/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17023953]

How do atheists refute this?

[Anonymous No.17023965]

>>17023953
by inventing calculus. BTFO

[Anonymous No.17023967]

By attending high school and learning about limits. Next question.

[Anonymous No.17023970]

By the recognition of minimal indivisible distances, Planck lengths/seconds, etc.

[Anonymous No.17023975]

>>17023953
This is a math problem, not a religious one

[Anonymous No.17023978]

>>17023953
Just adding to what everybody else already said,

Not only do scientific theories usually involve proof, like in evolution, but this little paradox actually helps it prove it.

[Anonymous No.17023987]

Borges wrote an essay on this btw

[Anonymous No.17023988]

Well I haven't seen Achilles overtake any turtle before.

[Anonymous No.17023989]

>>17023975
Just play along. It isnt worth much anyways

[Anonymous No.17024000]

>>17023965
Leibniz believed in God, though.

[Anonymous No.17024010]

>>17023953
There's no refutation, I kneel.

[Anonymous No.17024015]

>>17023965
>>17023967
>>17023970
>>17023975
>>17023978
>why yes dude, it's totally a solvable paradox (sic!)
>here just let me make up some definitions that yield a result
Reminder if you unironically take (((calculus))) at face value, then your mind has already been subverted by the infinitely regressing nose.

[Anonymous No.17024020]

>>17024000
Trinity trips!

[Anonymous No.17024028]

>>17024015
Then, care to propose something better? Mr long nose?

[Anonymous No.17024097]

>>17023965
T. doesn't understand neither Zeno's paradox nor calculus
>>17023967
Same here, your pathetic STEMfag handwaving doesn't solve a valid metaphysical problem
>>17023975
T. doesn't understand the problem and probably has no idea about Eleatic epistemology

[Anonymous No.17024118]

>>17024097
A problem that is described using mathematics (fractions of a distance). Why can't you use mathematics to solve it?

[Anonymous No.17024125]

>>17023953
By walking to something moving?
It's very easy to refute.

[Anonymous No.17024165]

>>17024118
>>17024125
anon ur so naive

[Anonymous No.17024168]

>>17024118
It's not a math problem, zeno didn't see it as math problem.

[Anonymous No.17024182]

>>17024015
This post is just incredibly surreal. The internet was truly a mistake and there's no going back now. I really wonder how much weirder shit will get even just a decade into the future.

[Anonymous No.17024193]

>>17023953
Oh yeaah, achilles heel made him slower rhan turtles. Damn Zeno was smart.

[Anonymous No.17024196]

>>17024000
>Leibniz
Newton was a unitarian too

[Anonymous No.17024217]

>>17024118
Calculus simple assumes the infinite divisibility of spacetime.

[Anonymous No.17024229]

1. Movement is differencially constituted
2. Space is derivative, relational and qualitative

[Anonymous No.17024261]

>>17024229
>Uhhhh it's all subjective bro
You got me there

[Anonymous No.17024434]

>>17023953
Aristotle already refuted this, why are people still talking about it as if it's a real problem?

[Anonymous No.17024451]

Ahead of what? Is Achilles following the tortoise? If so then that is not a paradox. It is a fact that the tortoise will move ahead of where Achilles is. That is the definition of following.

If they are both going to to the same place and the tortoise is closer then he needs to head away form the tortoise if he wants to get there first(he can't move through the tortoise can he).

This is not a paradox.

[Anonymous No.17024505]

>>17024451
To put it more succinctly.

If Achilles if following the tortoise then the tortoise will always be ahead of Achilles.

If Achilles is not following the tortoise then the tortoise was never ahead of Achilles to start with.

The only way for Achilles to get ahead of the tortoise is for the tortoise to start following Achilles.

[Anonymous No.17024517]

>>17024000
Based.

