)th interval becomes infinity small, ergo the Nth and (N+1)th instances are the same (because 1-1^infinity is equal to 1-0 or simply 1) and since time is now longer passing, this implies that there is no longer any distance between Achilles and the turtle. Hence if we pass time by any nonzero distance at this point Achilles will be ahead.

[Anonymous No.11640457]

>>11639596
Time doesn't work the way Zeno posits the paradox you fucking bozo, that's the entire Crux of the paradox

[Anonymous No.11640464]

>>11640452
Yeah this
Infinitely small time beats infinitely small distance

[Anonymous No.11640466]

The problem is solved if you consider the same scenario from either Achilles' or the tortoise's inertial frame of reference instead of the ground's

[Anonymous No.11640541]

>>11640452

and upon what proof is your assumption standing that space cannot also be infinitely divided?

are energy and mass distinct (how do we measure time)?

are space and time not the same thing? are you seriously going to think nobody here knows a thing about einstein?

you cant say time is infinitely divisible, and not space, thus achillies wins. space and time are not distinct entities, they are the same fucking thing.

[Anonymous No.11640554]

>>11640541
>and upon what proof is your assumption standing that space cannot also be infinitely divided?
when did he say that

[Anonymous No.11640567]

>>11639563
nigga just walk past the turtle

[Anonymous No.11640592]

>>11640541
You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.11640598]

>>11640554

he didnt, he implied it, from an assumption. that assumption is the unstated bedrock of his argument.

and time, even when divided into slices of infinitismal magnitude, is still a slice of time. it doesnt lose its time-ness by becoming small. it doesnt stop.

hes essentially relating time and distance, and saying that at a critical point around the limit of said relation, infinitismal time has a greater magnitude on the product of motion than the distance, so any nonzero addition to the time will result in a greater distance than the next churn of the function will reduce the distance, allowing achillies to overtake the tortise.

nope. because the divide is arbitrary. time is not separable from space (distance), they are identical. you cant split them into two distinct entities and math a relation of those two entities, and then make a meaningful universal statement about the relation of two things that are in fact one thing in the real, not math, world. arbitrary divide.

zeno is making an abstract claim. you cant concrete math your way out of it. youre no longer dealing with zeno's paradox at that point.

"lol this never happens in real life" the point is motion shouldnt be possible yet look at everything moving

[Anonymous No.11640600]

>>11640541
>and upon what proof is your assumption standing that space cannot also be infinitely divided?
That's not needed for the proof. All we need to do is see how after infinitely many intervals, the time between any two becomes zero, meaning that the distance in space also becomes zero since obviously the Achilles and the turtle can't move if no time has passed

[Anonymous No.11640684]

>>11640600

>the time between any two becomes zero, meaning that the distance in space also becomes zero

there is no necessity motivating the distance between A / T to be 0 when time becomes infinitely small. i dont think its implied that distance is 0 because time is "no longer passing". as if that was even thinkable. "stopped time", is completely meaningless. its like saying empty space. what is space if its empty? a bounded set? are the boundaries not something contained?

and how are you adding to something that you have defined as being not-addable (manipulatable by whatever they call the algebraic functions coupled with some given quantity).

infinitely small is the exact same infinitely small even if you "added a nonzero quantity to it". once its infinity it stops being manipulable by non infninities. you can make an infinitismal infinitely smaller by subtracting an infinity from it, but its still infinitely small as far as you function is concerned, and so there will be no change in the distance.

meaning they can only be tied.

thus the tortoise wins, because he has a longer neck

[Anonymous No.11641031]

>>11640684
d = rt
As t approaches zero, what happens to d
You can fly off buildings, try it

[Anonymous No.11641037]

>>11639563
why these niggas hopping

[Anonymous No.11642054]

Solved by calculus.

[Anonymous No.11642071]

>>11639563
It's simple. There's two different types of infinite sequences: convergent and divergent ones. The sequence 1 + 2 + 3 + 4... is a divergent infinite sequence and therefore has no solution. However a sequence such as 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ... is considered a convergent sequence and the answer is therefore 1. Pic related is a formula for identifying convergent sequences.

