## Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

### Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Hi All!

I would like to share this site about logic with you:

http://www.courvoisier-thevenaz.ch/logic/logic.php

and sorry if you find the english as being "robotic", the guy, as me, are french-speaking in maternal language - but I think the site remains understandable.

It appears that the oldest trace of our mainstream implication, is from Zeno d'Elee.

At the central litigious point, Zeno pretends:

"From the false follows the true", and gives this example:
"As from "The earth flies" follows "The earth exists"." - but he omits - most probably purposely - to remember that "The earth flies" is false!

The sole understanding were this one:
I shall imagine "the earth", as an object - existent - to give the action in flying to it; (and this is literal, as "the earth" is the subject of "The earth flies");
but - also - I can have an earth which is not flying, and nevertheless, this earth may exist.

This is the sole understanding I find to this proposition, but, a problem:
Even in this case, we face an understanding about inclusions, or a set theory - and not the logos.

Logic is not about computing all the possibilities. That written, "the earth flies is false" may lead to "the earth exists" as well as to "the devil exists".
Obviously, to deduct "the devil exists" from "the earth flies is false" is ridiculous; but to deduct "the earth exists" from "the earth flies is false" is not more pertinent.

Indeed, "false yields to true" is an anti-temporal (anti-chronological) proposition, and is why some "specialists" begin to pretend that logic implication is not a consequence, nor a causality!..

But, in the linked site, you'll find a correction proposition.

It seems obvious that Zeno chose to let false yield to true, and not true yield to false, to distinguish these values operationally. But it appears obvious, too, that he mistook himself (and the others for 2500 years), and that it should be true which yields to false... for several reasons given by the linked site.
And a reason why we accepted his sentence so easily, can be that "true cannot yield to false" appeared so attractive.

Depending on this site, understanding requires time, because logic does; but the so-called "logicians" in mainstream logic are unable to state such an evidence, as far as they accept the litigious proposition.

-I would like to know what you think, if you understood the purpose, or if you experimented logic, even in a personal level...

Thank you.

Impenitent
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Zeno once said that motion was impossible (as his lips were moving)...

-Imp

NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

I wrote all my message, and I get this without explanation!

I was very nervous in imaging the answer, and I get a little unexplained sentence! I think it is Lol, (for some).

Yeah, I believe to know what you are referring about. In the search about logic, I was redirected to Philon de Megare; he had a litige with his master, Diodore Cronos, and had a friend named Zeno, but not Zeno d'Elee; his friend was actually Zeno de Cition.

But it appeared to me that it was not even Zeno de Cition, (later than Zeno d'Elee), who told this silly thing.

To my knowledge (but I can't refind this), this is Diodore Cronos who said that. Argument (in brief) :

"A thing is in its space, and is not in its outer space. Therefore, as a thing cannot be in the outer space, it cannot move." (briefly summarized).

Zeno d'Elee was not on a such lower level, even if I think he was false.

Nota Bene:
The crucial difference between our philosophers, is that yours was not taken under consideration, and that, from the very beginning (his enunciate);
but mine, Zeno d'Elee, who told a little less silly thing, has still his implication used by everyday "science"!

We shall take this problem in consideration, or the obscur times will continue, (as I guess, moreover when I see the replies).

I am NOT exposing this problem for "Lol"; I am exposing the problem for very serious purpose.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Zeno was just pointing out, prior to later language about it, that for us to affirm or deny a predicate (a property) with respect to some object, it's a prerequisite that the object exists (in some sense).

"In some sense" was more of a later realization. It's always struck me as odd that there's so much historical confusion about that. For a long time the existence in question was necessarily taken to be extramental existence, and hence the confusion over "McX" and "Pegasizes" (see Quine's "On What There Is"), hence the seeming need for Russell's theory of descriptions, etc. Exacerbating that problem was the 19th century and beyond aversion to "psychologism."

In any event, Zeno was right that predication presupposes existence (in some sense). It's just that the existence in question might only be fictional/imaginary/conceptual.

NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Terrapin Station wrote:In any event, Zeno was right that predication presupposes existence (in some sense). It's just that the existence in question might only be fictional/imaginary/conceptual.
Ah, thank you Terrapin,
I understand much better. But it may only seem very old school to me;

okay, I think to understand that it was about about to make logic as being only a tool... and not a somewhat whole science (limited, that written), as I am about to be much more "extremist" than Zeno himself, in considering rather this last option!

