Why is Aristotle’s objection not considered a resolution to Zeno’s paradox?


What’s wrong with Zeno’s paradox?

No matter how small a distance is still left, she must travel half of it, and then half of what’s still remaining, and so on, ad infinitum. With an infinite number of steps required to get there, clearly she can never complete the journey. And hence, Zeno states, motion is impossible: Zeno’s paradox.

What did Aristotle say about Zeno?

Aristotle’s refutation: Zeno is wrong in saying that there is no part of the millet that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why any such part should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole bushel moves in falling.

What is Aristotle’s solution to the paradox of the runner?

Then Aristotle’s full answer to the paradox is that the question of whether the infinite series of runs is possible or not is ambiguous: the potentially infinite series of halves in a continuous run is possible, while an actual infinity of discontinuous half runs is not—Zeno does identify an impossibility, but it does …

See also  Determinism and Freewill

Is there a solution to Zeno’s paradox?

Although the numbers go on forever, the series converges, and the solution is 1. As long as Achilles is making the gaps smaller at a sufficiently fast rate, so that their distances look more or less like this equation, he will complete the series in a measurable amount of time and catch the tortoise.

Why is Zeno’s arrow paradox false?

The argument falsely assumes that time is composed of “nows” (i.e., indivisible instants). There is no such thing as motion (or rest) “in the now” (i.e., at an instant).

What are Zeno’s paradoxes supposed to prove?

paradoxes of Zeno, statements made by the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, a 5th-century-bce disciple of Parmenides, a fellow Eleatic, designed to show that any assertion opposite to the monistic teaching of Parmenides leads to contradiction and absurdity.

What is Zeno’s arrow paradox?

From Wikipedia: “In the arrow paradox […], Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.

What is Zeno’s paradox of bisection?

And thus, says Zeno, the faster can never overtake the slower. The Dichotomy: Another variation on the same theme is called the “dichotomy paradox” (or sometimes the “bisection paradox” or “race course paradox”).

What does Zeno’s arrow paradox show quizlet?

What does Zeno’s Arrow Paradox attempt to show? It attempts to show that if space and time are discrete, then motion is impossible.

See also  If the premises of an argument CANNOT all be true, then said argument is valid

What is Zeno’s paradox simplified?

In its simplest form, Zeno’s Paradox says that two objects can never touch. The idea is that if one object (say a ball) is stationary and the other is set in motion approaching it that the moving ball must pass the halfway point before reaching the stationary ball.

How do you solve dichotomy paradox?

Quote from the video:
Youtube quote: We first have to reach the halfway. Point after reaching the halfway. Point we have to travel half of the remaining path.

Do you think that Zeno’s paradox regarding Achilles and the tortoise makes sense why?

Zeno’s argument rests on the presumption that Achilles must first reach the point where the tortoise started, by which time the tortoise will have moved ahead, even if but a small distance, to another point; by the time Achilles traverses the distance to this latter point, the tortoise will have moved ahead to another, …

What is your insight idea about Zeno’s argument against motion Are you convinced about what he stated regarding motion?

b.



Zeno’s paradoxes of motion are attacks on the commonly held belief that motion is real, but because motion is a kind of plurality, namely a process along a plurality of places in a plurality of times, they are also attacks on this kind of plurality.

What is the rationale behind Aristotle’s doubts about the existence of time?

Time is not a kind of motion rather it is based on motion. For Aristotle, the concept of transformation is highly fundamental and critical. It appears that time for Aristotle is a global order in which all things get related. We might say time consists of three parts of the past, the present and the future.

See also  How is this a Gettier case?