Possible lingual solution to paradoxes.

[tar]

Was thinking about the wording and setup of the tortoise and warrior paradox of Zeno.

 

If you take a globe and mark a W on the equator in South America and a T in Siberia, and spin the Globe from West to East, the T will move slowly and the W will move rapidly, and the W will never overtake the T.

 

If you put two gears on a rod and marked a W on the one an a T on the other and you spin the W fast and turn the T slowly, the W will overtake the T again and again and again, with no problem at all.

 

Being that a Warrior can overtake the tortoise, the setup of the problem must lingually correspond more to the two gears on the rod setup, than the two marks on the Globe setup, because the two marks on the globe do not represent what actually happens in the race, while the two gears on a rod represents exactly what happens.

 

 

[physica]

Ok I think you're missing the point of Zeno's paradox. If you feel a little in the dark watch this video.

 

 

 

Was thinking about the wording and setup of the tortoise and warrior paradox of Zeno.

 

 

Now lets look at the basic term of a theory (this is what's taught first year of any science degree). A theory can be put to the test however, if one thing disproves it the theory doesn't hold. Now let's apply this concept to the paradox.

 

The paradox states that in order to overtake the tortoise Achillies would have to get to the place where the tortoise is. However, by the time this is done the tortoise would have moved. Achillies would then have to get to the tortoise's new position. The gaps will become infinitely small meaning it will take an infinite amount of steps for Achillies for overtake the tortoise. This is where the paradox emerges. The solution took many years and calculus.

 

A simpler paradox is a man trying to reach the door. In order to get to the door he has to travel half the distance. He then has to travel half the distance again. These half distances get infinitely small. Again saying that it take an infinite amount of steps means that the man won't reach the door. This one can be solved more easily because the door isn't moving using the mathematics of geometry.

 

Le'ts say the distance between the man and the door is one. We can prove mathematically that an infinite series can still be finite. We get a square with an area of one. We can split up the square as many times as we like (an infinite amount of times) and the segments will still equate to one meaning that the man can reach the door. These paradoxes showed that lingual approach is inferior and fails to describe the most basic processes that we see in day to day lives logically. This is why science pushed towards maths.

 

Now let me simplify and sum up what you have to do in order to avoid circular conversation we don't want a repeat of what happened in the lingual theory of everything discussion.

 

If one thing disproves a theory we can't cover that up with other examples that one thing disproving it has to be addressed

 

No one is disputing the fact that a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one, that's why it's a paradox. Coming up with examples of faster moving objects overtaking slower moving ones is just waffle, it's a straw man argument.

 

To avoid waffle try and get your head away from the warrior and the tortoise concept, it's an example to out things into context. You clearly get hung up on these and fail to see the bigger picture. I'm going to spell it out for you now. What these paradoxes show is that lingually it is illogical to take an infinite amount of steps to get to a point and state that you'll get there. What you have to prove lingually (without maths) is that an infinite amount of processes or events will have a finite outcome.

 

I suggest you read up on the paradox and previous lingual and mathematical arguments on infinity before posting on this thread again. Frankly it's nothing short of arrogant to attempt to solve a paradox that has taken 100s of years and stumbled many great minds after thinking about it for a couple of days and summing it up in 170 words.

Edited May 9, 2014 by physica

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Physica - can you tone down the rhetoric a little please? Firstly, being wrong, disagreeing with established wisdom, swimming against the current etc. is not a bar to posting on these threads. Secondly, please do not negatively characterise other members on the basis of their posts.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this message if you think it unjust

 

[kristalris]

Ok I think you're missing the point of Zeno's paradox. If you feel a little in the dark watch this video.

 

 

 

 

Now lets look at the basic term of a theory (this is what's taught first year of any science degree). A theory can be put to the test however, if one thing disproves it the theory doesn't hold. Now let's apply this concept to the paradox.

 

The paradox states that in order to overtake the tortoise Achillies would have to get to the place where the tortoise is. However, by the time this is done the tortoise would have moved. Achillies would then have to get to the tortoise's new position. The gaps will become infinitely small meaning it will take an infinite amount of steps for Achillies for overtake the tortoise. This is where the paradox emerges. The solution took many years and calculus.

