[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 220x220, Zeno_Achilles_Paradox.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11750319 No.11750319 [Reply] [Original]

>blocks your path

>> No.11750336

What if the man was Usain Bolt?

>> No.11750404

>>11750319
I'll take Calc for 200 Alex

>> No.11750427

>>11750404
This human invented abstraction is often mistakenly believed to be more fundamental than reality

>> No.11750444

>>11750319

why set some arbitrary limit?

>> No.11750445
File: 14 KB, 355x236, 17vwn0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11750445

>>11750427
based

>> No.11750455

What is the problem here? Some old-as-fuck greek making assumptions from an inherently wrong model of reality?

>> No.11750487

>>11750427
Not wrong, but its application here is to account for the shortcomings of the abstract conception of distance, space, and change that preceded calculus.

>> No.11750524

>>11750487
Take the real step and abandon the idea that reality is divisible

>> No.11750534

>>11750455
We make the assumption of forwards and passing to this day.

>> No.11750581

>>11750524
I'm aware of this line of argument and am even inclined to agree with it. My only only issue is when it denies the applicability of concepts like calculus. Especially when the entire purpose of calculus is to account for continuous change between points of no discrete dimension.

>> No.11750634

>>11750581
applicability to which end

>> No.11750693

>>11750634
Describing and predicting motion and change.

It's obviously not a necessary tool (https://phys.org/news/2007-10-relativity-derived-calculus-possibly.html)) but it's hardly ever the wrong tool.

>> No.11750704

>>11750693
no one is saying it doesnt have practical use

>> No.11750793

>>11750704
If it has consistent practical use then that means something has to line up with reality. At the very least there has to be some account for it, whether it be ontological, epistemological, or whatever else. I'm all for the dismantling of logical systems, but there has to be some intellecual labor involved.

Turning the question around, to what end is calculus not applicable where one should expect it to be?

>> No.11750807

>>11750793
when it tries to grip reality through its most basic metaphysic paradoxes arise

>> No.11750834

>>11750319
HOLY SHIT ACHILLES BTFO BY A TORTOISE AHAHAHA
And of course the greeks and their idolaters could never recover from the butthurt.

>> No.11750846

>>11750427
your pic related is a human invented abstraction

>> No.11750862

>>11750846
right...

>> No.11750880

>>11750793
new anon entering your discussion, but practical is in the eyes of the beholder. im not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but it seems to be something like the insipid "science works" line. i can use abstractions to do all sorts of things but that doesnt make them anything more than abstractions. i can observe and predict the probability of a coin flip, but seeing what is in front of me as objects like "coin," "heads" or "tails" and not seeing it instead as, say, a mass of copper and nickel waving around arbitarily in the midst of nitrogen and oxygen is subjective. even things like "copper" and "nickel" are abstractions. it goes all the way down, bro

>> No.11751046

>>11750880
/gif fapper here, I'm piggy-backing this comment to say that it's all is abstraction. All is consciousness.

>> No.11751969

What happens when he reaches the turtle?

>> No.11752137

>>11750880
If you all you have access to is abstractions then you can't know that abstraction is at the bottom. If abstraction isn't at the bottom, then your abstractions are related to something real.

>>11751046
If all is abstraction, then there is no abstraction. It's like saying that literally everything is simulation -- if there is no source of simulation then it's not simulation.

>> No.11752183

>>11750319
ELI5

"paradox" was always too kind of a word for this nonsensical reasoning

if it demonstrates something, it would be that if an thought construct doesn't match with a plausible reality, the thought construct is likely to be thrown to the trash (instead of being mistaken as toodeeeeep4u)

>> No.11752889

>>11752183
upvote!

>> No.11752902

>>11750427
Doesn't mean it's wrong tho

>> No.11752904

>>11750524
Of course it isn't, division is just an abstract concept that we attach to the notion of splitting sometimes

>> No.11752909

>>11750807
Yeah, but it solves this one

>> No.11752938

>>11752909
nope

>> No.11753008

>>11750427
math is more fundamental than reality u mong

>> No.11753233

>>11753008
yikes

>> No.11753310

>>11753008
Hmong

>> No.11753317

>>11750427
Reality sucks mate, there's nothing fundamental about it

>> No.11753410
File: 37 KB, 586x578, 1517623177305.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11753410

>>11753317

>> No.11753416

>>11753410
I dream in code bro

>> No.11753505

If maths doesn't accurately reflect real life, the maths is wrong.

[muffled abstract mathsfags in the distance]

>> No.11753520

>>11750319
This show how two perfectly logical approaches to solving a problem can have very different solutions. Logic is a human construct, and whilst maybe not ''flawed'', it is not completely objective.

>> No.11753551
File: 990 KB, 737x1768, PeirceStandingFistOnHip(2).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11753551

>>11750319
Based, blocking someone's path really shows how continuous it is.

>> No.11753854

It's amazing how there are people today who are as stupid as a dirty retarded Greek from the BCs

>> No.11755007

Little did Achilles know, if he threw his helmet at the tortoise he would've made a leap by the golden ratio smaller than the previous and taken the tortoise home with him. Sadly, his role has been reduced to this.