[Anonymous No.11642332]

all these math nerds in this thread with n's and shit trying to make up shit that means nothing except for raw symbolism created from shit to try to make logic positive. in reality this paradox and all others btfo logic maths and basically our entire reality because it's a fucking paradox and there is no solution, idiots.

also i get major deja vu whenever this thread comes up (this is the third time I've seen it). anyone else?

[Anonymous No.11642410]

>>11642332
why does it cause so much ass pain each time

[Anonymous No.11642417]

>>11640598
>it doesnt lose its time-ness by becoming small
1/ω = 0
If you don't believe this is true then you don't believe .999... = 1 either.

[Anonymous No.11642425]

>>11642417
try using your brain

[Anonymous No.11642435]

>>11642332
>>11640684
>>11640598
>>11640541
Wow these brain dead philosophy faggots have the gall to demean STEM people and then say shit like this?

Lmao

[Anonymous No.11642445]

>>11642425
1/3 = .333...
3/3 = .333... * 3 = .999...
3/3 = .999... = 1

[Anonymous No.11642459]

>>11642410
I don’t think it causes anyone pain except the math illiterate buffoons who are repeatedly confronted with the solution to their precious paradox. I’m not even a stemfag, I’m just someone who took basic math.

Space is CONTINUOUS, not discrete. If it were discrete your paradox would have a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous No.11642467]

>>11642459
Copleston (a philosopher, not a mathematician or scientist) says as much in his history of philosophy.

This isn’t to say you can’t still debate the merits of Parmenidean metaphysics. Zeno’s Paradoxes are an attempt to refute a non-Parmenidean conception of reality. The arguments in favor still stand. And in fact, Parmenides has some things in common with physics if that matters to you.

[Anonymous No.11642489]

>>11642425
Try naming the specific real number that equals the distance between .999... and 1.
If you can't then that's equivalent with establishing those two numbers have no distance between them and are identical with one another.
1/ω isn't a part of the set of real numbers, it both means "one divided by infinity" and "zero."

[Anonymous No.11642499]

>>11642459
>space is CONTINUOUS, not discrete
Isn’t this itself a debate in quantum physics, however? Isn’t the whole point of the name the theory that matter and energy are quantized, made of discrete quanta on the smallest level?

[Anonymous No.11642516]

>>11642499
Good point. I don’t know anything about quantum physics so I can’t discuss it.

[Anonymous No.11642561]

>>11642417
>1/ω = 0
It doesn’t.
1/ω is undefined

[Anonymous No.11642585]

Sometimes, when adding an infinitely reducing ammount an infinite ammount of times, the result is bound within a finite expression.

[Anonymous No.11642621]

>>11642585
that's a convention, not a reality

[Anonymous No.11642632]

>>11642621
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.11642687]

>>11642621
Key word is "bound within" not "equal to"

[Anonymous No.11642707]

>>11642561
There's no such thing as blanket "undefined."
You must specify which domain it's undefined for. 1/ω isn't undefined in all domains.
1/ω is well defined as {0 | 1,1/2,1/4,1/8...} in the set of surreal numbers.

[Anonymous No.11642732]

>>11642499
The quantum mechanics taught in undergrad still takes space as continuous. The dynamics of systems is described by schrodinger's equation, which has a potential energy typically depending on some position vector. It'a a differential equation and the position vector can take a continuum of values, it's not discrete unless you posit that it is (put it on a lattice is the jargon there).
I have not yet seen anyone put the universe on a lattice yet and for good reason. There is no lattice of points that respects continuous rotational symmetry.
For example, consider a square grid. There are discrete rotational symmetries of 90 degrees, but not symmetries of say 1 degree.
In physics we often build theories based on certain symmetries, that one must be able to describe systems with functions that are invariant under symmetry operations. To posit a lattice means breaking continuous rotational symmetry. Some of the consequences of breaking symmetry have to do with loss of conserved quantities.

