3 ms·

Zeno's paradox, which proves that motion is an illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes Those anc

Zeno's paradox, which proves that motion is an illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes Those ancient Greeks knew their shit.

mattmaroon 19y ago
In that same article you linked it explains why those paradoxes don't prove shit.
- ghiotion 19y ago
  True. Perhaps I should have put quotes around proves. Still, I remember what a big impact Zeno had on me as a young philosophy student.
  - eru 19y ago
    You should have studied math. ;)
webwright 19y ago
I'll second Zeno. Sooo applicable to software development. I love it so much, I wrote a blog post about it.
kalid 19y ago
Love Zeno's paradoxes. And apparently they aren't fully resolved today -- is the universe quantized? Is spacetime really continuous, or is that an unrealistic mathematical abstraction?
hobbs 19y ago
Zeno is still my favorite. To summarize in modern terms: in order for a particle to move 1 inch, it must first move 1/2 inch. Before it can move 1/2 inch, it must move 1/4 inch. Before it can move 1/4 inch, it must move 1/8 inch. And so on. The paradox is, if a particle has to traverse an infinite number of infinitely small spaces before it can move even one inch, how is it possible that it can move at all? Some mathematicians pull out calculus to "disprove" the paradox, but to me it disproves nothing. For example, you can show, mathematically, that sum( 1/(2^N) ) = 1 as N goes from 1 to infinity. The problem is that you have to go to infinity before it will sum to 1. If space is infinitely divisible and a particle has to traverse an infinite number of subspaces in order to move just a nanometer, I still don't see how it's possible that it could move at all.
- anewaccountname 19y ago
  Time is very similar to space; what you are saying is like saying you don't see how it take up any space at all.
maw 19y ago
Zeno's paradox (deliberately?) confuses a thing — motion — with its measurement. You can always measure something with higher resolution, but so what?

Zeno's paradox, which proves that motion is an illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes Those ancient Greeks knew their shit.

mattmaroon 19y ago

In that same article you linked it explains why those paradoxes don't prove shit.

ghiotion 19y ago
True. Perhaps I should have put quotes around proves. Still, I remember what a big impact Zeno had on me as a young philosophy student.
- eru 19y ago
  You should have studied math. ;)

webwright 19y ago

I'll second Zeno. Sooo applicable to software development. I love it so much, I wrote a blog post about it.

kalid 19y ago

Love Zeno's paradoxes. And apparently they aren't fully resolved today -- is the universe quantized? Is spacetime really continuous, or is that an unrealistic mathematical abstraction?

hobbs 19y ago

Zeno is still my favorite. To summarize in modern terms: in order for a particle to move 1 inch, it must first move 1/2 inch. Before it can move 1/2 inch, it must move 1/4 inch. Before it can move 1/4 inch, it must move 1/8 inch. And so on. The paradox is, if a particle has to traverse an infinite number of infinitely small spaces before it can move even one inch, how is it possible that it can move at all? Some mathematicians pull out calculus to "disprove" the paradox, but to me it disproves nothing. For example, you can show, mathematically, that sum( 1/(2^N) ) = 1 as N goes from 1 to infinity. The problem is that you have to go to infinity before it will sum to 1. If space is infinitely divisible and a particle has to traverse an infinite number of subspaces in order to move just a nanometer, I still don't see how it's possible that it could move at all.

anewaccountname 19y ago
Time is very similar to space; what you are saying is like saying you don't see how it take up any space at all.

maw 19y ago

Zeno's paradox (deliberately?) confuses a thing — motion — with its measurement. You can always measure something with higher resolution, but so what?