Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post Reply
jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by jamest » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:04 am

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Anyway, I'm quite impressed by this thread. It seems there are a couple of people* here with a very profound insight in mathematics. My hat off to you gentlemen!

*No Jamest, not you. :ddpan:
Actually, for once, you're correct. There are indeed one-or-two math gurus here present, and I'm not one of them. And neither are you. And we're all blessed that they've chosen to give their time to this thread, because it lends credibility to whatever can be gleaned from this thread. But you're missing my point if you think that I would ever challenge the math of a math guru. I wouldn't. I'm just attempting to challenge the logical foundations of specific mathematical premises that have been forthcoming - the philosophy of mathematics, to be exact.
Likewise, I don't have to be a scientist to question why a scientist would consider the empirical brain as the cause of empirical observation. Such questioning would stem from an understanding of metaphysical constraints, which perhaps the scientist does not understand.

You need to get it out of your head that one has to be a mathematical genius in order to attempt what I am attempting, in the same way that you would have to get it out of your head that one has to be a scientist to refute a scientific proof of consciousness (if such was forthcoming - though, apparently, SOS thinks that it already is).

I'm not here to address a mathematical proof, per se. I'm here [in an attempt] to address the rational basis for that subsequent proof. Again, I say, that this is a philosophy of mathematics discussion - not just a mathematics discussion. So, you have no need to bash my lack of mathematical prowess - which is adequate to address the proofs presented by XC - since none is needed in what I am intending to do. So, please, play another record now.

User avatar
Comte de Saint-Germain
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:37 pm
About me: Aristocrat, Alchemist, Grand-Conspirator
Location: Ice and High Mountains
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by Comte de Saint-Germain » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:31 am

jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Anyway, I'm quite impressed by this thread. It seems there are a couple of people* here with a very profound insight in mathematics. My hat off to you gentlemen!

*No Jamest, not you. :ddpan:
Actually, for once, you're correct. There are indeed one-or-two math gurus here present, and I'm not one of them. And neither are you.
Actually, I'm highly talented in Mathematics. I'm very good at statistical theory and analysis.
And we're all blessed that they've chosen to give their time to this thread, because it lends credibility to whatever can be gleaned from this thread. But you're missing my point if you think that I would ever challenge the math of a math guru. I wouldn't. I'm just attempting to challenge the logical foundations of specific mathematical premises that have been forthcoming - the philosophy of mathematics, to be exact.
Likewise, I don't have to be a scientist to question why a scientist would consider the empirical brain as the cause of empirical observation. Such questioning would stem from an understanding of metaphysical constraints, which perhaps the scientist does not understand.

You need to get it out of your head that one has to be a mathematical genius in order to attempt what I am attempting, in the same way that you would have to get it out of your head that one has to be a scientist to refute a scientific proof of consciousness (if such was forthcoming - though, apparently, SOS thinks that it already is).

I'm not here to address a mathematical proof, per se. I'm here [in an attempt] to address the rational basis for that subsequent proof. Again, I say, that this is a philosophy of mathematics discussion - not just a mathematics discussion. So, you have no need to bash my lack of mathematical prowess - which is adequate to address the proofs presented by XC - since none is needed in what I am intending to do. So, please, play another record now.
You are operating under the assumption that I'm someone you can handle. I'm not. You're a worm fighting an eagle here, and the sooner you realise this and start asking questions versus making silly claims for yourself, the sooner you are going to leave threads with your credibility in tact.

Playing another record? Why don't we try this one, from your original post:

"I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct)."

Apparently, you are no longer looking for flaws in the math - because others have as well as myself pointed out how absolutely inappropriate it is for you to even think you could do so. Now, you are discussing the philosophy of mathematics, another topic you are completely uneducated about. You talk about philosophy of consciousness as a parallel? I had a very extensive course on philosophy of consciousness. I'm quite capable within the field of neuroscience. Consequently, I know what I'm talking about in those discussions, you do not. The same is here, although I do not claim to have any specialist knowledge of this specific area of mathematics.
The original arrogant bastard.
Quod tanto impendio absconditur etiam solummodo demonstrare destruere est - Tertullian

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by jamest » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:14 am

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:I was very careful never to perform a single operation on the 'sum' as a whole. Every step involved actions on individual terms. That was the whole point in rewriting the proof (at great length, I might add.)
Firstly, I sincerely thank you for the effort and time that you have given to this thread.
Secondly, if I - as is apparent - misunderstood the basis of the second proof, then I apologise.
Thirdly, please read my last post to Jerome - any attempted counter here, by me, is reducible to a philosophical consideration of any math that have been forthcoming. I am not attempting to 'correct your math' per se.
Finally, I now actually do understand the basis of your 2nd proof and will proceed from that...