I recommend working on your differential equation skills and then tackling a classical mechanics book followed by a quantum mechanics book. Then repeat again with harder books. Any good book will discuss symmetries.

[Anonymous No.11642740]

>>11642561
>>11642707
Also rigorously defined in the set of hyperreal numbers and non-standard analysis where you can take the standard function of it:
st(1/ω)
And get back 0 as the corresponding real number part.

[Anonymous No.11642795]

>guys this is how reality works
>shows symbolic mental gymnastics they learned in basic math course

talk about missing the forest for the trees

[Anonymous No.11642805]

>>11642795
Except those symbolic mental gymnastics work. You're the one missing the obvious: How did you post that message just now for example? You're like a fish who doesn't think water is important because it's so ridiculously important and omnipresent that it no longer stands out in noticeable contrast with anything else.

[Anonymous No.11642826]

>>11642805
>Except those symbolic mental gymnastics work.
they work within the made up framework they are part of
Its like saying i scored a goal playing soccer, so that means soccer rules explain reality

[Anonymous No.11642907]

>>11642499
The planck unit is about our ability to measure space, not the nature of space itself

[Anonymous No.11642929]

>>11642826
No, they work in reality.
You're using a computer and a massive telecommunications network right now which wouldn't have been possible without that "made up framework."
Go ahead, try to build a computer from scratch using your own personal preferences and non-mathematical ideas and see if you end up matching what a regular computer can accomplish in reality.

[Anonymous No.11642972]

>>11642929
>LOOK I KEEP SCORING GOALS! HOW CAN YOU SAY SOCCER RULES ARE WRONG?

[Anonymous No.11642987]

>>11642929
>calculator proves mathematics right

your post is so funny you should probably save it and read it at another stage in your life

[Anonymous No.11642989]

>>11642972
How is the achievement of solutions to real world problems and innovations that promote real world gains in prosperity the same as the achievements limited to the context of a single soccer game?
Do you not understand the difference between putting a man on the moon in real life vs. shooting the moon in a game of Hearts?

[Anonymous No.11642997]

>>11642987
You're only even able to make that post because of your extreme dependence on all the real world benefits mathematics have yielded.
I don't get you people. Why are you using all the benefits of mathematics if you think it's just arbitrary bullshit? Why don't you make up your own arbitrary bullshit and see if there's a difference between what you can accomplish with it compared to what's been accomplished with standard mathematics? It's an easy enough experiment you can try whenever you want here.

[Anonymous No.11643029]

>>11642997
all game rules are arbitrary bullshit, recognizing that doesnt mean you cant enjoy playing. I would argue, in fact, that knowing that makes it more enjoyable to play since you dont take it so seriously

[Anonymous No.11643030]

>>11642929
Unironically an overrated post

the argument that infinity is a poor concept to use, because it limits the realm of human understanding is the argument Proclus uses in his commentary on Euclid/Nicomachus. I mean honestly, a good discussion on mathematics involves no mentions of numbers

[Anonymous No.11643040]

>>11643029
OK, except once again, the benefits haven't been limited to the confines of the "game," and not all "game rules" are equal in how well they work ***in the real world***.

[Anonymous No.11643070]

>>11643040
>the benefits haven't been limited to the confines of the "game,"
they have, you just cant see it because you are confusing the "game" with the "real world", Its not easy to see desu

[Anonymous No.11643092]

>>11643030
>the argument that infinity is a poor concept to use, because it limits the realm of human understanding is the argument Proclus uses in his commentary on Euclid/Nicomachus
That's not really relevant to all the real world benefits derived from mathematics unless you can establish there are even greater real world benefits you could accomplish with finitist mathematics. It's easy to hypothetically suppose you can construct X fantasy technology using an alternative mathematical foundation, but the fact is we have non-fantasy, real technologies to point to that constitute a tremendous pile of evidence in favor of the utility of mathematics that doesn't adhere to this finitist preference.
At a fundamental level I think you're seriously neglecting to recognize how much the modern world has been built up from the application of mathematics.
>a good discussion on mathematics involves no mentions of numbers
I haven't even mentioned numbers once in my argument for why mathematics isn't just arbitrary bullshit though. That's basically what I've been saying here, that it's a fundamentally wrong way of thinking to try to assert mathematics has no substance to it and only accomplishes things within the confines of its own arbitrary game. Fundamental as in this should be clearly recognizable as wrongheaded without even beginning to get into more specific mathematical topics like the nature of numbers. All I'm really pointing out is mathematics has been anything but limited to its own "game," I don't think you could even come up with a system that's had more real world impact than mathematics has. I'm kind of confused over how anyone could even begin to deny this, just compare how we live to how an indigenous hunting and gathering group would live and tell me there hasn't been any real world impact from the application of mathematics on the former vs. the latter.

