[RascalPuff]

Zeno’s Paradox: Reprise.

The premise for Zeno’s ancient paradox is that if and when a straight line - A - B - continues to be divided in half, you never get to the other end.

You keep dividing yer spatial halves in half and you just don’t get to B from A, on accounta infinity...

OK.

Meanwhile, in the real world, you can arrive at B from A when you simply move from A to B.

Departures from A and arrivals at B happen all the time.

What Zeno’s Paradox omits, is time. Chronology.

The guy is talking exclusively about flash-frozen space, without factoring in time - where it’s synonymous with motion...

Moreover, there was no way for Zeno to know that he would eventually arrive not only at the atom of Democritus; but then encountering the electrons, neutrons and protons of Thompson, Chadwick and Rutherford, and finally, Max Planck’s photon, which, until pending notice, is furthermore indivisible.

That is, Zeno probly wouldn’t be able to hack and bisect the Planck length any further.

He will have arrived at B from A.

There is a possibility that Zeno (‘Xeno’) deliberately cooked the books on his proffered ‘paradox’, just for the recreation of presenting what is in fact a resolvable riddle, though, it’s unlikely that in his own time, the riddle would unravel, not only with the included factor of time, but also the limitations of dividing Planck’s quantum (1900 AD vintaged) photon.

(Ran into this in one of my old notebooks and thought to share it with other hacks or rocket scientists. Anyone care to add or subtract anything to or from this? <Michael?>)

Best Regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I think I would add the speed factor, RP. Which if proportionately decreased as the infinite number of incremental halves increased, then the objective B would never be reached while the subject would never reach absolute stillness.

I think there are "real-life" measurements which are based on finite quanta, so naturally what is observed as finite will be covered by a finite means; there is the infinite divisions of Zeno, which I agree is unobservable and deduced inaccurately; and lastly there is the absolute which not only reaches B, but reaches it even before it leaves A.

[RascalPuff]

Hello Nobody:
Is this - "and lastly there is the absolute which not only reaches B, but reaches it even before it leaves A." ..... anything like the Concorde commercial jet liner, that arrives at it's destination, before it leaves it's point of departure?

With time zones and all, I can understand it with the aircraft, but can't fathom it in a context of any absolute.

Will you, uhm, expand on this 'absolute' that enables arrival before departure? (Please?)

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast, RP. lol

I don't express myself as well as I would like to, so I look for a few folks to grasp the gist of the depiction in order to give me better ways of expressing it analogously.

My explanation was a semi-complicated version implying that point A and point B are the same point from what would be the absolute perspective of the absolute universe. So there is no need for the unquantized universe to traverse any distance to reach point B.

As depicted with the micro/telescope in message one of my thread, the largest objects can be observed as points from great distances. Likewise, there are two abstractive universal perspectives accompanied by an infinite number of localized perspectives requiring abstractive measures of scalar masses and motions to produce the reality observed via a relativistic means of processing potential information.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Departures from A and arrivals at B happen all the time. What Zeno’s Paradox omits, is time. Chronology.

Rascal .... I'm sure we've had this argument many times before ?

Its nothing to do with time.

Given the Turtle has a 10 metre start and that he moves 1 metre to Achilles 10 metres, then

First move                   =     1 metre
                                                                     Cumulative
 Second move               =     0.5               =      0.5 
Third move                  =     0.25             =      0.75
Fourth move                =     0.125           =      0.875
Fifth move                   =     0.0625         =      0.9375
Sixth move                  =     0.03125        =     0.96875
Seventh                      =     0.015625      =     0.984375

 Ad infinitum 

Can't you see that ALL moves after the first move, will in total NEVER add up to the length of the first move. They will get closer and closer to 1 metre but never reach it.

The Turtle can NEVER EVER move more than 2 metres !!

This has nothing to do with time. The Greeks had trouble with Division, they thought that if you kept adding to the pile, then the pile would get bigger, but it doesn't, it reaches a point where continual additions make no difference to the total. The turtle stops moving before he reaches 12 metres !!

How many times must you revisit it. Are you greek by any chance .... LOL ... (just joking, just joking ol buddy)

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast, RP. lol I don't express myself as well as I would like to, so I look for a few folks to grasp the gist of the depiction in order to give me better ways of expressing it analogously. My explanation was a semi-complicated version implying that point A and point B are the same point from what would be the absolute perspective of the absolute universe. So there is no need for the unquantized universe to traverse any distance to reach point B. As depicted with the micro/telescope in message one of my thread, the largest objects can be observed as points from great distances. Likewise, there are two abstractive universal perspectives accompanied by an infinite number of localized perspectives requiring abstractive measures of scalar masses and motions to produce the reality observed via a relativistic means of processing potential information.

No offense intended, sir.
I'm working on trying to understand your meanings, confident that they are tenable.
As I have said before, a lot of your expression and perspective transcends my knowledge and understanding. I'm working on keeping up with you. Please bear with me on this.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal .... I'm sure we've had this argument many times before ? Its nothing to do with time. Given the Turtle has a 10 metre start and that he moves 1 metre to Achilles 10 metres, then First move = 1 metre Cumulative Second move = 0.5 = 0.5 Third move = 0.25 = 0.75 Fourth move = 0.125 = 0.875 Fifth move = 0.0625 = 0.9375 Sixth move = 0.03125 = 0.96875 Seventh = 0.015625 = 0.984375 Ad infinitum Can't you see that ALL moves after the first move, will in total NEVER add up to the length of the first move. They will get closer and closer to 1 metre but never reach it. The Turtle can NEVER EVER move more than 2 metres !! This has nothing to do with time. The Greeks had trouble with Division, they thought that if you kept adding to the pile, then the pile would get bigger, but it doesn't, it reaches a point where continual additions make no difference to the total. The turtle stops moving before he reaches 12 metres !! How many times must you revisit it. Are you greek by any chance .... LOL ... (just joking, just joking ol buddy) cool bananas ... greg

Dear Greg:

All I can say about this at this time is, I have a math block (induced by post traumatic stress disorder). I'll continue to work on it, through the help of comrades like yourself, and Nobody, Michael and others. Please excuse my ignorance. Thanking all of you for your responses, consideration and patience.

Best regards,
- RP