 

A simpler paradox is a man trying to reach the door. In order to get to the door he has to travel half the distance. He then has to travel half the distance again. These half distances get infinitely small. Again saying that it take an infinite amount of steps means that the man won't reach the door. This one can be solved more easily because the door isn't moving using the mathematics of geometry.

 

Le'ts say the distance between the man and the door is one. We can prove mathematically that an infinite series can still be finite. We get a square with an area of one. We can split up the square as many times as we like (an infinite amount of times) and the segments will still equate to one meaning that the man can reach the door. These paradoxes showed that lingual approach is inferior and fails to describe the most basic processes that we see in day to day lives logically. This is why science pushed towards maths.

 

Now let me simplify and sum up what you have to do in order to avoid circular conversation we don't want a repeat of what happened in the lingual theory of everything discussion.

 

If one thing disproves a theory we can't cover that up with other examples that one thing disproving it has to be addressed

 

No one is disputing the fact that a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one, that's why it's a paradox. Coming up with examples of faster moving objects overtaking slower moving ones is just waffle, it's a straw man argument.

 

To avoid waffle try and get your head away from the warrior and the tortoise concept, it's an example to out things into context. You clearly get hung up on these and fail to see the bigger picture. I'm going to spell it out for you now. What these paradoxes show is that lingually it is illogical to take an infinite amount of steps to get to a point and state that you'll get there. What you have to prove lingually (without maths) is that an infinite amount of processes or events will have a finite outcome.

 

I suggest you read up on the paradox and previous lingual and mathematical arguments on infinity before posting on this thread again. Frankly it's nothing short of arrogant to attempt to solve a paradox that has taken 100s of years and stumbled many great minds after thinking about it for a couple of days and summing it up in 170 words.

I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means seeming contradiction instead of an actual contradiction. In effect using lingual logic it only shows that absolute truth doesn't exist. Well, does anyone since the cave of Plato believe it does? This then disproves your position for mathematics is based in lingual & figurative logic in order to have meaning. There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as an actual contradiction but only as a seeming one, as long as you do not demand absolute proof.

Edited May 18, 2014 by kristalris

[physica]

I'm sorry you have to elaborate. You statement makes little sense and huge leaps.

 

 

I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means seeming contradiction instead of an actual contradiction.

I don't usually go down the english route here but we have to as this sentence doesn't make sense. Considering that we are using English to communicate we use english definitions.

 

contradiction (in terms of logic): strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected

 

seeming: appearing to be real or true, but not necessarily being so; apparent

 

actual: existing in fact; real

 

This doesn't even make sense. Seeming + contradiction = no contradiction (as something appearing to be a contradiction isn't a contradiction). What you are saying here is:

 

I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means no contradiction instead of a contradiction.

 

Zeno's paradox is a contradiction, your statement makes no sense at all.

 

 

In effect using lingual logic it only shows that absolute truth doesn't exist.

How??? Also there's nothing about absolute truth in this, why have you started talking about it?

 

 

This then disproves your position for mathematics is based in lingual & figurative logic in order to have meaning.

How??? Again there is nothing about absolute truth in this thread. The paradox highlights that maths can successfully describe how an infinite number of steps can result in a finite outcome but a lingual theory can't. If we are going to bring a term like absolute truth into the debate it is a very basic standard to define such a term.

 

definition of absolute (philosophy):a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

 

As you can see maths holds closer to this definition than a lingual approach. Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. 1+1=2 is universal. If anything you bringing in absolute truth strengthens the case for mathematics.

 

 

There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as an actual contradiction but only as a seeming one, as long as you do not demand absolute proof.

Again this doesn't make sense. What you are saying here is:

 

There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as a contradiction but only as a non-contradiction, as long as you don't demand a solution that is universally valid which doesn't have to be put into context.

 

Let's wrap it up here. Zeno's paradox is a contradiction. Lingually it seems logical that an infinite number of processes or steps will not have a finite result. However, applying this logic to Achilles and the tortoise means that he can't overtake the tortoise. There is the contradiction. The lingual approach offers no answer that we know of yet. However, the mathematical approach does offer a solution to Achilles overtaking the tortoise. What's more it is absolute as the solution is universal and doesn't have to be applied to this situation to be true.It can be applied to any situation involving infinite steps and it still holds up.

 

In future avoid words you don't understand and define the terms you introduce. Also one liner that doesn't make sense doesn't disprove something. You have to explain why it disproves something.