Well, it would occur that we first establish an existence, give a propriety, and wipe the existence as it was only intellectually needed? But if our brain really need the mentioned propriety rather than the so-called existence (or subject), why the hell do we change the sense in our formal writing?

If a - real - dynamic occurs in a manner, why would we state that a virtual one have the priority to then wipe it?

In fact, I think that in doing so, we cannot be near of a truth. Indeed, what we obtain of this, is actually the opposite to the desired result: In place of getting clearer in our reasoning (for the reason we choose a simpler way of thinking, by example), we are only giving foundations to the illusion, and this way, are getting farer from the reality, instead to get nearer!

Logic were doing a slalom between Reality and Concepts, and then establish that some of the pickets are false, so that some of the others are to be true, standing for reality. I'm afraid that this reality could be upside-down, in case of bad choice among the piquets.

Impenitent
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

NielsBohr wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:In any event, Zeno was right that predication presupposes existence (in some sense). It's just that the existence in question might only be fictional/imaginary/conceptual.
Ah, thank you Terrapin,
I understand much better. But it may only seem very old school to me;

okay, I think to understand that it was about about to make logic as being only a tool... and not a somewhat whole science (limited, that written), as I am about to be much more "extremist" than Zeno himself, in considering rather this last option!

Well, it would occur that we first establish an existence, give a propriety, and wipe the existence as it was only intellectually needed? But if our brain really need the mentioned propriety rather than the so-called existence (or subject), why the hell do we change the sense in our formal writing?

If a - real - dynamic occurs in a manner, why would we state that a virtual one have the priority to then wipe it?

In fact, I think that in doing so, we cannot be near of a truth. Indeed, what we obtain of this, is actually the opposite to the desired result: In place of getting clearer in our reasoning (for the reason we choose a simpler way of thinking, by example), we are only giving foundations to the illusion, and this way, are getting farer from the reality, instead to get nearer!

Logic were doing a slalom between Reality and Concepts, and then establish that some of the pickets are false, so that some of the others are to be true, standing for reality. I'm afraid that this reality could be upside-down, in case of bad choice among the piquets.
yes, there was an element of humor behind the first reply... but only an element

to clarify: ideas (mathematics and languages) are neat and orderly, often following logical rules- but these are nothing more than incomplete representations and expectations... the noumena remains aloof...

-Imp

NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Thanks, Imp.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

Ummm.... was Zeno asserting a Noumena/Phenomena duality? That we know of at least? might make sense to us in hindsight, but philosophers don't work in the hindsight of the future. I would be hesitant to assert this.

Two works I'm going to have to pick through preceding him, to see if this was even the case. I don't mind the predicate conclusion regarding language, but he wasn't using the mode of language to illustrate it, but rather visual scenarios narrated through language. In theory, one could mime some of his paradoxes.

I gotta think about this a bit. We might be off the mark on both accounts, even if the explanatory solutions are more useful today than what he may of been doing.

Going to take me a while to be satisfied with it, both were works on religious poetry. Gotta take a careful reexamination if these are the explanations floating around today.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.

NielsBohr wrote:
Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:37 pm
Hi All!

I would like to share this site about logic with you:

http://www.courvoisier-thevenaz.ch/logic/logic.php

and sorry if you find the english as being "robotic", the guy, as me, are french-speaking in maternal language - but I think the site remains understandable.

It appears that the oldest trace of our mainstream implication, is from Zeno d'Elee.

At the central litigious point, Zeno pretends:

"From the false follows the true", and gives this example:
"As from "The earth flies" follows "The earth exists"." - but he omits - most probably purposely - to remember that "The earth flies" is false!

The sole understanding were this one:
I shall imagine "the earth", as an object - existent - to give the action in flying to it; (and this is literal, as "the earth" is the subject of "The earth flies");
but - also - I can have an earth which is not flying, and nevertheless, this earth may exist.

This is the sole understanding I find to this proposition, but, a problem:
Even in this case, we face an understanding about inclusions, or a set theory - and not the logos.