My counter to your 2nd proof will still be upon your initial foundation, though. So, you start with:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:[pre]1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + .... = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....[/pre]
There is still a problem here, even if we are not considering 'the sum' of anything. The problem now has to focus upon the ellipsis (... ), as SD mentioned.

... Here, you are equating one series with another. But, the problem is this: if the series of numbers (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....) has no end (is infinite), then any purported equivalences of that set must be finite, by logical default. That is, there can be no equivalences of anything unless it is in a definite/finite state. This is the my rational conclusion as per why you cannot state that:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + .... = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....
Thus, I am trying to argue that nothing is equivalent to anything else (including itself), unless that thing is in a finite state of being. Of course, I recognise that this requires further explanation, so I shall proceed:

Is the equivalence of a line without-end, just a line without-end? No, since both lines could be running through different places, at different times.
Such unending lines cannot be equivalent, then. So, what basis is there for equating unending lines? Not in their unendingness - as has been explained - but in their 'endedness'. That is, no unending line can be equivalent to another except in finite/definite terms. That is, the equivalence of one thing to another, demands the utilisation of definite/finite facts to facilitate that equivalence. Therefore, there is no equivalence of an unending line - even with itself - unless definite/finite claims impose an equivalence on such an unending line.

That is: (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + .... = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +....) is only true for definite/finite points of this series. The point being that since 'infinity' is an unknown quantity - and is neither definite nor finite - that the utilisation of the ellipsis (... ) means that there is no equivalence to anything beyond that which is definite or finite. I.e., one cannot equate anything with an ellipsis with anything else with an ellipsis, including 'itself'.

I.e.: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + .... 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +.... [except at definite/finite points of the series].

Of course, if correct, this counter renders any subsequent math as null & void.

Perhaps this is difficult to understand... I dunno. But, just ask and I will try to elucidate further. It beats responding with posts of near-infinite boobs, anyway. (edited to add that this is a generalised statement).
Last edited by jamest on Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by jamest » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:05 am

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Actually, I'm highly talented in Mathematics. I'm very good at statistical theory and analysis.
This misses the point of my post to you, which was about me explaining that my objective here is grounded in the philosophy of mathematics.
And we're all blessed that they've chosen to give their time to this thread, because it lends credibility to whatever can be gleaned from this thread. But you're missing my point if you think that I would ever challenge the math of a math guru. I wouldn't. I'm just attempting to challenge the logical foundations of specific mathematical premises that have been forthcoming - the philosophy of mathematics, to be exact.
Likewise, I don't have to be a scientist to question why a scientist would consider the empirical brain as the cause of empirical observation. Such questioning would stem from an understanding of metaphysical constraints, which perhaps the scientist does not understand.

You need to get it out of your head that one has to be a mathematical genius in order to attempt what I am attempting, in the same way that you would have to get it out of your head that one has to be a scientist to refute a scientific proof of consciousness (if such was forthcoming - though, apparently, SOS thinks that it already is).

I'm not here to address a mathematical proof, per se. I'm here [in an attempt] to address the rational basis for that subsequent proof. Again, I say, that this is a philosophy of mathematics discussion - not just a mathematics discussion. So, you have no need to bash my lack of mathematical prowess - which is adequate to address the proofs presented by XC - since none is needed in what I am intending to do. So, please, play another record now.
You are operating under the assumption that I'm someone you can handle. I'm not. You're a worm fighting an eagle here, and the sooner you realise this and start asking questions versus making silly claims for yourself, the sooner you are going to leave threads with your credibility in tact.
You'll have to forgive my impressions, Mister Eagle, as you haven't actually done anything, thus far, other than to flap your golden wings.
Playing another record? Why don't we try this one, from your original post:

"I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct)."

Apparently, you are no longer looking for flaws in the math - because others have as well as myself pointed out how absolutely inappropriate it is for you to even think you could do so.
If I have said anything here that has been misconstrued to believing that I was here to correct mathematical conclusions, then I apologise. I am here to undermine the premises for those conclusions, nothing else.
Now, you are discussing the philosophy of mathematics, another topic you are completely uneducated about.
Firstly, you don't know what I'm educated in.
Secondly, an education in philosophy (something of which, therefore, you assume that I have had nothing of) is not a necessity for good philosophy/reasoning, anyway. If such were the case, then no rational persons could exist, unless they had undertaken a serious course in philosophy... which is an absurd notion. Also, some of the most famous philosophers in history have taken no courses in philosophy. That is, their philosophy prevails because of its content... and not because of the shitty establishment that bestowed an award upon them.
You talk about philosophy of consciousness as a parallel? I had a very extensive course on philosophy of consciousness.
Oh, really. I guess then, since you passed the establishment exam and was able to parrot the required responses - from memory - that you think that this qualifies you as a good thinker (a good philosopher)? Not so. It just qualifies you as an intelligent parrot.
I'm quite capable within the field of neuroscience.
Of course you are, as if that is relevant, or as if I give a rat's backside.
Consequently, I know what I'm talking about in those discussions, you do not.
:mrgreen:

Sure, you've memorised everything that your establishment has taught you. I applaud that feat. Really, it does have some value. But none here.
The same is here, although I do not claim to have any specialist knowledge of this specific area of mathematics.
Sure; but, apparently, you also know enough to know that I'm talking through my arse, even though you have demonstrated zero capacity to think for yourself. Congratulations.