Edited May 18, 2014 by physica

[kristalris]

I'm sorry you have to elaborate. You statement makes little sense and huge leaps.

 

 

I don't usually go down the english route here but we have to as this sentence doesn't make sense. Considering that we are using English to communicate we use english definitions.

 

contradiction (in terms of logic): strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected

 

seeming: appearing to be real or true, but not necessarily being so; apparent

 

actual: existing in fact; real

 

This doesn't even make sense. Seeming + contradiction = no contradiction (as something appearing to be a contradiction isn't a contradiction). What you are saying here is:

 

I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means no contradiction instead of a contradiction.

 

Zeno's paradox is a contradiction, your statement makes no sense at all.

 

 

How??? Also there's nothing about absolute truth in this, why have you started talking about it?

 

 

How??? Again there is nothing about absolute truth in this thread. The paradox highlights that maths can successfully describe how an infinite number of steps can result in a finite outcome but a lingual theory can't. If we are going to bring a term like absolute truth into the debate it is a very basic standard to define such a term.

 

definition of absolute (philosophy):a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

 

As you can see maths holds closer to this definition than a lingual approach. Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. 1+1=2 is universal. If anything you bringing in absolute truth strengthens the case for mathematics.

 

 

Again this doesn't make sense. What you are saying here is:

 

There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as a contradiction but only as a non-contradiction, as long as you don't demand a solution that is universally valid which doesn't have to be put into context.

 

Let's wrap it up here. Zeno's paradox is a contradiction. Lingually it seems logical that an infinite number of processes or steps will not have a finite result. However, applying this logic to Achilles and the tortoise means that he can't overtake the tortoise. There is the contradiction. The lingual approach offers no answer that we know of yet. However, the mathematical approach does offer a solution to Achilles overtaking the tortoise. What's more it is absolute as the solution is universal and doesn't have to be applied to this situation to be true.It can be applied to any situation involving infinite steps and it still holds up.

 

In future avoid words you don't understand and define the terms you introduce. Also one liner that doesn't make sense doesn't disprove something. You have to explain why it disproves something.

Actually this has to do with psychology but what the heck.

 

The paradox of Zeno is a seeming contradiction thus not a contradiction at all if you accept that we can not know the absolute truth. We see in the real world Achilles overtake the tortoise, yet mathematically he will never do so. This proves that the mathematical world is not the same as the real world. Yet you conclude that it is the superior way to describe it: i.e. the "real"= perceived = observed world. That is a contradiction in your reasoning. For mathematics if you reason like that is then the same as a religion for your logic is then not on the goal of reaching the truth but on the goal of your accepted authority/ book/ bible or what not stating the presence of a mathematical absolute truth that contradicts with the observed world.

 

It thus only becomes a seeming contradiction = thus not a contradiction when you accept the fact that we can't observe an absolute truth yet only assume an absolute truth. If we can't observe an absolute truth, what do we then observe in pure mathematics other than an assumed absolute truth? If you don't assume that to be an assumption but an absolute then you have crossed over from pure science to the religion of science. I.e. believing in absolutes that haven't been observed. That 80% of scientists might agree with you only proves observed psychology correct that 80% of the fast thinkers are authority driven. I.e. have their logic on what the peers / group think for fear of loosing face. That then would constitute democratic science.

 

Any bible in science be it mathematical or what not that states to know the absolute truth is per bloody definition, pseudo science. Zeno in effect proves that.

[physica]

This is just waffle. Let's get concise. I notice you don't address any of my points head on, just waffle. Again I will quote you directly, this time actually reply to them.

 

 

Actually this has to do with psychology but what the heck.

What has psychology got to do with it?

 

 

We see in the real world Achilles overtake the tortoise, yet mathematically he will never do so.

I'm wondering if you've actually read anything on this or even the thread for that matter. The lingual approach states that it is impossible to overtake the tortoise because you can't lingually state that an infinite number of steps results in a finite process.

 

The mathematics actually says you can overtake the tortoise. Actually read my first post properly. It is the lingual statements of infinity that contradict the observed world and the mathematical statements of geometry (if the tortoise is stationary) and calculus (if the tortoise is moving) that don't contradict the observed world. Once you've read my original post properly you'll realise that the rest of your rambling actually argues in favour of mathematics.

