Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Zeno's argument against an objective present

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 10:55:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I was reading about Zeno today and thought of this. If time is infinitely divisible, how can there be an objective present? The present moment would have to go through an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

I guess it could be said that the way we divide up time is wrong, but I don't know.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:47:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 10:55:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
So, I was reading about Zeno today and thought of this. If time is infinitely divisible, how can there be an objective present? The present moment would have to go through an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

I guess it could be said that the way we divide up time is wrong, but I don't know.

Even without being able to pinpoint a specific fallacy, we know the underlying logic is flawed. He employed the same reasoning to conclude that physical motion is impossible, as any step must traverse an infinite number of steps. Since motion is indeed possible, the argument must be invalid. Whether it's a fault in a premise or in an inference can be the source of debate, but what is not is the fact that it is wrong in some way.

However, some have theorized that space and time might not be infinitely divisible, which - if proved - would settle the matter once and for all.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:30:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because just as the distance between your hands is infinitely divisible, but you can still clap you hands, so can time do the same thing. You are accomplishing an infinite number of movements in a finite time, just as time itself completes an infinite amount of steps to get from one point to the next.

The YouTube user Numberphile did a video on it:
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:30:56 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Because just as the distance between your hands is infinitely divisible, but you can still clap you hands, so can time do the same thing. You are accomplishing an infinite number of movements in a finite time, just as time itself completes an infinite amount of steps to get from one point to the next.


The Fool: It's actually pretty simple, It's because each sequential calculation, is less than one, so by virtue of being less than complete, well it follows that could never be complete.


Process A


A. 1*0.5=0.5
He travels half the distance

0.5+0.5"0.5=0.75
Take the total, and add half of half

0.75+ (0.5" 0.5"0.5) = 0.875
Take the total, and then add half of half of half.

0.875+(0.5"0.5"0.5"0.5)=0.9375
Repeat this process, by adding one more half to the second factor

0.9375+(0.5"0.5"0.5"0.5"0.5)=0.9688
And again, and ad infinitum

0.9688+(0.5)"0.5"0.5"0.5"0.5"0.5)=0.9844
You'll never reach one but rather get an asymptote getting closer and closer but never reaching one.

The fallacy arises, from conflating that process with the following one.

Process B

(1*0.5)+(1*0.5)=1
He travels one FULL half, and then the next FULL half.

That's the difference.

Process A, is like measuring half the distance but then zooming in the camera x2
Each successive measurement, and so if you're adding half the cameras focus, each time you have a smaller focus and a smaller focus, and a smaller focus, and a smaller focus so on and so forth.

While process B, is simply leaving the focus on entire set, without zooming into further subsets,

The key is to not zoom in.. At all, just count the One half, and then the other One half.

Straight from the hill, Take it for what it's worth..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:30:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Assigning numbers to time and then dividing those numbers has no ontological significance.

The Fool: Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. And numbers is how we measure time, it need not even be numbers, it can be subsets, of X.
I gave in English, verbal expression under each calculation, to show you what it is synonymous with saying.

Time may in fact only exist as a measure of change. Whether it be by intuition or numbers. If there is no change at all, then there is no need for conception of time.

The world could have stopped, for 1 billion years, and start again, while was writing this, and we would not notice a damn difference. Because, we would all be stopped.

But perhaps I'm wrong, I'm sure you have a positive counter-argument to support your claim. let's hear it.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:30:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Assigning numbers to time and then dividing those numbers has no ontological significance.

The Fool: Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. And numbers is how we measure time, it need not even be numbers, it can be subsets, of X.
I gave in English, verbal expression under each calculation, to show you what it is synonymous with saying.

Time may in fact only exist as a measure of change. Whether it be by intuition or numbers. If there is no change at all, then there is no need for conception of time.

The world could have stopped, for 1 billion years, and start again, while was writing this, and we would not notice a damn difference. Because, we would all be stopped.

But perhaps I'm wrong, I'm sure you have a positive counter-argument to support your claim. let's hear it.
<(89)

No, not everything is ontological. Some things are just epistemological tools.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:18:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:53:01 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:30:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Assigning numbers to time and then dividing those numbers has no ontological significance.

The Fool: Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. And numbers is how we measure time, it need not even be numbers, it can be subsets, of X.
I gave in English, verbal expression under each calculation, to show you what it is synonymous with saying.

Time may in fact only exist as a measure of change. Whether it be by intuition or numbers. If there is no change at all, then there is no need for conception of time.

