How Does Zeno's Paradox Challenge Our Understanding of Movement and Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sd01g
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parameter Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Zeno's paradox challenges our understanding of movement and space by contrasting two parameter sets: Rational and Empirical. The Rational parameter set posits that points A and B are fixed positions with an infinite number of zero-dimensional points in between, leading to the conclusion that movement is impossible. Conversely, the Empirical parameter set recognizes points A and B as three-dimensional and composed of atoms, allowing for finite movement between them. This distinction is crucial as it highlights the limitations of Rational conjectures in scientific theories, particularly in fields like M-Theory and hyperspace, which lack empirical validation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Zeno's paradox and its implications
  • Familiarity with Rational and Empirical parameter sets
  • Basic knowledge of dimensionality in physics
  • Awareness of M-Theory and its theoretical constructs
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Zeno's paradox in modern physics
  • Research the differences between Rational and Empirical parameter sets
  • Investigate the validity of M-Theory and its empirical challenges
  • Study the concept of dimensionality in both mathematics and physics
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of movement, space, and the philosophical implications of theoretical constructs in science.

sd01g
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Zeno's paradox (the inability to move between points A and B) results when two incongruous parameter sets are applied to the same event.

In the Rational parameter set, points have no dimensions-only positions. There are an infinite number of points between A and B. The points A and B are assumed not to move, and the halfway point is presumed to be known and to be exactly halfway between A and B.

In the Empirical parameter set, however, all points are 3-dimensional. Points A and B (which are composed of atoms) are moving. There are a finite number of points between A and B and the halfway point is only approximately known because all real measurements are approximate.

Applying the Rational parameter set, Zeno will eternally move exactly halfway between an infinite number of zero-dimension points, never reaching point B.

Applying the Empirical parameter set, Zeno will easily transition between points A and point B.

The reason it important to differentiate between Rational and Empirical parameter sets is due to the increasing use of Rational parameter sets to define such things as hyperspace, M-Theory, and parallel universes. These conjectures often masquerading as theories have no viable Empirical parameter sets to determine their validity. No Rational parameter set conjecture should be allowed the title of theory unless it is accompanied by a legitimate Empirical parameter set.

Of course, this is just an opinion. Any thoughtful critique would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ignoring science or mathematics...

If Archimedes runs because the points he occupies are moving, then how could I be able to identify the points he used to occupy? You make it sound as if motion is possible because the points one occupies move around, rather than by moving from one point to another.
 
sd01g said:
In the Rational parameter set, points have no dimensions-only positions. There are an infinite number of points between A and B. The points A and B are assumed not to move, and the halfway point is presumed to be known and to be exactly halfway between A and B.

In the Empirical parameter set, however, all points are 3-dimensional. Points A and B (which are composed of atoms) are moving. There are a finite number of points between A and BA and the halfway point is only approximately known because all real measurements are approximate.
This is not how Zeno's paradox is resolved, though it is a popularly erroneous way of resolving it; you have made the fundamental error in your empirical set by assuming that objects move "one atom at a time" in discrete time- and space-steps. If this is true, how do atoms move through vacuum ?
 
Key points

The key points in Zeno's paradox are points A and B. In the Rational parameter set, these points have only one attribute- absolute fixed position. In the Empirical parameter set there is no such thing as an absolute fixed position. Also, it is my understanding that 'approaching 1 as a limit' is not exactly the same thing as exactly equalling 1. IF approaching 1 as a limit exactly equals 1, then my parameter set analysis is defective and will be withdrawn. Thanks for your help. (It really is not so bad being wrong when one is attempting to understand difficult and complex ideas, if one can learn from one's mistakes.)
 
Wrong parameter set

hypermorphism said:
This is not how Zeno's paradox is resolved, though it is a popularly erroneous way of resolving it; you have made the fundamental error in your empirical set by assuming that objects move "one atom at a time" in discrete time- and space-steps. If this is true, how do atoms move through vacuum ?

The Empirical Parameter Set does not assume that Objects move 'one atom at a time in discrete time- and space steps.' It is the Rational parameter set that assumes this by requiring Objects to move ' half the distance at a time.'

Zeno's paradox is not paradoxical because we move--this is a given--but because a rational, THOUGHT construct seems to say that one can not move. Zeno assumes there are an infinite number of mathematical or geometrical points (points with no spatial dimensions) between any TWO given points. In the Rational Parameter Set this is true. However, in the Real World--the Empirical Parameter Set--this is absolutely false. Points with no spatial dimentions do not exist in the Real World. A 'zero spatial dimensional point' has never been observed and never will be. Zeno's assumption is empirically wrong.

There really is no paradox, only a faulty assumption.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
14K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
15K