NOBODY stands on a pedestal high-enough to simply 'brush-aside' ANYBODY's reasoning. If you want to demonstrate that the person that you are debating with is wrong, then you will always be required to put your medals in the cupboard and actually address his/her arguments. Every time I try to have a serious discussion with you, it always ends-up being a medal-fest, for you.

Pull the pedestal from under me by addressing my arguments... not by showing me your medals. Gettit?

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:06 am

Will you two knock it off!

It is quite possible to have a constructive debate with someone without resorting to insulting them and questioning their qualifications, abilities and knowledge.

If you are so superior to the other, show it in the strength of your arguments and NOT in the vehemence of your polemics! And if you want a debate upon the educational worth of a philosophy degree, might I suggest the History, Geography & Education forum.

I wouldn't give a half-hearted wank on a wet Wednesday to see a pageful of bickering about who is better qualified to argue. All I want is to see the quality of your arguments. Is that clear?
:roll:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
The Dagda
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 pm
About me: I am mighty!
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by The Dagda » Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:14 am

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:
devogue wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote: Staff hat on.

Nobody in this thread has been trolling. So can we all kindly stop using the word to describe each other. Thanks.
Can we call each other wankers?
Wanker.

Anyway, I'm quite impressed by this thread. It seems there are a couple of people* here with a very profound insight in mathematics. My hat off to you gentlemen!

*No Jamest, not you. :ddpan:
Wanker.

sorry everyone was doing it. :biggrin:
"Religion and science are like oil and water, you can't expect to mix them and come up with a solution."

Me in one of my more lucid moments. 2004

User avatar
The Dagda
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 pm
About me: I am mighty!
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by The Dagda » Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:15 am

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Will you two knock it off!

It is quite possible to have a constructive debate with someone without resorting to insulting them and questioning their qualifications, abilities and knowledge.

If you are so superior to the other, show it in the strength of your arguments and NOT in the vehemence of your polemics! And if you want a debate upon the educational worth of a philosophy degree, might I suggest the History, Geography & Education forum.

I wouldn't give a half-hearted wank on a wet Wednesday to see a pageful of bickering about who is better qualified to argue. All I want is to see the quality of your arguments. Is that clear?
:roll:
We already have btw. Now its a matter of the two sides clearing away the dead and the OP signing a conditional surrender.

Division of 1 by x diverges but its the derivative of ln (x) and so has a general solution but is irrelevant anyway as the real equation of zeno's paradox converges at time = x anyway. Hence the derivative/calculated form of zenos paradox is the integral of ln (x) well in relation to half life anyway. Which simply means that dx/dt converges. As is proven by the proof of ln(x) = in general calculus.

Image
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
The Natural Logarithm

For real numbers, the following sections describe the area-under-a-curve definition of the natural logarithm, and how this introduction of the natural logarithm leads to the definition and properties of all logarithms, exponentials and powers involving real numbers.

PS: Search engines also send visitors to the Exponents, Radicals & logs section and to this this earlier single page lesson. Site pages on the natural logarithm altogether provide a full treatment.

The presentation here is to show briefly the approach I would like to see favored in schools. Working through the details of this exposition in its present form could be a subject for discussion in a high school math club. Understanding this section and the next demands or provides a sound command of some mathematics beyond arithmetic. Variants of the exposition given here may be presented less cryptically in other texts.

Site Reviews

* Magellan, the McKinley Internet Directory, 1996: Mathphobics, this site may ease your fears of the subject, perhaps even help you enjoy it. The tone of the little lessons and "appetizers" on math and logic is unintimidating, sometimes funny and very clear. There are a number of different angles offered, and you do not need to follow any linear lesson plan. Just pick and peck. The site also offers some reflections on teaching, so that teachers can not only use the site as part of their lesson, but also learn from it. (Magellan is no longer online)
* The World-Wide Web Virtual Library Education by Country - Canada 1, 2005. Why Slopes: Appetizers and Lessons for Math and Reason. This online classroom offers appetizers and lessons for math from arithmetic to calculus or why slopes; for deductive reason (logic) and critical thinking; and for learning in general. Included here are opinions on the communication of skills and mathematics instruction. The logic appetizers are math free. Each appetizer is different. If one is not to your liking try another. Most are from three books on understanding and explaining math and reason.

may encourage a visit to site entrance http://www.whyslopes.com.

