Thread: Movement Can't Exist

I've heard this before, but you have to realize that just because there are an infinite number of points in space between any two objects it does NOT mean that there is an infinite amount of distance between those two objects. The distance between each point can be very small, but the total length is finite, and therefor crossable in a finite amount of time.

I wish I could meet whoever created this argument, so that I could reassure them that the bullet from my gun would surely never reach their head in any length of time.

Achilles.

This is an extremely poor explanation of a version zeno's paradox. Next time, before trotting out your math philosophy 101 homework questions, make sure that you are only talking to highschoolers, and also that there hasn't already been several threads that cover the exact same topic.

I looked on the first page, didn't see one, so I wrote this quickly. Yes, it's Zeno. No, it wasn't homework.

Silly me, thinking that people could actually have fun with something like this. Must've been the various psychoactive substances that were going through my system at the time of my writing it. Good for you. Perpetuating the proverbial "NO U" of the internet. Put me in my place. Tool...

No, it just becomes very old at some point... I remember this being in a Mickey Mouse magazine or some similar publication when I was a kid. Please...

An infinite number of numbers does not have to add up to an infinite number.

It should be immediately intuitive that splitting a length up many times will not make it any longer.

It can be proved thus;

Length of path = 1 WLOG
First length = 1/2^1 = 1/2, second length = 1/2^2 = 1/4, third = 1/2^3, etcetera.
So we have a geometric sum S, first term a = 1/2, common ratio r = 1/2.
S = a + ar + ar^2 ... + ar^n-2 + ar^n-1
Sr = ar + ar^2 + ar^3 ... + ar^n-1 + ar^n
Sr - S = S(r-1) = ar^n - a = a(r^n - 1)
S = a(r^n - 1)/(r - 1)
In this case,
S = 1/2(1/2^n - 1)/(1/2 - 1)
Where n tends to infinity, so 1/2^n tends to 0, so S tends to
S = 1/2(-1)/(1/2 - 1) = -1/2 / -1/2 = 1

So the length is exactly the same; the flaw in your argument is here:

You're now faced with an infinitely long line of ground

This is also dubious:

2) Next, isn't it true that the space between the points is not only divisible, but INFINITELY divisible, as well?

You didn't justify it, in any case. As a matter of fact, one prediction of quantum theory is that there is an indivisible length of space, known as the Planck length.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is an extremely poor explanation of a version zeno's paradox. Next time, before trotting out your math philosophy 101 homework questions, make sure that you are only talking to highschoolers, and also that there hasn't already been several threads that cover the exact same topic.

Originally Posted by Serkat

No, it just becomes very old at some point... I remember this being in a Mickey Mouse magazine or some similar publication when I was a kid. Please...

Jesus Fucking Christ... He was just trying to have an interesting conversation, and he very recently joined and didn't catch the other threads. He wasn't challenging your manhood or trying to scam you out of money or anything. Why be rude??????

Insomniac, thanks for talking about something fascinating. There is a thread somewhere about Zeno's Paradox and another one about whether 0.999... = 1. Much to my amazement, those threads brought out some major rudeness and snobbiness. You would think the threads were about who has the biggest dick or something. Very bizarre.

I consider it rude in and of itself to post a thread about this topic, let alone name it "Movement Can't Exist". I don't see how it's rude to point out that this was in a kid's magazine in the 90s. The only difference, they used a flea trying to get from one side of a bed to the other by jumping. Why would a flea want to do that.

Originally Posted by insomniacjezz

I looked on the first page, didn't see one, so I wrote this quickly. Yes, it's Zeno. No, it wasn't homework.

Silly me, thinking that people could actually have fun with something like this. Must've been the various psychoactive substances that were going through my system at the time of my writing it. Good for you. Perpetuating the proverbial "NO U" of the internet. Put me in my place. Tool...

Don't feel too bad about it. Back when I first joined up, I too, had posted something that was posted about a bit on here, and people generally reacted the same. Search my early posts and you'll probably find the thread I'm talking about.

So yeah, don't let it get to you, it was nothing against you personally, just the type of thread it was.

Well I walked to the store today, took about twenty minutes. Came back. Yurp.

Not this again. They should lock every thread that has the Zeno paradox or 1=0.99999... in it.