[Anonymous No.11643098]

>>11643070
Do you not consider technology part of the "real world?"
Do you not consider architecture part of the "real world?"
Do you not consider modern medicine part of the "real world?"
If you want to call everything a game that's fine, but now you've gone full sophist and no longer have a point.

[Anonymous No.11643099]

>>11639623
/thread

[Anonymous No.11643114]

>>11643098
i do not consider "the real world" part of "the real world"

[Anonymous No.11643115]

>>11642929
you're being a reverse schizophrenic here. Schizos apply personal constructs to objective material reality, you're applying material metaphors to personal reality

[Anonymous No.11643121]

>>11643115
OK, can you please stop using that computer though? At least be consistent and conjure up your own equally valid to mathematics magical flapdoodle based computer so I don't have to read your posts here anymore.

[Anonymous No.11643144]

>>11643121
I'm in stem gradschool nigger, I know more about computers than your faggot materialist ass ever will.

[Anonymous No.11643154]

>>11639563
It's called convergence, brainlet

[Anonymous No.11643167]

>>11642332
Yeah man the symbolism of there being a concept of a set that contains nothing is totally hard to conceive in this reality

[Anonymous No.11643203]

>>11643144
>I'm in stem gradschool nigger
What's your point? Plenty of people much smarter and with more real world accomplishments than you have also been mentally ill. Gödel starved to death because he was afraid of being poisoned for example.

[Anonymous No.11643281]

>The evident character of this defective cognition of which
mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before
Philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the
defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore of a kind that philosophy
must spurn. Its purpose or Notion is magnitude. It is just
this relationship that's unessential, lacking the Notion. Accordingly,
this process of knowing proceeds on the surface, does not
touch the thing itself, its essence or Notion, and therefore fails to comprehend it [i.e. in terms of its Notion].-The material, regarding which mathematics provides such a gratifying treasury
of truths, is space and the numerical unit. Space is the existence
in which the Notion inscribes its differences as in an empty
lifeless element, in which they arejust as inert and lifeless. The
actual is not something spatial, as it is regarded in mathematics;
with non-actual things like the objects of mathematics, neither
concrete sense-intuition nor philosophy has the least concern.
In a non-actual element like this there is only a truth of the
same sort, i.e. rigid, dead propositions. We can stop at anyone
of them; the next one starts afresh on its own account, without
the first having moved itself on to the next, and without any
necessary connection arising through the nature of the thing
itself.-Further, because of this principle and element-and
herein consists the formalism of mathematical evidence-[this
kind of] knowing moves forward along the line of equality. For
what is lifeless, since it does not move of itself, does not get as
far as the distinctions of essence, as far as essential opposition
or inequality, and therefore does not make the transition of one
opposite into its opposite, does not attain to qualitative,
immanent motion or self movement. For it is only magnitude,
the unessential distinction, ,that mathematics deals with. It
abstracts from the fact that it is the Notion which divides space
into its dimensions and determines the connections between
and within them. It does not, for example, consider the relationship
of line to surface; and, when it compares the diameter of
a circle with its circumference, it runs up against their incommensurability,
i.e. a relatiqnship of the Notion, something
infinite that eludes mathematical determination

[Anonymous No.11643329]

>>11640457
What can you do, time to leave lit it's filled with retards

Asking someone about zenos paradox might actually be a pretty good litmus test for intelligence

[Anonymous No.11643893]

>>11640466
Easy answer right there.
From Achilles point of view, he is static and the tortoise keeps getting closer, and will come up behind him after a finite amount of time from Archimedes property (for any positive numbers a and b there exist an integer N such that N*a>b).
The reason there is a "paradox" at all is because Zeno has completely retarded ideas of time.