The natural logarithm ln(a) for a > 0 can be introduced as the (signed) area under the curve y = [1/(s)] from s = 1 to s = a. Equivalently, it may be represented by the signed area under the curve u = [1/(v)] from v = 1 to v = a. This definition does not depend on the labelling of the horizontal and vertical axes. See the next two diagrams.

In the next diagram, the area from s = 1 to s = a > 1 can be approximated by slicing it into n vertical rectangles with the same base size [(a-1)/(n)], and then making this base size smaller by letting n-> ¥ (that is get larger and larger).


FOOTNOTE: The shorthand n-> ¥ should be read as n tends to (or goes to) infinity. It is left as an exercise for advance students to write on paper the Riemann sums whose limit is or should be the value L.

The sum of the area of the resulting rectangles approximates to a single number L with greater and greater accuracy, more decimal places say, as n -> . This single limit gives what we call ln(a).

Image


For a ³ 1, the value of ln(a) is given by the area from s = 1 to s = a under the curve y = [1/(s)]. Here we take or assume ln(1) = 0. It can be shown that ln(a) -> 0 when when a approaches 1 through values above or greater than 1.

The natural logarithm ln(b) of a number b when 0 < b < 1 is defined next.

Image

For 0 < b < 1, the value of ln(b) is given by (-1) times the area under the curve y = [1/(s)] from s = b to s = 1.

The above two diagram illustrate the arithmetic or area-based definition of the natural logarithm ln(a) or ln(b) in the two mutually exclusive cases a > 1 and 0 < b < 1. These definitions imply that ln(x) -> 0 = ln(1) when x -> 1.

Reading Guide. The rest of this section states and indicates the proofs of two algebraic properties of the natural logarithm. The first proof is easy. The second proof is cryptic - material for advanced students. The next section briefly indicates the relationship between the inverses of the logarithms and exponential functions - more material for advance students. Consult another calculus or analysis text for the missing details.
Proof of Property ln([1/(b)]) = -ln(b) for b > 0.

We will show that 0 = ln(b)+ln([1/(b)]) when b > 0. For this, first consider the case a > 1. In the following diagram
Area(A)

=

(a-1) 1 a = 1 - 1 a
Area(C)

=

(1- 1 a ) 1 = 1 - 1 a

By symmetry (or reflection across the line y = s), ln(a) = Area(B)+Area(A). Therefore ln(a) = Area(B)+Area(C)

Image

Here A is the rectangle with corners (0,1) and (1/a, 1) while C is the rectangle with corners (1/a,0) and (1,1)

Now by definition -ln([1/(a)]) = Area(B)+Area(C).
Therefore -ln([1/(a)]) = ln(a).

This in turn implies ln([1/(a)])+ln(a) = 0.whenever a > 1.

Finally, we conclude ln([1/(b)])+ln(b) = 0 whenever b > 0. This follows by putting a = b if b ³ 1 and by putting a = [1/(b)] if 0 < b < 1.) The latter is equivalent to the property ln([1/(b)]) = -ln(b) which we wanted to show.
Fundamental Property of Logarithms
Next we may derive the fundamental property of logarithms, that is
ln(ab) = ln(b) +ln(a).
(This holds when a = 1 and b > 0 since ln(1) = 0 by definition.) We will now consider the case where a > 1 and b > 0. For this it suffices to reconsider how the number ln(a) is computed. Two ways to show this are indicated next.

Sketch of A First Demonstration

1. Divide the interval [1,a] on the s-axis into n ³ 1 segments using the end points si = 1+i·[(a-1)/(n)] where 1 £ i £ n. Each segment has length [(a-1)/(n)].

2. On each segment [si,si+1] construct a rectangle whose top just touches the curve y = [1/(s)] at y = [1/(si)]. The sum Sn of the areas
Aj = yj·(si+1-si) = yi· a-1 n

of these rectangles provides an approximation to ln(a) which we assume becomes more accurate as n is made larger.

3. Now the rectangle with base [si,si+1] and height [1/(si)] has the same area as the rectangle with base [bsi,bsi+1] and height [1/(bsi)]. But the rectangles with base segments [bsi,bsi+1] and height [1/(bsi)] approximate the area Sba under the curve y = [1/(s)] from s = b to s = ba. So taking the limit as n -> ¥ suggests Sba = ln(a).

4. Drawing a graph suggests or implies Sba = ln(ab) -ln(b). Therefore ln(a) = Sab = ln(ab)-ln(b) as well. So we are done in the first case where a > 1 and b > 0. That is, the area Sba under the curve y = [1/(s)] from s = b to s = ba equals the area under the curve y = [1/(s)] from s = 1 to s = ba minus the areas from s = 1 to s = b.

