>Here is another example from those crazy Greeks who
>revered logic to their own detriment. This one comes
>from Zeno and goes like this:
>
>Before one can travel a mile, they must travel half a
>mile, and before that a quarter, and before that an
>eighth and so on infinitely.
>
>The paradox lies in how we ever get anywhere, since it
>is obvious anywhere we go requires us to traverse an
>infinite distance. Obviously, motion must not be real,
>because surely no one would argue we move an infinite
>distance each time we move!
>
>But of course, this conclusion is ridiculous. We do
>obviously move. We don't cover an infinite distance.
>
>So what say you Wade? Do you not believe in motion
>either? If this is not the case, show me the premise
>where Zeno was wrong.
First, I request you show me the premises (in the form of an ordered list) and the conclusion.
So far it seems the argument is this:
Before one can travel a mile, they must travel half a mile, and before that a quarter, and before that an eighth and so on infinitely.
Therefore: one cannot traverse a mile.
My response to this argument is that it is non sequitur. The argument is invalid (which, BTW, wasn't the case with the Tristram Shandy argument, since I provided a formal proof establishing its deductive validity). If we first travel a half-mile, then a quarter, then an eighth etc. it is true that if we follow this pattern we will never traverse a mile. But we can take different steps (e.g. traversing an eighth of a mile each time, rather than cutting the distance by half each time).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