[Anonymous No.11643919]

>>11642499
In wave mechanics only specific integral distributions are available in phase space, which is also true in quantum mechanics which is a particular type of wave mechanics.
It doesn't say that space is discontinuous. In fact the theory cannot be developed outside the function of continuous variables.

[Anonymous No.11643943]

>>11642332
> I am slowing down the progression of time in line with my approach of the pursued.
> Look I can't overtake him, reality is broken.
no

[Anonymous No.11644000]

>>11643203
>maw agape browsing rationalwiki
just marry your computer if you love it so much. you'll be able to in a decade at this rate.
>>11642435
arbitrary separation of specialisms based on the university faculty is a hallmark of brainlet thought. all real philosophers were well versed in the most advanced mathematics and science of the time.

[Anonymous No.11644045]

>>11639563
How do limits not solve this

[Anonymous No.11644055]

Zeno's Paradoxes have caused much debate that barely masks the fact that they are rhe dullest franchises in the history of philosophic questions. Each episode following the pretty boy Greek and his pals from Athens Academy as they argue assorted sophists has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the Socrates dicksucking, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special pleading, all to make logic unlogical, to make action seem inert (quite literally with Zeno).

Perhaps the die was cast when Parmenides vetoed the idea of Socrates directing the discussion; he made sure the dialogue would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously verbose cross-promotion for his pupils. Zeno's paradoxes might be anti-Calculus (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Leibniz series in its refusal of logic, metaphysics and clarity. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the ancients could read it seriously it r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character agreed with a point, the author wrote instead that "It cannot be any other."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Plato's mind is so governed by cliches and dead maieutics that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Parmenides by the same Bertrand Russel. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Parmenides at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Bertrand Russel." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Parmenides" you are, in fact, trained to read Bertrand Russel.

[Anonymous No.11644071]

>>11640541
So what do you know about Einstein?

[Anonymous No.11644090]

>>11644045
Some people don't like this solution because it uses continuous sets.
As already said ITT, you don't even need continuous sets for a solution when studying the relative motion of the two runners.

[Anonymous No.11644095]

>>11639563
If there was an afterlife Zeno, Plato, Achilles and the turtle would all spiritually kill themselves over how retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.11644393]

>>11642707
You could have mentioned surreals a bit earlier. Also, you’re still wrong.
{ 0 | 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, … } is obviously greater than 0

[Anonymous No.11644718]

>>11644071

I know he attributed the depth of his understanding to his friendship with the violin.

I know he married his cousin. Said he wasted years trying to work an ether into his equations of relativity. when he abandoned shoehorning ether and completed his equations that this was the death of a romantic ideal of his, of an ideal held by generations of thinkers. Still today people are ducking around with ether.
He hated the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Because. Yep. It offended his romantic ideals.

e=mc is staring that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin (coins don’t have sides, we just say they do because they appear this way and can be described this way, but a coin is not a coin because it has sides. An object is not an object because we sense it), and the proportanality constant relating these two quantities is the speed of light sq. That the speed of light is the rate at which time marches inexorably forward. That velocity is relative and time can dilate because of this. That because energy is matter and matter is space and space is time we have 4 words for one and the same thing (looking at you Parmenides, you sagacious sage you) and everyone gets butthurt and confused when you point this out even though every 3 y/o kid knows about e=mc but they don’t know what it means. gravity alters the velocity of light and thus alters the rate of time because gravity is a warping of the fabric of space time and look at all those words describing one single thing.

But it doesn’t really do that, but it does. Define space and you can define motion. Right now we have working equations that quantify empirical information But we still have yet to qualitatively define anything that exists. Even ourselves. This is called method, and it’s a problem.

