[Tina]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Not to assume too much condescending, seem you sacrifice future prospect going back in time participating in TOEQUEST. On the other hand this makes you live longer.

Going back (to your present - in my past) means I live twice...I think

[Tina]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I agree there are no paradoxes in nature but there are also conjectures which can never be proven. Goldbach's conjecture, for an example. Will be waiting eagerly for your argument.

Before I proceed I need to see if you accept this premise: There is no motion other than that which causes motion in all matter.

[Euclid]

True, Nature has no paradoxes. And certainly mathematics has no paradoxes. What we do find is inconsistencies or language tricks that pit mathematics and logic against nature -- that's why the Zeno arguments are called paradoxes. It's not that they are arguments purely within mathematics or purely within physics. It's that the phenomenological experience contradicts the logic. It's correct to say that the so-called Zeno paradoxes are not paradoxes in the true sense of the word, but by tradition they are called paradoxes. (By the way, that tradition goes back to Aristotle.) In Mazur's book, it is the phenomenology that is the concern. The paradox is between two views of continuity--that of mathematics and that of real life.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Euclid True, Nature has no paradoxes. And certainly mathematics has no paradoxes. What we do find is inconsistencies or language tricks that pit mathematics and logic against nature.... phenomenological experience contradicts the logic...In Mazur's book, it is the phenomenology that is the concern.

Welcome Euclid!

When you say 'logic' do you mean 'rational' or logic as in 'formal Logic'?

Also you say there are no paradoxes in mahematics: see Skolem Paradox.

I think the "liars paradox" is a good example of phenomenological v's logical experience. In this case formal logic could not deal with the contradiction inherant in the paradox of the lier's lie.

However recently I found a way to solve this Liars Paradox using Logic.
In view of Zeno's Paradoxes do you think that they can ultimately be resolved by Logic?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao David Hilbert thought the same way that's why his school to axiomatize mathematics failed

I would say he failed due to the fact he was attempting to axiomatize an abstract subject (mathematics); I don’t think that can be done can it?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing I don’t think that can be done can it

I won't be a good judge for this. I know many tried and some have gone crazy.

Originally Posted by Tina means I live twice

Actually, You Only Live Twice, Ms Bond.

Originally Posted by Tina There is no motion other than that which causes motion in all matter

You mean a priori force?