Now the fundamental property of logarithms, that is ln(ab) = ln(b) +ln(a) holds whenever at least one of the factors a and b is greater than 1 (since addition and multiplication of real numbers is commutative.) Now observe for c > 0 that 0 = ln(1) = ln( [1/(c)] ·c) = ln([1/(c)])+ln(c) since c or its reciprocal must be ³ 1. Hence ln(c) = -ln([1/(c)]). This was shown before with the aid of some diagrams. The latter equality prepares us to treat the sole remaining case where both numbers a and b are between 0 and 1. In this case,
ln(ab)

=

-ln( 1 ab )

=

-ln( 1 a 1 b )

=

-[ln( 1 a )+ln( 1 b )]

=

-ln( 1 a ) + -ln( 1 b ) = ln(a)+ln(b)
as required. Therefore ln(ab) = ln(a)+ln(b) holds whenever a and b are both positive.

This indicates a simple demonstration of the fundamental property for the natural logarithm ln(x) for x > 0. The sketch of an alternative proof follows.

Image

Sketch of a Second Demonstration. For a > 0, put G(x) = ln(ax). Then value of G(x) is given by the (signed) area from s = 1 to s = ax under the curve y = [1/(s)]. Observe G(1) = ln(a). The area of region D in the following diagram equals G(x+Dx)-G(x).


The height of the region D is approximately [1/(ax)] and its length is precisely a(x+Dx) - ax = aDx. Therefore
G(x+Dx)-G(x) » Area(D) = 1 ax ·aDx = 1 x ·Dx
This suggests that
G¢(x) =
lim
Dx-> 0
G(x+Dx)-G(x) Dx = 1 x
Similarly F(x) = ln(x) implies that F¢(x) = [1/(x)]. This implies by the Constant Difference Theorem that
ln(ax)-ln(x) = G(x)-F(x) = d
is constant. To evaluate the constant, observe that
d = G(1)-F(1) = ln(a)-ln(1) = ln(a)
since ln(1) = 0. Thus we conclude ln(ax)-ln(x) = ln(a) or equivalently
ln(ax) = ln(a)+ln(x)
as required.

The height of the region D is approximately [1/(ax)] and its length is precisely a(x+Dx) - ax = aDx. Therefore
G(x+Dx)-G(x) » Area(D) = 1 ax ·aDx = 1 x ·Dx
This suggests that
G¢(x) =
lim
Dx-> 0
G(x+Dx)-G(x) Dx = 1 x
Similarly F(x) = ln(x) implies that F¢(x) = [1/(x)]. This implies by the Constant Difference Theorem that
ln(ax)-ln(x) = G(x)-F(x) = d
is constant. To evaluate the constant, observe that
d = G(1)-F(1) = ln(a)-ln(1) = ln(a)
since ln(1) = 0. Thus we conclude ln(ax)-ln(x) = ln(a) or equivalently
ln(ax) = ln(a)+ln(x)
as required.
Logarithms To Base a > 0

The logarithm to base a > 0 is given by loga(x) = [(ln(x))/(ln(a))] when a ¹ 1. The property ln(ax) = ln(a)+ln(x) now implies logc(ab) = logc(b) +logc(a) holds when a, b and c are all positive real numbers with c ¹ 1. The proof is a simple algebraic exercise. Further note that ln(e) = 1 implies loge(x) = ln(x).
Aristotle solved this over 2000 years ago but clearly some peoples education is still set in the pre classical times.
"Religion and science are like oil and water, you can't expect to mix them and come up with a solution."

Me in one of my more lucid moments. 2004

User avatar
FedUpWithFaith
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by FedUpWithFaith » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:02 am

jamest wrote:The following quote, by Xamonas Chegwé, is from a recent post in the 'On treeness of Oak1, and other things' thread. It provides the basic math which supposedly counters Zeno's paradox about motion. I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct).
OK, I've finally read through this thread. For me, the argument hinges on what I bolded above, not the math. The math XC has presented is correct and infinitesimals were unknown to Zeno. A sum of infinitesimals can be finite. However, XC's math is also incomplete since he is not really addressing spacetime, only apparently space. Otherwise, simply restating Zeno's paradox as one infinite series doesn't prove anything. One could restate the paradox as the impossibility from going from discrete point A to discrete point B in a discrete amount of time. How does one spatial infinite series prove that? It doesn't. The argument I see here about series convergence is somewhat irrelevant.

Now, that is not to say that Zeno's paradox is not mathematically resolvable. It is, but it takes Cauchy's help to do it, not just XC's oversimplified approach.

However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.

User avatar
Comte de Saint-Germain
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:37 pm
About me: Aristocrat, Alchemist, Grand-Conspirator
Location: Ice and High Mountains
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by Comte de Saint-Germain » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:34 am

FedUpWithFaith wrote:
jamest wrote:The following quote, by Xamonas Chegwé, is from a recent post in the 'On treeness of Oak1, and other things' thread. It provides the basic math which supposedly counters Zeno's paradox about motion. I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct).
OK, I've finally read through this thread. For me, the argument hinges on what I bolded above, not the math. The math XC has presented is correct and infinitesimals were unknown to Zeno. A sum of infinitesimals can be finite. However, XC's math is also incomplete since he is not really addressing spacetime, only apparently space. Otherwise, simply restating Zeno's paradox as one infinite series doesn't prove anything. One could restate the paradox as the impossibility from going from discrete point A to discrete point B in a discrete amount of time. How does one spatial infinite series prove that? It doesn't. The argument I see here about series convergence is somewhat irrelevant.