Edited May 18, 2014 by physica

[kristalris]

This is just waffle. Let's get concise. I notice you don't address any of my points head on, just waffle. Again I will quote you directly, this time actually reply to them.

 

 

What has psychology got to do with it?

Well what does the instrument between your ears to do with it? Well ponder that a bit with that instrument that might tell you that you never make mistakes. If that instrument between those ears would indeed show these data, would that have to do with it? Of course it would. The simple fact that you even after having been pointed towards this problem still don't get it, shows that you have a lot to learn about that instrument in general and on what that means to your instrument in particular. Do you know what science in general has to say about your instrument?

[physica]

I like how you completely ignore the fact that you got the whole premise of your argument the wrong way round. Ok we can focus on another tangential conversation that you're leading us down. You've miserably lost the main area of the argument so you may as well derail this thread even further. Yes the brain is used in this discussion but this point has little to do with the argument. Why stop at psychology? Why not go into neuroscience?? Why not go into biochemistry of neuroscience?? I also needed to eat in order to function so I can type.

 

Instead of using vague statements to point out that psychology plays a role in this debate point out where I have gone wrong. I have been specific as to where the whole premise of your argument falls down. Saying vague stuff about psychology isn't relevant to a debate about maths being able to explain what lingual statements can't.

[kristalris]

I'm wondering if you've actually read anything on this or even the thread for that matter. The lingual approach states that it is impossible to overtake the tortoise because you can't lingually state that an infinite number of steps results in a finite process.

 

The mathematics actually says you can overtake the tortoise. Actually read my first post properly. It is the lingual statements of infinity that contradict the observed world and the mathematical statements of geometry (if the tortoise is stationary) and calculus (if the tortoise is moving) that don't contradict the observed world. Once you've read my original post properly you'll realise that the rest of your rambling actually argues in favour of mathematics hahahaha

Yes I've read and understood what it is what you try to depict. In lingual logic there is no problem what so ever. The paradox is only on the border between language and mathematics. You want to describe mathematics in words and conclude that language thus fails. It doesn't. It encompasses mathematics because it is more woolly. The latter is not a weakness but a strength. You are taking a one trick pony approach towards mathematics. Yet there are several norms applicable.

[physica]

It doesn't. It encompasses mathematics because it is more woolly. The latter is not a weakness but a strength.

Prove it. Make a lingual statement (without maths) that proves that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome.

 

 

Yes I've read and understood what it is what you try to depict.

Show me where I've quoted you how it depicts that you understand what the paradox is about???

 

 

The latter is not a weakness but a strength. You are taking a one trick pony approach towards mathematics. Yet there are several norms applicable.

 

The woolly approach is the weakness this is why the paradox is created. Can you be more specific about the norms???

 

Once again no specifics, just waffle

[kristalris]

I like how you completely ignore the fact that you got the whole premise of your argument the wrong way round. Ok we can focus on another tangential conversation that you're leading us down. You've miserably lost the main area of the argument so you may as well derail this thread even further. Yes the brain is used in this discussion but this point has little to do with the argument. Why stop at psychology? Why not go into neuroscience?? Why not go into biochemistry of neuroscience?? I also needed to eat in order to function so I can type.

 

Instead of using vague statements to point out that psychology plays a role in this debate point out where I have gone wrong. I have been specific as to where the whole premise of your argument falls down. Saying vague stuff about psychology isn't relevant to a debate about maths being able to explain what lingual statements can't.

I don't dispute that mathematics can do stuff that lingual statements can't. It is the other way round. Lingual statements can on the Lex parsimony more simply describe situations that are inherently woolly. You assume that you or mathematics knows the absolute truth on anything? Do you know any absolute truth? If so please fill it on the dotted line................. Your brain is not a vague entity it is an assumed fact. What it entails is maybe vague. Maybe vaguer for you than for me seeing the evidence you provide thereof in this thread.

 

The norms you ask? Well you are mutatis mutandis using the norm of absolute truth. A norm I dispute exists in our observable world other than as within the assumed world of pure mathematics. The latter in the real world does not constitute an absolute truth on that norm.