[Anonymous No.17024525]

>>17024118
Because a mathematical system is a formal language that has no necessary relation to the real world. It often does have a relation to the world in practice, but it doesn't necessarily have to. For example you can create a perfectly good logical system and mathematics predicated axiomatically on a spatial manifold that ultimately resolves into discrete units. The units don't even have to be regular. You can have a perfectly good mathematics based on Euclid's axioms and postulates, or you can ditch the parallel postulate and have a perfectly good mathematics too, in fact this is at the heart of most breakthroughs in modern physics.

Calculus is a formal language that makes certain axiomatic assumptions about infinity, limits, and identity, to measure and quantify manifolds governed by certain ontological assumptions. None of these assumptions have to be correct in reality for calculus to "work" in many ways.

The point of Zeno's paradox is to force you to interrogate and analyse our (hitherto known, and seemingly common) ways of conceptualising abstract "space" (is it real or unreal? can it be empty/"void"? is it infinitely divisible or composed of discrete units?). Ultimately Zeno's paradoxes are supposed to suggest the correctness of the Eleatic monism of Parmenides as >>17024097 suggests, by showing that any attempt to describe change or motion ends in aporia. They are probably not meant to be decisive or self-sufficient proofs of static monism, but they are meant to trouble you sufficiently that you become suspicious of the phenomenal.

The reason this one is so catchy is that it successfully invokes different ways of conceiving of space, and change within it. Calculus doesn't solve this problem -- calculus assumes a priori that asymptotically approaching the limit of an identity = that identity, precisely so that it DOESN'T HAVE TO deal with this problem, and its "proof" is actually the intuition-based proof that this is "good enough" in many real-world applications and cases: if we make this assumption, we do actually accurately predict the positions of the heavenly bodies e.g. But that doesn't mean we've solved the CONCEPTUAL problem of how space actually works or is constituted, let alone in the real world.

Again, calculus does not prove Zeno wrong, it just happily acquiesces to one of the two irreconcilable possibilities Zeno presents, to the exclusion of the other. The conceptual structure of Zeno's paradox is to present a dilemma with two horns. Calculus doesn't prove that the two horns are in fact illusory and commensurable. It just assumes one horn as an axiom and says to hell with the other.

[Anonymous No.17024530]

Is there no metaphysical solution?

[Anonymous No.17024532]

>>17024505
He jumps the turtle. No biggie

[Anonymous No.17024588]

>>17024532

Jumping the tortoise will not put him ahead of the tortoise. The tortoise will just head in a different direction.

The only way to get ahead of the tortoise it to convince it to follow you. Try taunting the tortoise.

[Anonymous No.17024924]

just run faster bro

[Anonymous No.17024942]

>>17023953
I... I don't get it. Can't Achilles just... run? A tortoise can't exactly run that fast. What is even happening here? I've been hearing about this for ages but I still cannot understand what he means.

[Anonymous No.17024988]

>>17024015
Calculus is not just a bundle of arbitrary definitions. It allows to reliably compute answers that make sense, coincide with common intuition on simple cases, solve ambiguity in most difficult cases, can be used in practice in a variety of natural sciences (all branches of physics, chemistry, computer sicence, biology to an extent) with very great accuracy, and can be extended to cover more general and difficult situations, and it does all this in a unified and elegant framework.

In all but the most strictly ontological respect calculus shows that Zeno's paradox is the product of a misunderstanding of the problem.
In strictly ontological respect nobody ever provided a satisfactory solution that wasn't fundamentally compatible with calculus.

[Anonymous No.17024993]

>>17024217
If spacetime is indefinitely divisible, calculus solves Zeno's paradox.
If not, reasoning at the atomic scale solves Zeno's paradox.

[Anonymous No.17025049]

>>17023953
>let me define A and T
>let be change A and T and still call it A and T
>what is a reference point?

t.agnostic

[Anonymous No.17025068]

>>17024525
lol stfu nerd

[Anonymous No.17025113]

>>17023953
How is this metaphysical? It's literally about space and physical objects moving lol.

[Anonymous No.17025230]

>>17023965
Atheists didn't invent calculus