The world could have stopped, for 1 billion years, and start again, while was writing this, and we would not notice a damn difference. Because, we would all be stopped.

But perhaps I'm wrong, I'm sure you have a positive counter-argument to support your claim. let's hear it.
<(89)

No, not everything is ontological. Some things are just epistemological tools.

The Fool: So, you don't have a supporting argument ???

You know, a conclusion which follows from premises.
A.k.a..That which you BASE your claim on.

For example:
"Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. "
In other words

P1. What is, IS
P2. What is not, at all, does not exist.
C3. Therefore there is only existence.

P1. Ontology, deals in what sense things exist.
P2. But insofar as they exist, at all, they exist in some form, and so are synonymously, ontological.
C1.Therefore everything, is ontological.

Corollary 1
P1. So, if something exist, epistemologically, it is synonymously ontological.
Furthermore, it follows by necessity, that ,if something is used, that is, if something's a tool, then it must exist, and so is ontological as well.

The Fool: Which claim of mine are you denying, and what is your counterargument from which you base it on?

Flashback
So which part, of my arguments, are you denying, and if so what is your counterargument, by which you SUPPORT your claims?

Don't hold back on me now. Give it your best.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 7:18:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:53:01 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:30:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Assigning numbers to time and then dividing those numbers has no ontological significance.

The Fool: Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. And numbers is how we measure time, it need not even be numbers, it can be subsets, of X.
I gave in English, verbal expression under each calculation, to show you what it is synonymous with saying.

Time may in fact only exist as a measure of change. Whether it be by intuition or numbers. If there is no change at all, then there is no need for conception of time.

The world could have stopped, for 1 billion years, and start again, while was writing this, and we would not notice a damn difference. Because, we would all be stopped.

But perhaps I'm wrong, I'm sure you have a positive counter-argument to support your claim. let's hear it.
<(89)

No, not everything is ontological. Some things are just epistemological tools.

The Fool: So, you don't have a supporting argument ???

You know, a conclusion which follows from premises.
A.k.a..That which you BASE your claim on.

For example:
"Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. "
In other words

P1. What is, IS
P2. What is not, at all, does not exist.
C3. Therefore there is only existence.

P1. Ontology, deals in what sense things exist.
P2. But insofar as they exist, at all, they exist in some form, and so are synonymously, ontological.
C1.Therefore everything, is ontological.

Corollary 1
P1. So, if something exist, epistemologically, it is synonymously ontological.
Furthermore, it follows by necessity, that ,if something is used, that is, if something's a tool, then it must exist, and so is ontological as well.

The Fool: Which claim of mine are you denying, and what is your counterargument from which you base it on?

Flashback
So which part, of my arguments, are you denying, and if so what is your counterargument, by which you SUPPORT your claims?

Don't hold back on me now. Give it your best

Based on your inability to format your sentences and posts in a coherent and organized way, as well as your prosecutorial attitude, I respectfully decline to continue speaking with you. (If anyone reading this wants to PM me about the differences between epistemological tools and things with real ontological status, please do so.)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 8:13:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 10:55:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
So, I was reading about Zeno today and thought of this. If time is infinitely divisible, how can there be an objective present? The present moment would have to go through an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

I guess it could be said that the way we divide up time is wrong, but I don't know.

Like most, if not all, of Zeno's problems, his issue can be solved by an understanding of mathematical limits and basic calculus.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 8:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 7:27:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:18:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:53:01 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:30:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Assigning numbers to time and then dividing those numbers has no ontological significance.

The Fool: Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. And numbers is how we measure time, it need not even be numbers, it can be subsets, of X.
I gave in English, verbal expression under each calculation, to show you what it is synonymous with saying.

Time may in fact only exist as a measure of change. Whether it be by intuition or numbers. If there is no change at all, then there is no need for conception of time.

The world could have stopped, for 1 billion years, and start again, while was writing this, and we would not notice a damn difference. Because, we would all be stopped.

But perhaps I'm wrong, I'm sure you have a positive counter-argument to support your claim. let's hear it.
<(89)

No, not everything is ontological. Some things are just epistemological tools.

The Fool: So, you don't have a supporting argument ???

You know, a conclusion which follows from premises.
A.k.a..That which you BASE your claim on.

For example:
"Everything is ontological, what is Not does Not Exist. "
In other words

P1. What is, IS
P2. What is not, at all, does not exist.
C3. Therefore there is only existence.

