Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:48 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:17 pm
If you can't figure that out it is no wonder that you are confused by Xeno's paradox.
How did you type the post you just wrote?
The name is "Zeno" (likely related to "Zero" given people named themselves based upon who they are or become, not some arbitrary label based upon birth). Xeno was a philosopher of Plato's time who also wrote on Socrates.
I support Bahman here and know Zeno's paradoxes well. They support his view. Zeno argued that motion is impossible even knowing that it is in fact.
Are you saying that "zeno" KNEW that motion is FACT, but instead of ACCEPTING this FACT "zeno" chose to ATTEMPT to "argue" that ACTUALLY 'motion' is IMPOSSIBLE?
If yes, then okay. (This would then also completely make sense WHY "bahman" appears SO CONFUSED here.)
But if no, then what EXACTLY were you saying here?
Also, will you explain how "zeno's" words support "bahman's" views"?
Zeno was a philosopher who questioned actual paradoxes regarding continuity versus discrete measures. Bahman was expressing the same thing and in the same way Zeno would have: you do not require expressing that you know something is not literal when presenting the paradox or it trivializes the concern. It is obvious that one could not MEAN the literal
appearance of change is not real but that when you inspect this rationally, there is a real paradox. It is not merely a 'trick' concern because it relates to questioning positions in space (as well as time) with respect to physics. He wrote in ancient times when zero nor infinity were accepted as a legitimate concepts.
The problem is something I think you understand by now considering our own conversations before. So you actually agree with Bahman, I believe, but just have an issue with the
way he presented it. Note that when one introduces an apparently shocking fact, like that "motion is impossible", as Zeno himself supposedly introduced it, it is unfortunately rhetorical; but because it actually contradicts a logical inspection, it proves that either the logic is incomplete or the reality itself is contradictory. Thus motion is both true and false realistically, OR the contradiction should
MOTIVATE us to do something to fix this by looking back at the logic. So even though you may think Bahman
should presume the obvious fact that motion is possible, it is logical to assert it 'impossible' when
logically when something is BOTH apparently possible AND impossible. [Binary logic defines, for instance,
0 = 0 and 1, but
1 = 0 or 1, where
1 stands for things real, true, or possible, and
0 stands for not real, false, or impossible.]
This conflict actually forced others to eventually accept seeking out new ideas that were previously not permitted in logic, math, science, and of course, philosophy in general. It was literally 'illegal' in the past to question whether zero should be allowed to be considered a rational integer. Anyone introducing such would be ridiculed and dismissed as nuts and so care had to be taken to introduce the ideas in ways that 'proved' the issues as relevant to be questioned. Demonstrating paradoxes forces those who pay attention to the logic to address them by demanding change in our logical understandings that would otherwise just get ignored and become
blasphemous to speak of normally.