Edited May 18, 2014 by kristalris

[physica]

Ok so there are now 8 statements that I have raised that you have failed to address. I understand why because they punch massive holes in your argument. The major one being:

 

That is a contradiction in your reasoning. For mathematics if you reason like that is then the same as a religion for your logic is then not on the goal of reaching the truth but on the goal of your accepted authority/ book/ bible or what not stating the presence of a mathematical absolute truth that contradicts with the observed world.

 

Which is the wrong way round. The paradox reveals that lingual statements about infinity contradict reality and that the maths actually logically enforces reality. Of course you now glaze over this. Instead of showing a modicum of humility you then derail the thread further. Just for the record the thread is about possible lingual solutions to Zeno's paradox. Sigh here is the part where I correct every trash statement you've made in order for you to go down a tangential path on one correction I've made and throw out another three trash statements.

 

 

Lingual statements can on the Lex parsimony more simply describe situations that are inherently woolly.

Again this thread is about Zeno's paradox. He either overtakes the tortoise or he doesn't there's nothing woolly about it. Also lingual statements are not more simple. Words have more than one meaning and change throughout time. The value 2 has always been the value 2. Now it's easier for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about too make it look like they know what they're talking about because lingual approaches are more woolly but this doesn't solve problems or paradoxes. Now to avoid more off topic trash read my prompt: tell me how a more woolly approach aids in determining whether an event happened or not.

 

 

You assume that you or mathematics knows the absolute truth on anything? Do you know any absolute truth?

Where have I implied this???? show me. The only time I talk about absolute is:

 

 

Again there is nothing about absolute truth in this thread. The paradox highlights that maths can successfully describe how an infinite number of steps can result in a finite outcome but a lingual theory can't. If we are going to bring a term like absolute truth into the debate it is a very basic standard to define such a term.

definition of absolute (philosophy):a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

As you can see maths holds closer to this definition than a lingual approach. Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. 1+1=2 is universal. If anything you bringing in absolute truth strengthens the case for mathematics.

When I'm stating that maths hold closer to absolute truth than lingual that doesn't mean I'm saying absolute truth exists. I can say a horse is closer to a unicorn than a dog but again that doesn't mean I'm saying that unicorns exist.

 

Your brain is not a vague entity it is an assumed fact.

Where did I say it was??? again show me a quote. Another basic English lesson. You can say vague statements about something that isn't a vague entity. I can say vague statements about the earth, it doesn't mean that the earth is a vague entity.

 

To make it relevant to this thread you can say vague statements like this:

 

 

Well what does the instrument between your ears to do with it? Well ponder that a bit with that instrument that might tell you that you never make mistakes. If that instrument between those ears would indeed show these data, would that have to do with it? Of course it would. The simple fact that you even after having been pointed towards this problem still don't get it, shows that you have a lot to learn about that instrument in general and on what that means to your instrument in particular. Do you know what science in general has to say about your instrument?

But that doesn't mean that Achilles overtaking a tortoise is vague and abstract, or that the approach of applying maths to solve a problem that a lingual approach has failed to do is vague.

 

To conclude, you clearly misread and didn't understand zenos paradox which is proved the first quote in this post. Then to save face instead of admitting you made a mistake you went down this tangential path of absolute truth and you keep trying to pull me down that path implying that I think maths knows the absolute truth about everything. Here we are dealing with logic. Below is a definition:

 

Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.

 

 

 

[kristalris]

 

To conclude, you clearly misread and didn't understand zenos paradox which is proved the first quote in this post. Then to save face instead of admitting you made a mistake you went down this tangential path of absolute truth and you keep trying to pull me down that path implying that I think maths knows the absolute truth about everything. Here we are dealing with logic. Below is a definition:

 

Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_logic

 

Indeed you gave "a" definition of logic. Indeed you can put all logic to mathematics. Are you implying that all logic(in science) should be best be put to mathematics? If not why not? If so, your wrong. And that is indeed the topic namely does mathematics better deal with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox than lingual logic. So your thread derailment ploy is an easy way out when getting cornered.

 

The only thing wrong with the thread is that it belongs in general philosophy in stead of speculations.

 

May I assume you humble? Why is that important?

