I have never understood this. Yeah, it works as a mind statement and theorically, but in a pratical and realistic way Achilles would eventually pass the tortoise since he simply is faster. How could it be a paradox besides its mental amplication? It doesn't have any sense.
>>41382502There is some retarded phrasing about Achilles running to where the turtle was, even though in a race the contestants are running towards the goal, not towards each other.Philosophically it is, like most of its kind, naval gazing with no bearing on reality. Maybe it astounds math nerds but it has no use in the real world.
bump
>>41382502That Zenon was the stupid one, there is another Zenon thay was smarter, but let's get a go to the fumb Zenon, point to him and laugh at his face.He tried hard to sound logical, and refute the possibility of movement. But in practical you don't have a Dimensionless Achilles running at same pace as the constant velocity dimensionless turtle.Even at his time the argument was dumb.Now let's have a laugh.
>>41382502anon, its used to explain mathematics, those olds greeks were speaking to students
>>41382502aristotle explains it well in the metaphysics (or physics idr), it's about potential vs actual divisibility and movement in relation to things. You are probably thinking about movement in terms of in an absolute like XYZ coordinate space, the greeks thought about movement in terms of relation. If things are actually infinitely divided (say everything was composed of smaller particles) you would never be able to move or do anything because of how infinity works. I'd think of it more "describing" achille's approach, if you were able to DESCRIBE his approach to the tortoise you'd never be able to say he'd reach it.he'd be at .9 then .99 then .999 then .9999 then .9999 your explanation would never actually be able to say he arrives at the tortoise because a full description would always make you add another digit.The distinction is things aren't actually divided, we can just potentially divide them in abstraction. In order to describe the movement of something you basically have to be moving over specific things (the idea reality exists in a 3d modeling program that has xyz coordinate space is a rather modern idea they did not have, you assuming this is why it doesn't make sense to you)Aristotle talks about this in his description of potential vs actual infinite. You can describe things infinitely in abstraction or something having the capacity to potentially be infinite, however anything ACTUALLY infinite would immediately just like consume the universe and overwhelm everything else in relation. It's about distinguishing the actual vs potential of physical things as they change.Zeno's paradox was showing change is impossible because they are describable to infinity and you are not ever able to show a discrete change because you are always able to define them at a smaller detail. Aristotle is just showing those smaller details are abstractions of the potential in things, not an actual reality. this is also about change in general, not just movement
>>41384800Really good answer.
>>41384800>and you are not ever able to show a discrete change because you are always able to define them at a smaller detailGood enough until our abilities got better. Now we know there most definitely is a smallest detail to the universe.But it took thousands of years to disprove the guy.