Logic is not about computing all the possibilities. That written, "the earth flies is false" may lead to "the earth exists" as well as to "the devil exists".
Obviously, to deduct "the devil exists" from "the earth flies is false" is ridiculous; but to deduct "the earth exists" from "the earth flies is false" is not more pertinent.

Indeed, "false yields to true" is an anti-temporal (anti-chronological) proposition, and is why some "specialists" begin to pretend that logic implication is not a consequence, nor a causality!..

But, in the linked site, you'll find a correction proposition.

It seems obvious that Zeno chose to let false yield to true, and not true yield to false, to distinguish these values operationally. But it appears obvious, too, that he mistook himself (and the others for 2500 years), and that it should be true which yields to false... for several reasons given by the linked site.
And a reason why we accepted his sentence so easily, can be that "true cannot yield to false" appeared so attractive.

Depending on this site, understanding requires time, because logic does; but the so-called "logicians" in mainstream logic are unable to state such an evidence, as far as they accept the litigious proposition.

-I would like to know what you think, if you understood the purpose, or if you experimented logic, even in a personal level...

Thank you.
If I understand you correctly I would have to agree with you.

I wrote a similiar, emphasis on "similiar", thread that addresses this issue in logic from a seperate angle:

"The Failure of Contradiction" viewtopic.php?f=17&t=22950

If we look at the nature of "false" much in the same manner as a "deficiency" (in this case a deficiency in truth) we can reflect certain consistencies between "falsity" and "chaos" (as chaos is a deficiency in order). Considering truth and order maintain a common reflective bond, as both are approximates of eachother, what we can infer is that "falsity" can be understood in many degrees through chaos theory:

"Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we tolerate in the forecast, how accurately we can measure its current state, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time." (wiki, Chaos Theory)

In these respects what we understand of Chaos is that it is subject to time and is fundamentally a measurement of time. Considering that all logical structure reflect falsity, or chaos, by their very limits what we understand of logic as an observation of causal symmetry (as logic often times reflects a cause/effect structure) inherently points to a dual element of "chaos" involved.

As logical systems, manifest both through time and reflect time, they follow the same form and manner of a linear progressive pattern. It is this same linear progressive pattern, determined by a progressive 1n dimensionality (with n equivalent to possible further branching effects) that logic manifests a chaotic nature in the respect that it is "approximation".

We can understand certain element of logic by looking deeper into the nature of Lyapunov times.

"Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, about 1 millisecond; weather systems, a few days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Doubling the forecast time more than squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means, in practice, a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears random.[11]" (wiki, Chaos Theory)

In these respects what we understand of the nature of logic all stability is measured through dimensions of 2 and 3 in the respect that:

1) The nature of a linear logical system "branching" out causes increasing "randomness" that cannot be observe fully past a duality (as most people process logical constructs in terms of dualisms) or trinity (few people can observe logical constructs as trinitarian structures).

2) The nature of time, as a modal reality, determines the progressive branching of any linear logistic system and what is "false" by any standards of a "x/Therefore" or "y/Because" argument may in fact be justified when structurally multiplied over time.

3) All logistic systems are "approximate" definitions by their vary nature and in this respect harbor elements of chaos theory (as chaos theory observes approximation).

Look at Chaos/Falsity from the logistic perspective of a "negative" a "vacuum" effect may be observed as an inherent property of all logistic systems.

It can be implied that this "logistic vacuum state as a negative" seeks further logistic structure through "reflection" in order to maintain stability (deficiency) and eliminate its "vacuum state".

This would be logistically equivalent to an implied contradiction needing to reflect non-contradictory logistics to be observed. In this respect, all contradictory logistics need to reflect non-contradictory logistics as they do not exist on their own terms. This is observed by Cyril Bailey’s comment that Leucippus, and other atomists, contradictorily observed the nothingness is attached to existence while trying to prove nothingness as a concept. [8] (nothingness, wiki)

1) All chaotic structures move towards unity, as they cannot exist in and of themselves.

2) Falsity can be observed as a logistic vacuum state.

3) Logic, reflective of the abstract and physical realities it manifests through, manifests as a spatial entity in it Reflective capabilities. In these respects in maintains vacuum states through contradictions and falsities, while simultaneously maintaining structural integrity through paradoxes and truthes.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests