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.![]()
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?
I won't be a good judge for this. I know many tried and some have gone crazy.Originally Posted by dleviwing
Actually, You Only Live Twice, Ms Bond.Originally Posted by Tina
You mean a priori force?Originally Posted by Tina
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)