To add too Xei comments. Particles have a non local aspect to it i.e. EPR paradox or action at a distance, so particles don't sit in space like in the classical view of Physics. Even worse particles obey something called Uncertainty principle. The zeno paradox says that particles sit at a certain point in spacetime, but this is incorrect as particles don't sit in an exact position in space.

So even if the infinities don't resolve this paradox, then Quantum Mechanics does.

\threadend.

Wow, a lot of people really do take themselves very seriously on this board, don't they?

Why lock every thread regarding Zeno's Paradox? Last I checked, it fell well within the the realm of philosophy. Excuse me for not finding THREE topics tucked between eleven+ pages of nihilism and existentialist whining. I guess "variety" should be listed among things not to be posted in the forum rules.

I started this topic hoping for a fun, lighthearted discussion. It's a shame internet toughguys had to interject their douchefaggottry as they did. Thanks for the words of encouragement from the few posters who had them to offer...that is the attitude that belongs on a philosophy board. Those rude elitists give philosophy a bad name.

Originally Posted by Serkat

I consider it rude in and of itself to post a thread about this topic, let alone name it "Movement Can't Exist".

Originally Posted by UM

Jesus Fucking Christ... He was just trying to have an interesting conversation, and he very recently joined and didn't catch the other threads. He wasn't challenging your manhood or trying to scam you out of money or anything. Why be rude??????

Originally Posted by insomniacjezz

I started this topic hoping for a fun, lighthearted discussion. It's a shame internet toughguys had to interject their douchefaggottry as they did.

Originally Posted by insomniacjezz

Why lock every thread regarding Zeno's Paradox? Last I checked, it fell well within the the realm of philosophy.

I know this is sort of circular reasoning but this happens. You should see the other thread which is like seven pages of name calling and people saying don't be rude and stuff.

I call it the curse of the Zeno paradox: which is not a paradox as it been resolved.

Wow, a lot of people really do take themselves very seriously on this board, don't they?

Why lock every thread regarding Zeno's Paradox? Last I checked, it fell well within the the realm of philosophy. Excuse me for not finding THREE topics tucked between eleven+ pages of nihilism and existentialist whining. I guess "variety" should be listed among things not to be posted in the forum rules.

I started this topic hoping for a fun, lighthearted discussion. It's a shame internet toughguys had to interject their douchefaggottry as they did. Thanks for the words of encouragement from the few posters who had them to offer...that is the attitude that belongs on a philosophy board. Those rude elitists give philosophy a bad name.

Perhaps you could actually start responding to some of the points that have been made..?

Some people here are pretty abrasive. Yes. But if you get wound up in that and stop actually contributing to what you're arguing about in the first place then it's pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by Xei

An infinite number of numbers does not have to add up to an infinite number.

It should be immediately intuitive that splitting a length up many times will not make it any longer.

It can be proved thus;

Length of path = 1 WLOG
First length = 1/2^1 = 1/2, second length = 1/2^2 = 1/4, third = 1/2^3, etcetera.
So we have a geometric sum S, first term a = 1/2, common ratio r = 1/2.
S = a + ar + ar^2 ... + ar^n-2 + ar^n-1
Sr = ar + ar^2 + ar^3 ... + ar^n-1 + ar^n
Sr - S = S(r-1) = ar^n - a = a(r^n - 1)
S = a(r^n - 1)/(r - 1)
In this case,
S = 1/2(1/2^n - 1)/(1/2 - 1)
Where n tends to infinity, so 1/2^n tends to 0, so S tends to
S = 1/2(-1)/(1/2 - 1) = -1/2 / -1/2 = 1

So the length is exactly the same; the flaw in your argument is here:

This is also dubious:

You didn't justify it, in any case. As a matter of fact, one prediction of quantum theory is that there is an indivisible length of space, known as the Planck length.

wow, you just TOTALLY rinsed insomniacjezz. (i dont know if other places from wheere i live use "rinsed", but in this context it basically means proved wrong)

i love it when science/maths proves these silly theories wrong

Originally Posted by slash112

wow, you just TOTALLY rinsed insomniacjezz. (i dont know if other places from wheere i live use "rinsed", but in this context it basically means proved wrong)

i love it when science/maths proves these silly theories wrong

It was never a theory. Zeno originally presented the original as a trick that a tortoise played on Achilles in order to make him believe that the tortoise could beat him in a race if he got a head start. This doesn't mean that the tortoise actually believed he would win, just that he knew Achilles was kind of dense.