 

I'll reply to the rest in due course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2014 by kristalris

[physica]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_logic

 

Indeed you gave "a" definition of logic. Indeed you can put all logic to mathematics. Are you implying that all logic(in science) should be best be put to mathematics? If not why not? If so, your wrong. And that is indeed the topic namely does mathematics better deal with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox than lingual logic. So your thread derailment ploy is an easy way out when getting cornered.

yes I'm will strongly state that science is best put in mathematics. Zenos paradox is the prime example. There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

 

so to simplify it for you, you're wrong unless you can come up with a lingual solution to zeno's paradox, if you do then great because you'll be proving 100s of years and many famous philosophers wrong.

 

You think you're cornering me but you're really hanging yourself

 

I'm humble when I've been shown to completely misread a basic sentence, and base why whole argument on a basic misunderstanding of the topic and the black and white proof is posted in my face:

 

The paradox of Zeno is a seeming contradiction thus not a contradiction at all if you accept that we can not know the absolute truth. We see in the real world Achilles overtake the tortoise, yet mathematically he will never do so. This proves that the mathematical world is not the same as the real world. Yet you conclude that it is the superior way to describe it: i.e. the "real"= perceived = observed world. That is a contradiction in your reasoning. For mathematics if you reason like that is then the same as a religion for your logic is then not on the goal of reaching the truth but on the goal of your accepted authority/ book/ bible or what not stating the presence of a mathematical absolute truth that contradicts with the observed world.

 

A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy (link given above in post)

 

"That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)"

 

I know it's hard to take a bossing but it's fairly embarrassing to completely ignore the fact that the foundation of your argument was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding and then go on to accuse others of ploys and getting cornered. I can see now why you have a -60 rep

Edited May 21, 2014 by physica

[kristalris]

Ok so there are now 8 statements that I have raised that you have failed to address. I understand why because they punch massive holes in your argument. The major one being:

 

Which is the wrong way round. The paradox reveals that lingual statements about infinity contradict reality and that the maths actually logically enforces reality. Of course you now glaze over this. Instead of showing a modicum of humility you then derail the thread further. Just for the record the thread is about possible lingual solutions to Zeno's paradox. Sigh here is the part where I correct every trash statement you've made in order for you to go down a tangential path on one correction I've made and throw out another three trash statements.

 

 

A lingual statement about infinity is when dealing with seeming contradictions such as Zeno's paradox the best way to avoid making horrendous errors in reality reasoning like reasoning like you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

 

Zeno's paradox is not a real logical paradox. It only becomes that after you've made the mistake of not spotting it to be what it is: a seeming contradiction.

Only after you've made that mistake can indeed mathematics show that you did that. well then, don't make the mistake in the first place.

 

Infinity in mathematics is an absolute. In logic dealing with an actual problem in reality not necessarily so. What makes the Zeno paradox interesting is that it clearly divides the different instruments between the ears into the sorts they are in the way they treat the Zeno problem. Such as the question whether or not to take the cosmos infinite or not. In lingual approaches to such problems as Zeno you have an acceptable yet not exactly determinable room for error making it possible to act and act quickly using the instrument between the ears correctly on such questions. I.e. intuitively, and creatively by those with such an instrument. This can also be done of course via formal mathematics yet would be extremely arduous and provide an even higher error rate, As Zeno shows. If you take it - as you in reality should such problems - as a seeming contradiction, then it is game over before it really begun. All your further points are moot. Hence my reaction to them:

 

 

 

 

So after this reaction:

 

It only divides those creatively intelligent instruments who quickly spot that and those sometimes even highly intelligent yet non creative instruments that don't spot it into two clearly divided groups as neuro-psychology and psychology and history very clearly show like Zeno does.In a safe environment half the populaces score below average on an educated guess, and not only that they on average don't reach their intended goal. They are simply not built to guess, being a survival trait involving homour and imagination not for the fun of it but again for survival of the whole. As are the other needed in the same way by not guessing. Zeno is a clear divider as a psychological test so to speak.

 

So I humbly propose you admit to have made a mistake for then you can still claim above average creative intelligence. Yet if you are not creative why be so arrogant as to claim it? There are more forms of intelligence than just creative intelligence. I claim to be creatively intelligent and can prove that if you like. As for me spotting that Zeno is what it is: a seeming contradiction best solved in verbal logic.

yes I'm will strongly state that science is best put in mathematics. Zenos paradox is the prime example. There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

 

so to simplify it for you, you're wrong unless you can come up with a lingual solution to zeno's paradox, if you do then great because you'll be proving 100s of years and many famous philosophers wrong.