Science works because it is a model. A representation. A description. Not a definition. Not the thing itself.

We don’t have computers because of science and math. We have computers because they are a potential actual from the potentiality. Just because we stacked some bricks and made a wall doesn’t mean we know a single thing about the wall. We can’t even prove it exists without appealing to sense data. We say that all true knowledge is empirical without empirically verifying the non existence of the nonempirical.

[Anonymous No.11644948]

>>11639563
I never understood people who genuinely believe this paradox. All you need to do is see how this works in practice. We all observe movement and people can overtake others because of their walking speed, it's absurd to think that Achilles wouldn't catch up with the turtle.
How do some people genuinely think movement doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.11645071]

>>11639563

Math is a social construct. It's fake and arbitrary as with everything.

[Anonymous No.11645279]

>>11640598
>time is not separable from space (distance), they are identical. you cant split them into two distinct entities

[Anonymous No.11645286]

>>11642445
This has no real practical application though, it's just an artifact of the way we represent numbers. It's the math equivalent of a cute sleight of hand parlor trick.

[Anonymous No.11645320]

>>11640541
>>11640598
Reading The Time Machine does not constitute an understanding of Physics. Time and distance are not identical. At least, G.R. does not say that. I understand why you have made that fatal error; distance is a metric operating in the space.

[Anonymous No.11645325]

>>11642989
>putting a man on the moon in real life
Never happened. http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
Sure, you'll make fun of the idea, but I doubt you'll actually read that link, which is the best moon landing debunking ever written, let alone refute it.

[Anonymous No.11645329]

>>11643098
Just because a model is effective doesn't mean it's an accurate representation of reality.

[Anonymous No.11645348]

>>11644055
touched up and fuckin saved

[Anonymous No.11646185]

>>11639623
Well put and rife with wisdom and truth

[Anonymous No.11646470]

omg imagine scrollingthis thread and ir anus clinches trying desperately to cling to ur materialist metaphysic and u just block the truth from ur mind

[Anonymous No.11646472]

>>11639563
This is not even an issue
Oh >>11639594 it was already btfo in first post.

[Anonymous No.11646477]

>>11646472
>t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.11646482]

>>11643943
>I am slowing down the progression of time

Time doesn't slow down? Bro it says constant all the time. Please prove to me otherwise. I have never once witnessed time slowing down.

[Anonymous No.11646673]

>>11646482

[Anonymous No.11647504]

>>11639623
>Reality is not divisible
Bold statement you got there; any proof for the assertion that space-time is continuous and not discrete?

[Anonymous No.11647614]

>muh infinite sums solve zeno
K.Y.S.

[Anonymous No.11647692]

>>11647614
The continuum has been an non issue since Cantor at the latest. Continuum sets can be constructed from enumerable sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers
Besides, all you need for the paradox is the Archimedian property.

[Anonymous No.11647722]

>>11647692
>MUH CANTOR
walk off a short pier

[Anonymous No.11647727]

>>11639563
by seeing that space is continuous, not divisible

[Anonymous No.11647732]

There are bigger infinities

[Anonymous No.11647735]

>>11647727
Huh? It is precisely continuous space that is (infinitely) divisible.

[Anonymous No.11647797]

>>11647504
bruh time isn't even real, it's an idea we made up to explain aging

[Anonymous No.11647938]

>>11642332
lmoa this dude definitely needs to learn some math hahahaa

[Anonymous No.11648582]

>>11647722
What manner of brainlet does not understand infinite sets?
A set is infinite if and only if it is in bijection with a strict part of itself.
Nowhere does it even uses any negation of anything. Not that it is a legitimate argument.

[Anonymous No.11648597]

>>11646482
>Time doesn't slow down

[Anonymous No.11648614]

>>11639969
>because /sci/ is fucking retarded
I'm interested in your credentials then. Especially when you don't even know on what board you have to make your thread, and need Zeno's paradox explained to you.