P1. Ontology, deals in what sense things exist.
P2. But insofar as they exist, at all, they exist in some form, and so are synonymously, ontological.
C1.Therefore everything, is ontological.

Corollary 1
P1. So, if something exist, epistemologically, it is synonymously ontological.
Furthermore, it follows by necessity, that ,if something is used, that is, if something's a tool, then it must exist, and so is ontological as well.

The Fool: Which claim of mine are you denying, and what is your counterargument from which you base it on?

Flashback
So which part, of my arguments, are you denying, and if so what is your counterargument, by which you SUPPORT your claims?

Don't hold back on me now. Give it your best

Based on your inability to format your sentences and posts in a coherent and organized way, as well as your prosecutorial attitude, I respectfully decline to continue speaking with you.

The Fool: My formatting, and sentences, in this post are perfect And in perfectly deductive order, that you have to not understand logic at all.

If you cannot get those arguments, then maybe philosophy is not your thing.

Your fourth unsupported claim of prosecutorial attitude. Is just an ad hominem, in the way that ad hominem actually is. As an excuse to avoid answering, because you have no answer, yourself is the answer, that is no answer.

And that's all you can do!

Perhaps you learn to read the future

Epistemology, that is knowledge, which exist, and ideas, exist as ideas, we called this epistemology, as opposed to other ontological states, but it is still an ontological state itself for to be anything. So I've accounted for the differences, But they're both existing, you're probably confusing the studies, in which we treat them differently.

Perhaps you'll learn something in the future about philosophy, And understand why it's true as well.

, laugh at the lot, that would actually p.m. you about that topic. As you have no support for your claims,. You can even use that excuse now, as you've posted three times now and you've failed to give one every time.

Good luck with yourself, I hope you stay like that, I like you like that, looking funny, and cowardly, the way you are for yourself.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 9:18:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The arguments of Zeno are easily settled by showing that the infinite summation of the halving-sequence converges to unity:

SUM 2^(-n), n ranges from 1 to infinity
= 1

Zeno reasoned incorrectly that the series would be divergent (i.e. that it wouldn't settle on any finite value), probably because he lacked the formalism of limits.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:14:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 8:48:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Your fourth unsupported claim of prosecutorial attitude. Is just an ad hominem, in the way that ad hominem actually is. As an excuse to avoid answering, because you have no answer, yourself is the answer, that is no answer.

Ad Hominem is a personal attack, or irrelevant fact, not just having no answer.

And that's all you can do!

This could be an ad hominem.

Perhaps you learn to read the future

Also ad hominem


, laugh at the lot, that would actually p.m. you about that topic. As you have no support for your claims,. You can even use that excuse now, as you've posted three times now and you've failed to give one every time.

Also ad hominem

Good luck with yourself, I hope you stay like that, I like you like that, looking funny, and cowardly, the way you are for yourself.

Also ad hominem
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:27:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fool rather adequately explained it all away. No paradox, infinitely divisable doesn't touch on finitely recognisable.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:14:15 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/25/2013 8:48:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Haters Ball

The Fool: Now a hate following is to be expected, by virtue of challenging, strongly held convictions and beliefs, of the reigning ideological regime. And so you are not the only, members eager, for the opportunity, to get your shots in, when you feel I've made a mistake.
But for God sakes, at least use Google.

Your fourth unsupported claim of prosecutorial attitude. Is just an ad hominem, in the way that ad hominem actually is. As an excuse to avoid answering, because you have no answer, yourself is the answer, that is no answer.

Who cares: an Ad Hominem is a personal attack, or irrelevant fact, not just having no answer.

Ma Monkey: This is false. For a personal attack, is a personal attack, and irrelevant fact, is an irrelevant fact. Do you disagree?

<(8D)

An hominem, in philosophy, and synonymously logic and reasoning. Is when you use an irrelevant fact, for example "a personal attack", as the support, or the refutation of an argument.

That is, the necessary condition for ad hominem, is that, the attack, or fact, you are making is not a relevant support for the argument at hand.

What is not an ad hominem.

1. If you are making a personal attack, and it is "not" to support a claim, or excuse, then it is not an ad hominem, as it is not being used to support an argument.

2. If the personal attack is true, and it does support the argument, it is a valid justification. Then it is not an ad hominem, but irrelevant fact.

Ma Monkey: For example, let's say my argument is, "you shouldn't trust that guy", and my reason is that "he's a liar", and I demonstrate, with quotes, that he did in fact lie, Then it is a valid support for the claim that you should not trust him, because he may not be telling the truth.