Now, that is not to say that Zeno's paradox is not mathematically resolvable. It is, but it takes Cauchy's help to do it, not just XC's oversimplified approach.

However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
You're just doing Jamest's work for him. If he wishes to show that Zeno's paradox does not apply to reality, he will need physical evidence to demonstrate the incongruence between mathematical theory - as offered here - and empirical data. So far, nothing like that has happened. This thread hasn't matured beyond some people offering relatively basic mathematics and others not understanding it. No philosophy of mathematics has even been discussed yet - except by you.
The original arrogant bastard.
Quod tanto impendio absconditur etiam solummodo demonstrare destruere est - Tertullian

User avatar
FedUpWithFaith
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by FedUpWithFaith » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:25 am

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:
FedUpWithFaith wrote:
jamest wrote:The following quote, by Xamonas Chegwé, is from a recent post in the 'On treeness of Oak1, and other things' thread. It provides the basic math which supposedly counters Zeno's paradox about motion. I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct).
OK, I've finally read through this thread. For me, the argument hinges on what I bolded above, not the math. The math XC has presented is correct and infinitesimals were unknown to Zeno. A sum of infinitesimals can be finite. However, XC's math is also incomplete since he is not really addressing spacetime, only apparently space. Otherwise, simply restating Zeno's paradox as one infinite series doesn't prove anything. One could restate the paradox as the impossibility from going from discrete point A to discrete point B in a discrete amount of time. How does one spatial infinite series prove that? It doesn't. The argument I see here about series convergence is somewhat irrelevant.

Now, that is not to say that Zeno's paradox is not mathematically resolvable. It is, but it takes Cauchy's help to do it, not just XC's oversimplified approach.

However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
You're just doing Jamest's work for him. If he wishes to show that Zeno's paradox does not apply to reality, he will need physical evidence to demonstrate the incongruence between mathematical theory - as offered here - and empirical data. So far, nothing like that has happened. This thread hasn't matured beyond some people offering relatively basic mathematics and others not understanding it. No philosophy of mathematics has even been discussed yet - except by you.

Pardon me. I didn't realize there was a protocol here and the main purpose of the thread was to make jamest look like an idiot. I read the title of the thread and thought I might have something to offer the debate. Silly me.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by jamest » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:45 am

FedUpWithFaith wrote: However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
I would argue that quantized parts of space-time makes no sense, since each part would have to be indivisible and movement through them would be instantaneous. So, if movement is reducible to the passage of an entity through discrete portions of space-time, then it would always move from one place to the next, in an instant, regardless of where that place was.

User avatar
FedUpWithFaith
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by FedUpWithFaith » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:56 am

jamest wrote:
FedUpWithFaith wrote: However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
I would argue that quantized parts of space-time makes no sense, since each part would have to be indivisible and movement through them would be instantaneous. So, if movement is reducible to the passage of an entity through discrete portions of space-time, then it would always move from one place to the next, in an instant, regardless of where that place was.

Well, James, it makes sense to me (at least as much as QM does in general) and my guess is that you'll have to deal with that as "part of reality" in your lifetime. I'd bet my house space and time are both quantized and that it makes no sense to speak of something passing through some intermediary postion any more than you can speak of intermediary energy states at the atomic scale.

Since I believe in "It from Bit" that the universe/multiverse is one big universal Turing machine, this solution not only doesn't bother me, it supports this thesis. Think about a computer simulation in a video game. All the action occurs through discrete frames. I don't think reality is any different. We're just dealing in Planck Time on Planck Lengths instead of 24-30 frames per second.

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by Surendra Darathy » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:39 pm

FedUpWithFaith wrote:However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality?
It's not because of any certainty that mathematics is inadequate to model "reality". It's because Zeno's paradox is an ill-posed question about "reality" intended to treat the empirical with worse than mere skepticism. This is the work of the metaphysicians, and is the reason this unfortunate thread is happening at all.
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real.
Well, when you get right down to it, nothing is "necessarily" anything for those trying to do metaphysics, if you want to abuse the language and pretend that physics is metaphysics. The ontologic status of mathematical relationships does not have to be settled before one engages in the use of mathematical modeling. One does metaphysics by choice and not necessity.