[Anonymous No.11648658]

>>11648582
So what about an `infinite set'? Well, to begin with, you should say precisely what the term means. Okay, if you don't, at least someone should. Putting an adjective in front of a noun does not in itself make a mathematical concept. Cantor declared that an `infinite set' is a set which is not finite. Surely that is unsatisfactory, as Cantor no doubt suspected himself. It's like declaring that an `all-seeing Leprechaun' is a Leprechaun which can see everything. Or an `unstoppable mouse' is a mouse which cannot be stopped. These grammatical constructions do not create concepts, except perhaps in a literary or poetic sense. It is not clear that there are any sets that are not finite, just as it is not clear that there are any Leprechauns which can see everything, or that there are mice that cannot be stopped. Certainly in science there is no reason to suppose that `infinite sets' exist. Are there an infinite number of quarks or electrons in the universe? If physicists had to hazard a guess, I am confident the majority would say: No. But even if there were an infinite number of electrons, it is unreasonable to suppose that you can get an infinite number of them all together as a single `data object'.

[Anonymous No.11648683]

>>11648614
>being an assblasted stemfag

[Anonymous No.11648684]

>>11648582
You're responding to bait, the images that anon is posting are of Wildberger's lectures. He has some sort of philosophic disagreement with some notion of constructibility or something that causes him to disbelieve in infinite sets and hence the real numbers. He's not really a crank per se in that he actually understands math, he just rejects some of the foundations that the mainstream community doesn't. I've never spent enough time looking at him to figure out what exactly that is though, I'd love if an anon would share.

[Anonymous No.11648702]

>>11648658
Cantor perfectly defines infinite sets in the manner I have already indicated previously, which doesn't involve the notion of finiteness at all.
Besides you are not counting empirical things here. Of course if you are a last degree brainlet that thinks that sets are formed this way.

>>11648684
>he just rejects some of the foundations that the mainstream community doesn't.
"some" is an understatement here. If the other anon post is a quote, the man has a debilitating case of naturalism.

[Anonymous No.11648739]

>>11648702
Infinite sets are 'defined' by AXIOMATICS (namely axiom of infinity) i.e. wishful thinking. Get a grip mythematician.

[Anonymous No.11648747]

mathematician here

Achilles will catch the turtle if and only if the series defined by summing the distances between them converges absolutely.

In the case of Zeno's paradox, the series is precisely a geometric series with ratio 1/2, and it is well known that the series converges to 2. Of course, it is actually only 2 if we consider a Galilean reference frame, but the idea for a relativistic frame is similar.

[Anonymous No.11648773]

>>11648739
The axiom of infinity asserts existence, it does not define the concept, which was what your previous post was about.
It is also used in this form in the standard ZFC, but can be obtained as a theorem from other axioms.
All objects of set theory are grounded in what is assumed in the axioms, I don't even see how this is an argument against the theory.

If I understand you, what you are trying to say is that these theories cannot be used when studying the empirical world. this is of course false, absolutely any a priori theory can be used this way and the association is only judged by the results. No set theorist ever made any pretense of it being a theory of the empirical world.

[Anonymous No.11648789]

>>11648773
whatever nigga. let's be HONEST: this set shit ain't nothing but an empty fiction.

[Anonymous No.11648812]

>>11648789
Have fun being sterile simply because you can't encompass infinite sets.
I'm putting all real numbers in a "box" right now.

[Anonymous No.11648817]

>>11648812
I think accusations of sterility in a pure mathematics discussion is quite hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.11648818]

>>11648817
I had in mind sterility in pure mathematics. But of course it also makes one sterile in terms of utility for engineers.

[Anonymous No.11648821]

>>11648747
Why do you so boldly assert real life conclusions based on mathematical abstractions?

[Anonymous No.11648843]

To all who claim mathematics solve Zeno: you are forgetting that Zeno also considers the EXPERIENCE of motion. So what does your infinite convergent sums tell us about the EXPERIENCE of motion in an instant of time?

[Anonymous No.11648851]

>>11648747
another mathematician here

the reals aren't an accurate representation of physical space so convergence is irrelevant. The real answer probably has something to do with measure algebras but I don't know any of that QM shit.