What is an ad hominem:

Hitler: One plus one is two.
The Sophist: No its not.
Hitler: Why is that?
The Sophist: Because you're bad, and you killed all those Jews.

Ma Monkey: The fact that he is Hitler, that is, a murderer, and as evil as one would claim. Is not a relevant counterclaim, to the fact that "one plus one equals two."
This is an actual ad hominem fallacy.

Ma Monkey: If the argument was, "you are evil", And your reason was because "you killed all those innocent Jews" then that would be a justified supporting argument despite it being a personal attack. Because it is a personal attack, "which is true", and "does" support the claim, of what we mean by evil.

Ma Monkey: Therefore an ad hominem is not merely a personal attack. And it is not merely, and irrelevant fact.

"""Ad Hominem is a personal attack, or irrelevant fact, not just having no answer."'

The Fool: So, if my monkey speaks truly.
<(89)

And there is good reason to believe that he is. It follows by "Necessity", that you speak falsely.
QED.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:33:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

So, you just insulted him, with no basis for argument, instead of using the insult to further your side, thereby accomplishing less than I had originally thought?

I see your Quantum Electrodynamics, and raise you one Quantum Murphydynamics: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Haters Ball:
Part 2,

The Fool: But you didn't stop there, you added an extra clause, "not just having no answer", which was not part of my claim, but your own very self-creation, which you extended and added into my claim to give a false impression.

He did give an answer, in fact too many, but too little support, exactly 0 many even.
And like your claims here, they were false as well.

<(89)

Fool Fragment: And that's all you can do!
Who cares: This could be an ad hominem.

The Fool: The fact that it's an isolated, clause, which of course is incomplete by itself, is already reason for suspicion.

I mean, who concerns themselves, "with what "could be" an ad hominem"? Besides the fact, that it could never be.

<(8D)

For not only is besides my argument altogether. But it follows, for my justification, which if something is at all, it necessarily exist. For that which is True, can never be a fallacy. And so your claim doesn't even have the possibility of truth, and so it is Synonymously false.

Fool fragment: Perhaps you learn to read the future

Who cares: Also ad hominem?

The Fool: This is false, I'm getting tired of saying that. Trust me it does me no pleasure to refute you, this is trivial garbage.

Why? It"s not a support for my argument, and, it may be true, "perhaps he "may learn to read the future", But perhaps not.
<(8D)

Ma Monkey: It was a typo and hyperbole from "perhaps, you will learn to read better in the future." As he could not have comprehended what the fool said, and yet still, make those mistakes.

Fragmented claim: laugh at the lot, that would actually p.m. you about that topic. As you have no support for your claims,. You can even use that excuse now, as you've posted three times now and you've failed to give one every time.

Who cares: Also ad hominem

The Fool: No it's perfectly valid, that he cannot use the excuse, that he is "not answering, " because of formatting(perhaps he meant grammar), because not only was it clear, but he had already responded Twice, and decided to create that rule for himself, after being pushed to justify claim and not before.

For like you yourself, he also went out of his way, to disclaim what I said, even though it had nothing to do with the OP. So he"s not responding, to contribute, to the thread or answer the OP but rather for the sake of attacking me, specifically.

Which brings me to my next point, what is your point?

For even if what you said was true, which it is not.
It wouldn't justify his claim, nor would it hurt my argument in any way.

So what is the purpose, of your post at all?

If it is nothing other, than hate, or ad hominem.

What is the other possible reason?

I'm sure you have lots of explanations?
Let's hear them.

<(8D)

Let me guess, people can p.m. you for your justification.

Only those chosen, can have a justification for your attacks.

<(89)

"""The Fool: Good luck with yourself, I hope you stay like that, I like you like that, looking funny, and cowardly, the way you are for yourself.

Who cares: Also ad hominem

The Fool: No it's not, that I like him just the way he is. In a cowering position.

<(86)

The fetal position.

<(8D)

A funny position, I say.

Hey, can you do me a favor. Go google ad hominem, and refute yourself. For me. .
And then comeback, compare my statement and concede. I am going to bed.

For I love he, who refutes himself, for me, and thus succumbs, to his own self surmising. .

<(89)

This Could come in handy, in the future, so you know what you're doing.
"http://upload.wikimedia.org...



Ma Monkey: This too.
http://soundfxcenter.com...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL