Zeno's Paradox is apparently not easy to state in terms that are accessible to a present-day lay person. The versions I usually see, and the only ones I unders

Zeno's Paradox is apparently not easy to state in terms that are accessible to a present-day lay person. The versions I usually see, and the only ones I understand, are the ones that depend on the implicit assumption that a finite quantity cannot be expressed as the sum of an infinite number of other finite quantities. The versions that are formulated to avoid that mistake are completely impenetrable to me, because they depend on Greek philosophical concepts that framed the terms of debate for Zeno and his contemporaries. Anyway, the article's take is a bit of a cop-out: > If the laws of physics say that we can cover one meter in a certain time period, then that’s exactly what we’ll do. And our current understanding of the laws of physics says precisely that. So Zeno’s paradox is resolved simply by saying that we can cover this space in this amount of time. Zeno accepted that we observe objects moving through space. He would not have to change his position an inch to accept classical physics as a valid and successful description of such observations. The paradox comes from accepting such observations and trying to reconcile them with the logical soundness of Zeno's argument. So, if you aren't looking at the logical structure of his argument, you aren't addressing the paradox at all.