[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80FP_ivdWnk[/media]
This is on the same channel as the man who'll go over themes and summaries of classic books in slang.
I'm pretty sure those two paradoxes only make us consider the structure of mathematics, not how reality works. When you set up two situations in a position such as the biker vs. the man, in which one character moves after the other, you get the paradox in which the man moves slightly forward and the bike moves up to that point. But in reality, we do not take turns. We continue moving at once. It's not a paradox; it's just wrong.
But the arrow would never be at rest?
Doesn't modern phisics explain all of this stuff?
I mean, even when the arrow is subjectively stationary, it still posseses kinetic power, right?
granted these are from a time where our understanding was minute by comparison, positing this stuff in this day and age would be ridiculous as we understand the mathematics this so glaringly ignores
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=WhyNott;45193013]Doesn't modern phisics explain all of this stuff?
I mean, even when the arrow is subjectively stationary, it still posseses kinetic power, right?[/QUOTE]
if it is in flight, there is no duration of time in which it is stationary. If you observe it in a form in which it [I]is[/I] stationary- a point, rather than a line segment (they pretty much described "looking at a still photograph"), you're not observing any measure of motion or time. You can layer the same photo on top of itself a thousand times and the arrow will not move, yes, but the photo does not represent any form of progress. it is not a line segment of time moving forward, rather a single point along a segment, with a stack of identical points being placed next to it as if they somehow negate the forward progress of the line. If you compared that point to any other point, you would observe change, but comparing it to itself is nothing more than a redundancy to be removed from your equasion
Any discussion of Zeno's paradox is incomplete without mentioning convergent infinite series and mathematical interpretations of infinity. I have never met a mathematician who had difficulty pointing out the obvious limitations of Zeno's arguments.
any philosophical point that you're trying to make in 3 and a half minutes is probably going to be shit
cool animation though
[editline]25th June 2014[/editline]
in fact, I really like the way his videos are animated, but I hate the subject matter
if he did this on something else, I'd be a huge fan
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