[Anonymous No.11648855]

>>11648821
We use a priori theories to understand reality since about 400 BC.
Nature is consciously mathematized since at least Descartes.
You could object from an a priori viewpoint, but it is then insoluble, and leads to complete skepticism. You could doubt it empirically, but these applications have made their proofs.

[Anonymous No.11648859]

>>11648821
because physical phenomena are extremely well modelled by mathematical abstractions

>>11648851
at no point did I have to leave Q, the rationals, in that statement

[Anonymous No.11648866]

I'll put $50 on the turtle

[Anonymous No.11648897]

>>11648843
I'm really curious about the experience of the sprinter that ever doubted he could run past the other runner.
I don't think any cheetah or other predator ever thought that their preys would always be in front of them.
They don't think about the point occupied by their target in the instant before (which is what is done by Zeno) but by where the target will be after the next phase of motion.
Obviously a target lock system locking on the position at the instant N-1 will be incredibly inefficient. You instead target the expected position of the target. This is the "experience" of the hunter.

[Anonymous No.11648906]

>>11648789
>muh cosmic computational bound
Ok so where's the ultrafinitist QFT?

[Anonymous No.11648911]

>>11648859
Rationals don't accurate represent space either.

[party rawcocker No.11648926]

Peirces triadic relation of firstness secondness and thirdness.
Relational spacetime is heterogeneous and independently produced by each relational object, which can converge among many other actions. I can prove it with facts and algebraic logic based on Peirce's existential graphs.
No, you can't see the proof, it's for the ladies eyes only. Given that their IQ is within five points of my own(preferably lower), of course.

[Anonymous No.11648929]

>>11648911
No formal system can ever accurately represent real space.

[Anonymous No.11648934]

>>11648929
Hence you will not solve PHILOSOPHICAL problems with your FORMAL SYSTEMS AUTISM.

[Anonymous No.11648939]

There are multiple good answers, but paradoxbabbies just keep saying they don't count for no reason

[Anonymous No.11648952]

>>11648934
This. Please leave me to my comfy abstract autism and don't bother me with real things. If you want to use math to model something that's your problem.

[Anonymous No.11648971]

>>11648934
Nice try kiddo, but that's how I'll see it.
If I don't like one representation, I'll just switch to another formal system representation. I'm perfectly conscious of what I do, and I know it is legitimate.
Have fun with your "real" philosophy.
>this is your mind on anti-idealism

[Anonymous No.11648974]

>>11648971
It's not anti-idealism; it's antilogicism.

[Anonymous No.11649014]

This paradox is a pleb trap whilst Zeno went off to fuck your bitch.

[Anonymous No.11649237]

can we pls remember we are dealing with a paradox who’s purpose was to illustrate Parmenidean thought? Meaning all is one. That multitude is a unity. If u haven’t grappled with Parmenides, you have no place itt. You must also be acquainted with mathematics, more appropriately geometry, and it’s relation to the world. Do not forget math is discover d, that’s the beauty. We don’t construct mathematical representation, we discover a mathematical sequence that represents.

The paradox is showing that motion, traversing a distance in space through time, is an illusion. Because space appears to us as variegated and multiple, but is in reality, not appearance, a unity. What we claim is the empirical is merely the sensible.

Kant expanded this idea but got trapped in a dualistic divide between the thing itself and the appearance of a thing to our faculty of sense. He is correct is saying we cannot know the thing itself through it’s appearance-ing, it’s presentation to us and our subsequent representation of it. The easy answer is that while objects a priori occupy space time, we are, ourselves and our faculties, also things themselves. By knowing ourselves we can know the thing itself.

Zenos paradox is merely an illustration that things are not what they appear. That, thousands of years later, even with all of our developed methods of “deriving true knowledge from empirical data”, we still cannot prove, axiomatically, that Achilles will pass the tortoise.

The fact we speak of this at all should be sufficient to display there is truth in Unificationary eleatic thought in describing the true nature of what is truly. Not what merely appears to us to be true.

[Anonymous No.11650114]

>>11649014
I lol'd