 

You think you're cornering me but you're really hanging yourself

 

I'm humble when I've been shown to completely misread a basic sentence, and base why whole argument on a basic misunderstanding of the topic and the black and white proof is posted in my face:

 

 

A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy (link given above in post)

 

"That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)"

 

I know it's hard to take a bossing but it's fairly embarrassing to completely ignore the fact that the foundation of your argument was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding and then go on to accuse others of ploys and getting cornered. I can see now why you have a -60 rep

Yes the democratic majority rule. Well, 80% of the populace including 80% of the fastest thinkers are "flawless freezers" i.e. in an unsafe environment will state what the authority states for their logic is on what they - above average correctly guess - what that authority will state on the subject. You simply like 80% / 50% can't get past the first point: it is worse than fools mate. Zeno is a non problem in reality: Achilles overtakes the tortoises barring a heart attack or a meteorite strike or the like. No contradiction. Then don't construe one! That is the lesson of Zeno.

Edited May 21, 2014 by kristalris

[physica]

Now most of you last post if just waffle but we do have something we can develop:

Zeno's paradox is not a real logical paradox. It only becomes that after you've made the mistake of not spotting it to be what it is: a seeming contradiction.

How is it? You can't just say something and not back it up. Now I'm going to have to repeat myself.

 

A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy

"That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)"

There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't.

http://plato.stanfor...s/paradox-zeno/

I know it's hard to take a bossing but answer my points directly.

Edited May 21, 2014 by physica

[studiot]

 

Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome.

 

Why can't you say it?

 

You , yourself just said it.

 

[kristalris]

Now most of you last post if just waffle but we do have something we can develop:

How is it? You can't just say something and not back it up. Now I'm going to have to repeat myself.

 

A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy

"That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)"

There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't.

http://plato.stanfor...s/paradox-zeno/

I know it's hard to take a bossing but answer my points directly.

I have to repeat myself. Put in a different way then: Do you dispute that Achilles beats the tortoise in reality? I guess you don't. Hence all the complicated mathematical / logical reasoning's that ensue are moot.And proven to be moot they don't need direct answers by me. It is thus only a seeming contradiction that follows. For only if Achilles in reality doesn't beet the tortoise do we have a contradiction with what we first thought was the answer.

 

Or put in an other way still: we have no contradiction to start with. Then you start complicating matters (= scientifically incorrect) into a seeming contradiction, that linguistically can't and mathematically can be solved glossing over the fact that you created a problem that linguistically wasn't there in the first place. Linguistic logic wins on the Lex parsimony in correctly and quickly solving the problem. a feat you can't as quickly and correctly do in mathematics.

 

The Lex parsimony BTW is a law of science. You strive for the truth in the most economic way: i.e. as complicated as needed yet as simple as possible. Solving Zeno needs nothing more than to state that Achilles probably always (given specific assumptions) will overtake the tortoise. Everything that then follows is on this fundamental law of science garbage in and thus moot.

 

In short: mathematics can't solve the inherent garbage in problem of Zeno if you as 80% / 50% of scientists due to the instrument between the ears simply can't help themselves from doing. That and that alone makes Zeno interesting for the same goes for say entanglement. A 6 year old Einstein would spot this immediately and not be beguiled by the authority. Only maybe at a later age he could of been beguiled but that then is social influence to which nearly no-one is completely impervious.

 

Oh BTW I wear my - 60 or so rep points with pride for the Bayesian inversion they entail. Authority question creative minds only see as a prior odds and thus worth little in a goal orientated debate. Now what does your deeming it important portray?

 

Edit and BTW can you exclude the possibility that Zeno gave his paradox to show the effect what happens when you make the first error? Namely that you end up in a complicated sometimes even unsolvable conundrum? Part of the psychology involved is nicely illustrated by Neil Armstrong's : "a small step for man, a large step for mankind." putting a whole lot of authority driven minds in a mind-loop. We know now for he said so that he meant to say "a" at the appropriate moment.

Edited May 21, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

kristalris,

This thread is about Zeno's paradox. It is not an invitation to discuss "the instruments between the ears", Lex parsimony as a law of science, Bayesian analysis, Einstein or any of the other of your favorite topics that you have threads for. Discuss them there, if they are still open.