He wrote several paradoxes, pretty much all of them based on the same thing. One of them was about Achilles and a tortoise but there was no tricking involved; what little evidence there is suggests that Zeno took his arguments seriously.

Don't confuse it with the version in Godel Escher Bach, in case that's what you're doing...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Jesus Fucking Christ... He was just trying to have an interesting conversation, and he very recently joined and didn't catch the other threads. He wasn't challenging your manhood or trying to scam you out of money or anything. Why be rude??????

The way he phrased himself in the OP sounded like an attempt to be condescending to me when I first read it. If it wasn't intended that way, then perhaps I reacted too quickly.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So even if the infinities don't resolve this paradox, then Quantum Mechanics does.

Not all scientists agree with you. The Heisenberg Principle and other theories of quantum physics are still being heavily debated, and my amateur hunch is that the Heisenberg Principle and a substantial number of other quantum theories will eventually be considered crocks of shit.

Insomniac, I encourage you to look at the other threads, which are titled "Does 0.9 repeating = 1" and "Zeno's Paradox". I disagreed with the dissenters in here, and you can read those threads to see why. Mainly, I argued that the paradox questions geometric series themselves and that therefore using geometric series to disprove the paradox is insufficient.

Just remember that some people here think that if you tell them there is something to Zeno's Paradox you are telling them they have small penises. You might want to start each sentence with, "Your penis is absolutely enormous, but...."

The Heisenberg principle is one of the most basic ideas in quantum mechanics; we now have almost a century's work on top of it. I don't think any serious quantum physicist debates it nowadays.

Why are you such a strong believer in determinism?

Originally Posted by Xei

Why are you such a strong believer in determinism?

Anything outside of determinism involves uncaused events. If a particle is going to do A instead of B, there has to be a reason for it. A can never happen to take place instead of B without any reason. If it did, its happening instead of B would be an uncaused event. Uncaused events are not possible. They make no logical sense.

If uncaused events were possible, absurd things like raining frogs and boats sailing through your living room would happen. The necessity of cause is what keeps order in the universe.

The universe is an uncaused event. For causality, you need time. There was no time before the universe. To deny the existence of uncaused events is to deny the existence of the universe.

It seems absurd, but then, why shouldn't it? These things are completely outside of experience on a biological scale. It is just as bizarre that time and space are actually part of a whole, which can be bent by mass, leading to very strange effects such as the twin paradox. But of course, such things only happen on huge scales or at huge speeds, so there's no reason that we should be able to understand them. However, if they can be proven empirically, then you can't really deny them.

Movement doesn't exist, because you can continually divide the space between two points in space that can be traversed.

Time doesn't exist, because you can continually divide the units of it between two points in time that can be experienced.

Objects don't exist, because you could continually divide the amount of space the matter takes up.

Energy doesn't exist, because you could continually divide the amount of work with each action that occurs.


Clearly you realize what this is getting at. Even if you can divide something infinitely, that doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

The universe is an uncaused event. For causality, you need time. There was no time before the universe. To deny the existence of uncaused events is to deny the existence of the universe.

Causes are not limited to moments in time sequences. For example, I think the laws of math determine the laws of physics, but the laws of math are not something that happened in a time sequence. They are eternal, intangible principles that exist in reality. They transcend time. Similarly, the universe is not some random WTF in nature that is here without rhyme or reason. There are reasons for its existence. Also, there is a high probability that our universe is part of a multiverse, in which case it would have causal events that exist in dimensions beyond ours.

Originally Posted by Xei

It seems absurd, but then, why shouldn't it? These things are completely outside of experience on a biological scale. It is just as bizarre that time and space are actually part of a whole, which can be bent by mass, leading to very strange effects such as the twin paradox. But of course, such things only happen on huge scales or at huge speeds, so there's no reason that we should be able to understand them. However, if they can be proven empirically, then you can't really deny them.

I think those theories will end up being proven wrong. I don't think the universe transcends the logic and laws of causality.