The 9 paradoxes of Zeno

[Gori the Grey]

He was on his way to ten paradoxes; he just hasn't got to the last one yet.

That's why I always aim for a spot a little past where I want to end up; so I do arrive where I mean to be.

 

[Kyriakos]

He was on his way to ten paradoxes; he just hasn't got to the last one yet.

That's why I always aim for a spot a little past where I want to end up; so I do arrive where I mean to be.

Nice

Then again: In the progression 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... you can always be sure that 2 not just is not in the progression there, but that an external such thing (2) is what gives meaning to the bounded system without it. Which is pretty much the idea of the Eide/Archetypes too. And 2 is again a human notion in the first place, which leaves us with no tangible idea of infinity.

 

[Borachio]

There are two public weighing machines in my town.

And I've discovered I can lose 5 pounds just by walking from the one at the library (weighing myself there) to the one at the railway station.

Who needs diets, eh?

If I'm feeling a bit on the light side, though. I can gain 5 pounds just by walking from the weighing machine at the railway station to the one at the library.

 

[Perfection]

You surely earn your own +1 Zeno there, cause:

-If an arrow in what is termed movement, is examined in an instant of that (and thus is still in that instant), in Eleatic dialectic that arrow will still be a different one in the set system than in other instants or in movement, cause the system itself includes movement as a non-limited-to-the-system parameter, and thus any difference will be attributed to things external to the system.
And the system being 'Many, and not One' can only have as external something indefinite (if it was One it would already be indefinite in regards to notions such as movement).

You also can (as i think you did) synthesise it with the Stadium paradox, and note the indistinct progression of movements, which may fall into its own void there.

Btw, just got back from the library, and am very tired, so some ambiguities shall have to remain in this post anyway. :\

Yeah I got no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Kyriakos]

There are two public weighing machines in my town.

And I've discovered I can lose 5 pounds just by walking from the one at the library (weighing myself there) to the one at the railway station.

Who needs diets, eh?

If I'm feeling a bit on the light side, though. I can gain 5 pounds just by walking from the weighing machine at the railway station to the one at the library.

That post is inviting all sorts of projection, mr. B

But to bite: if we have some set meter in an otherwise not having to be closed system (eg weighing meter set, along with standard scales etc) this still is external to the actual phenomenon of weight, given a meter is not inherently tied to it in the first place, and nor is that something having a non-relative or arbitrary scaling.
A bit like (to carry on projecting) Zeno's argument that having a paragon in a closed system which is deemed finite (ie by definition is not actually closed) is bound to mix traits in the system itself with traits external and not following from a direct synthesis of those in the system.

Then again you might have been talking about other things entirely. In parable i would have lost

Spoiler :

Many complain that the words of the wise are always merely parables and of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have. When the sage says: "Go over," he does not mean that we should cross over to some actual place, which we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it; he means some fabulous yonder, something unknown to us, something too that he cannot designate more precisely, and therefore cannot help us here in the very least. All these parables really set out to say merely that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already. But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different matter.

Concerning this a man once said: Why such reluctance? If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become parables and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.

Another said: I bet that is also a parable.

The first said: You have won.

The second said: But unfortunately only in parable.

The first said: No, in reality: in parable you have lost.

Franz Kafka, On Parables

 

[Agent327]

So this is essentially just wordplay? I mean, obviously movement is possible.

Correct. Zeno's 'paradoxes' are mostly sophistry, i.e. there is no actual paradox, except in the way Zeno formulates. Or, if you like, the paradox is in the way Zeno describes something and the way something happens in actuality. (As in a single grain falling not making any sound, while a bunch of grains do - or any other example he uses.) As arguing goes, it's quite clever though. Would it hold up in court? Hardly.

 

[Kyriakos]

Correct. Zeno's 'paradoxes' are mostly sophistry, i.e. there is no actual paradox, except in the way Zeno formulates. Or, if you like, the paradox is in the way Zeno describes something and the way something happens in actuality. (As in a single grain falling not making any sound, while a bunch of grains do - or any other example he uses.) As arguing goes, it's quite clever though. Would it hold up in court? Hardly.

Actually if it was sophistry it would be designed to hold up in court, cause sophists were the first professionally teaching rhetoric and court-speech creation (eg Protagoras ).