It is also not the venue for responding to moderator notes.

[tar]

kristalris,

 

Thanks for understanding my argument.

 

Sorry you are engaged with Mr. Neg rep. I have ignored him, myself.

 

Paradoxical, as I have a rule that I must read a thread in its entirety before a respond to it, and its my thread, and the one person I meant to engage by it, is the one person I have ever had reason to want to ignore. (which I just recently, since this thread found out you could do.)

 

Anyway, be careful.

 

Regards, TAR

[physica]

kristalris,

Thanks for understanding my argument.

Sorry you are engaged with Mr. Neg rep. I have ignored him, myself.

Paradoxical, as I have a rule that I must read a thread in its entirety before a respond to it, and its my thread, and the one person I meant to engage by it, is the one person I have ever had reason to want to ignore. (which I just recently, since this thread found out you could do.)

Anyway, be careful.

Regards, TAR

Very noble of you Tar, trolls lurk under bridges and crawl out to call people names. Notice I haven’t done this when people are calling you out like the instant when someone compared your reasoning to a wet noodle, although I agreed with him I thought it would be too pathetic to cower behind that person and jeer yeah he is and not add anything to the conversation. And there's that time when you threw a hissy fit and branded me responsible for the neg rep you got off multiple people. Now you're calling me names, 5 year old kids must be envious of your maturity. Still I suppose it’s easier for me to take the moral high ground because I’m not getting completely bossed.

 

I have to repeat myself. Put in a different way then: Do you dispute that Achilles beats the tortoise in reality? I guess you don't. Hence all the complicated mathematical / logical reasoning's that ensue are moot.And proven to be moot they don't need direct answers by me. It is thus only a seeming contradiction that follows. For only if Achilles in reality doesn't beet the tortoise do we have a contradiction with what we first thought was the answer.

So now a mod has called you on your waffle we can actually concisely get down to what you’re saying. You’re saying that we see Achilles overtake the tortoise so we don’t have to logically describe it. I can see why you used all that waffle now. You’re certainly not a deep thinker; I’m a bit confused as to why you’re on a science forum if you take this position. I think your -60 rep is telling you that science isn’t for you.

 

You’re saying that even though logically there’s a paradox I’m going to ignore it because the observation tells me that it happens.

Anyone with a modicum of scientific ability should say: well the observation contradicts my logical approach to describe it; I must learn and improve my logic in order for it to fit the observation.

 

At least Tar tried to take a scientific/philosophical approach to it. Pity he then decided to cower under a bridge and jeer at people he didn't like as opposed to adding anything to the conversation. Don’t get me wrong Tar I’m not feeling angry, just pity towards you, I mean it can't feel great using the tactic you just pulled.

 

Luckily many great minds throughout history have grown out of childhood and thought deeply at Zeno’s paradox, that’s why there are multiple books on the subject, it holds a place in Stanford’s annuals of philosophy and is taught in many mathematical philosophy courses at many universities. It is also used to introduce mechanics in physics textbooks.

Edited May 23, 2014 by physica

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

tar, physica:

Potshots (direct or not) aren't particularly useful either. Please discuss the topic of the OP.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Here's the deal. We do and will not tolerate the use of insulting or offensive language towards members in any part of this forum.

 

kristalris and physica, if you cannot talk to each other in a mature and reasonable manner you will both find yourself on vacation from SFN. Since you both ignored previous warnings and PM's regarding your behaviour, I have split every single one of your posts after swansont's last note into the trash and I will continue to trash every single post either one of you make should it contain any rude or offensive language.

 

DO NOT insult the intellect or reading abilities of other members and if you could both to stop using words such as retarded to describe the arguments or personal traits of others, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Play nice or don't play at all. Your choice.

[kristalris]

So we can conclude that there are possible lingual solutions to paradoxes if these are only seeming contradictions such as Zeno.

 

The observation that Achilles will overtake the tortoise can be taken as a fact and thus we have a ready answer to our question whether or not Achilles will overtake the tortoise. It's a fact: he will. This concurs with the far more complex mathematical solution, and thus we can also conclude that on questions like these lingual logic is superior to mathematics in quickly and correctly solving the problem. The law of science the Lex parsimony is breached when questions are put up that have no relevance for they assume a contradiction that isn't there.