Density functional theory (DFT) and band structure models go quite a nice long way to modeling the mechanical properties of what are colloquially known as "solids", quantum structures extended in "space-time". That's how we come to have "solid state physics", and few professional solid state physicists have much time for metaphysics.
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal.
And despite how well the mathematics of continuous functions works to model the dynamics of macroscopic objects, there are still people who don't care how well something works if it doesn't perfectly describe what something is, in the "really-o, truly-o" sense. The mathematical approaches illustrated in this thread have delivered reasoning intended to allow someone a stop at which to climb off of the metaphysics bus. So many have now climbed off the metaphysics bus now that a short bus is all that is required to carry metaphysics onward.
FedUpWithFaith wrote:In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized.
At the Planck scale. This need have no interference with modeling macroscopic bodies as solid objects persisting in time, whose behavior is well-modeled by continuous functions. Is there something about the behavior of macroscopic objects that is not thus well-modeled? (Is consciousnessness waiting in the wings, here? If it is, we can just pose Zeno's paradox as a problem in consciousnessness!) Is all of metaphysics going to be settled when what James labels as "apparency" is given a definition?
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
In order to do so, it might be necessary to show that modeling the position and momentum of every particle localised in the arrow in flight and in the air molecules around it, and so on, is really an appropriate activity for a human being with nothing more than a biologically-based "consciousnessness".

To summarise briefly, the sort of "epistemic hunger" that leads someone to do metaphysics is not a sign of strength. At best it is an aspect of human behavior lodged safely in the woo zoo. When he or she can bend a spoon with it, I'll take note of it as a sign of "strength".
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Since I believe in "It from Bit" that the universe/multiverse is one big universal Turing machine, this solution not only doesn't bother me, it supports this thesis. Think about a computer simulation in a video game. All the action occurs through discrete frames. I don't think reality is any different. We're just dealing in Planck Time on Planck Lengths instead of 24-30 frames per second.
And when you model something empirical with the concept, you will be doing something more than intellectual masturbation. Hint: You will need a very big tool to pull this one off. No pun intended.

The fact that the shelves of bookstores are stuffed with pseudo-physics books is a product of the dynamics of the publishing industry and the further fact that a few famous physicists would like a little extra pin money. They certainly don't get rich working for universities, unless they become administrators.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
FedUpWithFaith
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by FedUpWithFaith » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:03 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
FedUpWithFaith wrote:However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality?
It's not because of any certainty that mathematics is inadequate to model "reality". It's because Zeno's paradox is an ill-posed question about "reality" intended to treat the empirical with worse than mere skepticism. This is the work of the metaphysicians, and is the reason this unfortunate thread is happening at all.
What's this chip on your shoulder? Zeno's paradox asks interesting questions that have interesting explanations and/or implications in the mathematical and physical realms. You seem to seethe with the base assumption that metaphysicians are charlatans out to bamboozle an unwitting public. Unlike many so-called metaphysical questions this one has logical, mathematical, and physical solutions that help in answering other conundrums. It is partly a scientific question.
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real.
Well, when you get right down to it, nothing is "necessarily" anything for those trying to do metaphysics, if you want to abuse the language and pretend that physics is metaphysics. The ontologic status of mathematical relationships does not have to be settled before one engages in the use of mathematical modeling. One does metaphysics by choice and not necessity.
I'm pretending nothing of the sort. Get off your high horse. I'm not the one here who seems to have an ideological score to settle. I already agreed that mathematics "works" to model the physical world. I agree, you don't have to settle its ontology or supervenience to use it. But you have no curiosity about why it works? I don't pretend that physics is metaphysics. But there have been plenty of metaphysical questions that became physics. It's just that when they originated, we didn't have the physics to see how that could be. I think the reason math works so well to model our universe may have something deeper to tell us about the universe itself than we already understand. Asking questions about why that is may be or appear physical or metaphysical. It seems, from your perspective, that anything explicable/resovable is physical and metaphysics covers only the inexplicable/unresolvable. If true, how do you necessarily know which is which from the outset? Don't tell, me, that's metaphysical! :shiver:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal.
And despite how well the mathematics of continuous functions works to model the dynamics of macroscopic objects, there are still people who don't care how well something works if it doesn't perfectly describe what something is, in the "really-o, truly-o" sense. The mathematical approaches illustrated in this thread have delivered reasoning intended to allow someone a stop at which to climb off of the metaphysics bus.
Very presumptive of you. Did you read the physicist David Mermin's papers I posted in the other thread. Issues of the "reality" or physical nature of mathematics and information are critical to the very interpretation of some scientific theories without invoking metaphysics at all and this is increasingly the case.
So many have now climbed off the metaphysics bus now that a short bus is all that is required to carry metaphysics onward.
Cute, did you make that one up yourself? ;)
FedUpWithFaith wrote:In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized.
At the Planck scale. This need have no interference with modeling macroscopic bodies as solid objects persisting in time, whose behavior is well-modeled by continuous functions. Is there something about the behavior of macroscopic objects that is not thus well-modeled?
This question isn't even relevant to my posts nor to the problem at hand. The issue only occurs at the level of the microscopic and at what point nature contains discrete or infinitesimal "things".
(Is consciousnessness waiting in the wings, here? If it is, we can just pose Zeno's paradox as a problem in consciousnessness!) Is all of metaphysics going to be settled when what James labels as "apparency" is given a definition?
Why all this suspicion and second-guessing? You treat me like I'm part of some conspiracy with James. Hell, as if my screen name isn't a giveaway, I'm an atheist and a skeptic. I'm no woo believer either. I do like to join the underdog from time to time. James didn't ask for my help and I'll turn on him in a second and bite him if I think he's full of shit - as i did about his mathematic argument against XC. I was just polite about it.
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
In order to do so, it might be necessary to show that modeling the position and momentum of every particle localised in the arrow in flight and in the air molecules around it, and so on, is really an appropriate activity for a human being with nothing more than a biologically-based "consciousnessness".
Huh?
FedUpWithFaith wrote:Since I believe in "It from Bit" that the universe/multiverse is one big universal Turing machine, this solution not only doesn't bother me, it supports this thesis. Think about a computer simulation in a video game. All the action occurs through discrete frames. I don't think reality is any different. We're just dealing in Planck Time on Planck Lengths instead of 24-30 frames per second.
And when you model something empirical with the concept, you will be doing something more than intellectual masturbation. Hint: You will need a very big tool to pull this one off. No pun intended.


