Can we ever touch anything?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Can we ever touch anything? » Can we ever touch anything?

Can we ever touch anything?
The distance between to articles can always be halved, so can they ever touch?

Page: 1 2 3

Can we ever touch anything?

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 10/06/09 - 01:51 PM:	#11
I'll have to disagree with you on the idea that Zeus gave him superhuman intelligence then, Warshed! For I believe his argument might be incomplete, and it would be unfair of us to judge his intelligence based on an incomplete argument of his. Either that or he ignored processes such as thought and sensation in which difference and change appear to be happening; he ignored giving us an explanation as to what he thinks illusion and appearance (the things he claims he was actually affected by) are, and how they fit in his idea. Edited by NothingtoSay on 10/06/09 - 04:03 PM

cyborg
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 48

Posted 10/06/09 - 10:56 PM:	#12
You don't understand Zeno's argument because there's nothing to understand, it's poorly thought out and it doesn't address the blatant counter-argument that is actual motion. Zeno wasn't some great philosopher or whatever, he was a nobody just like me; we only talk about him because he's ancient and he knew how to write (or knew someone that knew how to write). It's a dumb paradox that deserves no attention, in my opinion.

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 10/06/09 - 11:28 PM:	#13
Warshed wrote: That and the weak sub-atomic forces keep the sub-atomic particles from ever truly touching each other. So yes, we never truly touch anything. Also what you just stated is Xeno's paradox, and usually everyone discovers what you discovered around the age of 12, so you must be a late bloomer. Xeno himself stated it around the age of 6 right after he solved Fermat's Theorem. Nearly everyone does by 12. Is this based on a poll or did you just make that up? Ask yourself how do I know? Gee also nice calling him a late bloomer.

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 10/07/09 - 07:34 AM:	#14
cyborg wrote: You don't understand Zeno's argument because there's nothing to understand, it's poorly thought out and it doesn't address the blatant counter-argument that is actual motion. Zeno wasn't some great philosopher or whatever, he was a nobody just like me; we only talk about him because he's ancient and he knew how to write (or knew someone that knew how to write). It's a dumb paradox that deserves no attention, in my opinion. Well, I actually like his "Arrow" paradox. It's a good observation on time and change, I'd say: If anything in an actual instant does not change at all, then how is change possible, given that time (this 'number' of change) is composed of many instants? Makes me wonder...

AlanLeTurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/11/09 - 05:33 AM:	#15
cyborg wrote: You don't understand Zeno's argument because there's nothing to understand, it's poorly thought out and it doesn't address the blatant counter-argument that is actual motion. Zeno wasn't some great philosopher or whatever, he was a nobody just like me; we only talk about him because he's ancient and he knew how to write (or knew someone that knew how to write). It's a dumb paradox that deserves no attention, in my opinion. Yours is a truly great philosophical mind. Your argument is that because we see something that conflicts with his argument, then it must necessarily be false, or worse, worthless. If I'm not mistaken, this would be why nobody liked Galileo when he posited that the earth revolves around the sun. Sensory information in inherently doubtworthy. Besides, as has already been pointed out, we don't actually know what Zeno's point was - he could have been arguing that our senses are seemingly untrustworthy, or he could equally have been making a point about the concept of infinity, or even just pointing out a funny product of logical argument.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 10/11/09 - 11:52 AM:	#16
Actual motion is no counter argument to Zeno's paradox. IF logic can't account for actual happenings than us humans are in a pickle, because it means that our though would conflict with our experience of it. Than it is either bye bye to human rationality, for the Greeks that was our essential feature, or it means that we have to accept that our world of everyday experience is in fact illusory and that was Zeno's plan. Zeno wanted to show there is a conflict between our experential knowledge of the world and our logical coprehension of it. That created the space for a dychotomy between the fleeting and illusionary material world and the ever lasting world of logic. Zeno wasn't like you Cyborg. "When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead and the whit knight is talking backwards and the red queen is off her head" Jefferson Airplane Edited by Tobias on 10/11/09 - 11:58 AM
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/11/09 - 07:13 PM:	#17
I don't get it, why do you just move your finger 0.1 meters a second, why would you halve the distance like that? Seems like a simple mathematic solution to me. Otherwise oh my God..how do we count from 0 to 10? You can always add another 1-9 after 9.99999999999, we'll never get there! SHIT!
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

2Ponder
[Insert witty title here]

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2008
Location: The space-time continuum

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/11/09 - 08:54 PM:	#18
Exactly, kkiiji, that's the paradox. You first have to get 1/2 of the way to your destination, but before you get 1/2 way there, you have to get 1/2 way to the 1/2 way point. If you keep going, the 1/2s and the "have"s can actually destroy your mind. Was it Zeno or another pre-Socratic that came up with the counter-concept that, because of this paradox, there is no such thing as motion, and that everything that "moves" is actually constantly re-creating itself in a different location? I also remember something about not being able to "put your foot in the same river twice", but must have fallen asleep in that class because I don't remember anything else.
"Not all who wander are lost."

Warshed
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 216

Posted 10/12/09 - 12:34 PM:	#19
mark73 wrote: Nearly everyone does by 12. Is this based on a poll or did you just make that up? Ask yourself how do I know? Gee also nice calling him a late bloomer. God told me, he talks to me through my cat. I just didn't think the kid actually came up with that on his own and was acting like he did since it was too close to Zeno's paradox. Its like me pretending to be 14 and taking some ideas from Kripke and acting like you just thought of them. The stuff I was saying was so obviously outlandish,its funny people can actually take it seriously.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/13/09 - 12:04 PM:	#20
I don't understand this paradox at all, you're just moving slower and slower and slower, of course it'd be hard to get to the destination if you move like that. What is this suppose to prove? It doesn't contradict normal moving where you move at a constant speed. Where's the logical conflict? I don't see it.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.