It is not sophistry, though. Zeno is not describing how we sense stuff, cause anyone with half a working brain knows we don't sense stuff by focusing with senses on theoretical parameters and points in a progression, so we would just see the moving objects go and not be held down by limits in non-sensed features of such a progression we can only note down in a math system or likewise.

Zeno is defending Parmenides' view that the sense there are Many things is an illusion, and that it is more likely there is just One, which we pick up as many due to fault of the human finite means of identifying reality.

And yet again: Zeno does not claim those are paradoxes. He claims those logical statements hint at there being paradoxes in the view that there are Many things and not One

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yeah I got no clue what you're talking about.

Philosophy is when you don't understand what the guy you're talking right next you is saying.

 

[Agent327]

Actually if it was sophistry it would be designed to hold up in court, cause sophists were the first professionally teaching rhetoric and court-speech creation (eg Protagoras ).

How very Zeno of you. But that is not what the nickname sophist stands for.

There is actually another way of looking at Zeno's paradoxes, and that is humour. For instance, the non-moving arrow. He describes how an arrow must travel first the first half of the distance, then the the first quarter, the first eigthth, ad infinitum. He then concludes the arrow doesn't move. While all the previous statements are logical, the conclusion is absurd. It's just that by the way he describes it that the conclusion seems logical - but actually isn't.

I find this quite funny.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Seno paradoxes are among the most fascinating things ancient people thought about in my opinion. Even today, most people, and I mean a vast majority of people would still be puzzled about them. there is another "modern" one I remember from my math years: in French it's "L'ensemble des ensembles n'est pas un ensemble" which translate into "the set of all sets is not a set"

 

[Kyriakos]

Seno paradoxes are among the most fascinating things ancient people thought about in my opinion. Even today, most people, and I mean a vast majority of people would still be puzzled about them. there is another "modern" one I remember from my math years: in French it's "L'ensemble des ensembles n'est pas un ensemble" which translate into "the set of all sets is not a set"

That is tied to the Cantor discussions and polemics Also: "If there is a set of all sets which are not in any set, would that set be in a set itself?".

Btw, "Seno" is a rather nasty typo!

 

[Borachio]

"If there is a set of all sets which are not in any set, would that set be in a set itself?

A set which is not in any set isn't a set.

Even the empty set is a set. So it's really hard to see how a set which is not in any set is a set, since all sets are in at least the set of sets which contain only one element (or in the case of the empty set the set of sets which contain no elements).

 

[Kyriakos]

A set which is not in any set isn't a set. Even the empty set is a set. So it's really hard to see how a set which is not in any set is a set, since all sets are in at least the set of sets which contain only one element (or in the case of the empty set the set of sets which contain no elements).

Ok, if a set which is not itself in any set, is not a set, then what is it?

(cause if it does not even exist then there is no set to include all other sets not in a set).

(btw2: not meaning to Cantorise the thread, not least cause i personally have not read much on that..).

 

[gay_Aleks]

It's a philosopher wasting his time.

 

[Borachio]

Ok, if a set which is not itself in any set, is not a set, then what is it?

Dunno. But it isn't a set.

Your question makes no sense. That's like asking if a dog isn't a dog then what is it?

Or "when is a door not a door"?

(I know the answer to that one, btw.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Dunno. But it isn't a set.

Your question makes no sense. That's like asking if a dog isn't a dog then what is it?

Or "when is a door not a door"?

(I know the answer to that one, btw.)

Hm, but "a set which is not in any set" does not mean "a set which is not a set". It means a set which is not part of a larger set

Eg the set 1,2,3,4,5 is part of the larger set of integers etc or any larger sets still. But a non-set is (iirc?) a group whose elements are not linked in a distinct/specific way. I think the notion was devised so as to account for chasms in the set theory, since this group would include anything which is not in the sets, but it creates the issue of where that group itself would belong, if anywhere.

 

[Perfection]

Philosophy is when you don't understand what the guy you're talking right next you is saying.

Nope, I understand most philosophy just fine.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Nope, I understand most philosophy just fine.

Then assume I am a very special kind of person who can't understand philosophy without slow and clear explanations, plus additional but strategically placed annotations.

 

[Borachio]

You don't need to make any such assumptions with me.

I really can't understand philosophy. Slow and clear explanations don't make any difference, either.

 

[Perfection]

Ancient philosophy sure, there's all sorts of barriers to understanding with that. One should expect an internet post to be understandable.