Digital physics is moving in that direction. It has testable hypotheses, though, like M-theory, we don't know how to do practical experiments yet.
The fact that the shelves of bookstores are stuffed with pseudo-physics books is a product of the dynamics of the publishing industry and the further fact that a few famous physicists would like a little extra pin money. They certainly don't get rich working for universities, unless they become administrators.
This is an arrogant and ignorant statement. If you knew anything about digital physics, you'd know that the main proponents not only haven't profited by it but have tended to suffer, like Fredkin has, for advocating such ideas. Fortunately, he is already a multimillionaire from his inventions as Wolfram is. Wheeler, Tegmark, Schmidhuber, t'Hooft (Nobel prize winner), Chaitin and other supporters of digital physics/philosophy don't fit the stereotype strawman you created to support your fallacious argument. Sorry.

User avatar
The Dagda
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 pm
About me: I am mighty!
Contact:

Re: Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

Post by The Dagda » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:21 pm

FedUpWithFaith wrote:
jamest wrote:The following quote, by Xamonas Chegwé, is from a recent post in the 'On treeness of Oak1, and other things' thread. It provides the basic math which supposedly counters Zeno's paradox about motion. I shall be attempting to find flaws not just in the math, but in the extent to which the math can be applied to 'reality' (assuming the math is even correct).
OK, I've finally read through this thread. For me, the argument hinges on what I bolded above, not the math. The math XC has presented is correct and infinitesimals were unknown to Zeno. A sum of infinitesimals can be finite. However, XC's math is also incomplete since he is not really addressing spacetime, only apparently space. Otherwise, simply restating Zeno's paradox as one infinite series doesn't prove anything. One could restate the paradox as the impossibility from going from discrete point A to discrete point B in a discrete amount of time. How does one spatial infinite series prove that? It doesn't. The argument I see here about series convergence is somewhat irrelevant.

Now, that is not to say that Zeno's paradox is not mathematically resolvable. It is, but it takes Cauchy's help to do it, not just XC's oversimplified approach.

However, does all this math really answer Zeno's paradox in reality? Not necessarily. Mathematics is an excellent tool to model reality and it "works" but it isn't necessarily real. Here, It makes the underlying assumption that infinite series themselves "exist" in reality and that space and time are infinitesimal. That may not be correct. In fact, physics is increasingly pointing to the possibility that space and time are quantized. Ironically, if true, that would offer us an alternative solution to Zeno's Paradox that may be far more fascinating than the one we've been discussing.
Axiomatically yes, philosophically no, if you define time as something where infinite things can happen in then it is still a paradox, but maths infinities are not real infinities even the Greeks new this and had several classes of infinity. Those that were uncountable because they were unbound that could exist like the universe, and those that could not and thus were transcendant and purely philosophical. Today people get hung up on singularity maths but for me that is a semantic issue that has little to do with reality. Experiment is important IRL if I fire an arrow it always has a chance to hit someone, a bouncing ball always stops bouncing and that is because of the maths of the real not the semantic. Maths that does not reflect reality is a curiosity for example cantors hypothesis is a conceptual issue as bigger than infinity doesn't exist any more than infinity does. it might be useful in set theory to say that the whole numbers are smaller than the transcendent decimals but that has no real practical use past planks constant.
"Religion and science are like oil and water, you can't expect to mix them and come up with a solution."

Me in one of my more lucid moments. 2004

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests