|The paradox of Zeno|
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 4
Posted Sep 22, 2011 - 7:18 PM:
Wouldn't it stand to reason, that the very logic which allows a finite thing to be divided infinitely, is the same logic which must insist on it being reconstructed in the same way?
Zeno's paradox seems to ask: Since we divided a finite thing infinitely, how can it ever be put back together again? The answer seems obvious, the same way you took it apart. But of course, nothing ever was divided infinitely, because that would require infinite resources. We can divide things infinitely in theory, and by the same theory those divisions can be put back together.
>Does it bother you that the universe is doing an infinite number of calculations? If the universe is really just a simulation on God's computer, then does it bother you that a real-numbered coordinates possessed by a particle would take up an infinite amount of space on that computer?
Theoretically, a representation of an infinite thing could never take up infinite memory, because you could never explore it in infinite detail. Only as much memory would be required as you actively engaged in it. Anything beyond the threshold of your perception could be discarded. Therefore there would never be a need for an infinite number of calculations.
exponent of reason
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Total Topics: 124
Total Posts: 3677
Posted Sep 23, 2011 - 6:35 AM:
Insult to the Dead wrote:
Yes in this case the series has a finite sum. This means that since motion has an infinite number of steps and a finite sum, motion is a supertask. Which means that to prove motion is possible one must prove supertasks are possible.
No I don't. I merely have to point out that motion is demonstrably possible, therefore:
a) If supertasks are impossible, then motion is not a supertask.
b) If motion is a supertask, then at least that supertask is possible.
I have no need to prove that supertasks are, in general, possible.
Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: May 01, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 359
Posted Sep 23, 2011 - 3:53 PM:
Smerdlap wrote:Proponents of Zuse's thesis, that I've encountered, hold discrete ontologies.
if the universe is a simulation running on a computer then a single real number could require an infinite amount of storage space on that computer.
the moving finger writes
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 94
Posted Sep 25, 2011 - 7:01 AM:
I don't view Zeno's "paradoxes" as paradoxes - they merely illustrate what happens when one tries to construct arguments based on ill-formed or poorly understood concepts.
This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.