Sat 13 Aug 2005
Zeno’s Paradox Deconstructed - Zen’s Paradox, Ze’s Paradox, and Z’s Paradox
Posted by Antone Roundy under VisionZeno’s paradox: motion is impossible, because to go from one place to another, you have to first go half way. Then to go the rest of the way, you have to first go half way, and so on, so you never quite get there. In fact, you can never get started, because before you can get half way, you first have to go half of half way, and so on. Let’s deconstruct this paradox, simplifying it by removing one dimension at a time to make it easier to understand it’s flaw.
Zen’s paradox removes one dimension (time), and thus one letter: volume is impossible because before you can stack the top plane on an object, you have to stack the plane half way from the bottom to the top on, and then the one half way between the middle and the top, and so on, so you can never finish building it up.
Ze’s paradox: area is impossible because before you can add the last line segment to the far edge of a two dimensional shape, you have to add the line segment that’s half way there, and so on, so you can never get to the edge.
Z’s paradox: length is impossible because before you can tack the last point onto a line segment, you have to tack the point half way to the end on, and so on, so you can never finish extending it.
The same error underlies all of these so-called paradoxes. Since the point and line case is easiest to explain, I’ll start there: a line isn’t made up of a bunch of points–points are just descriptions of positions on a line. We tend to imagine points as infinitesimally small objects, but in fact they are not real objects at all–a point is a zero-dimensional concept, completely devoid of length, height and width–not even a real object.
Jumping straight from Z to Zeno, just as lines have something in their nature (length) that is not derived from the points on the line, space-time, or the four-dimensional space in which motion occurs, isn’t made up of a bunch of instants–an instant is just a description of a “position” in space-time. We tend to imagine instants as infinitesimally small slices of time, but in fact they are not real at all–an instant is a three-dimensional concept that falls short of being real, because it contains no time, which reality does. Although we name instants based on their temporal position in space-time, instants themselves do not contain any time whatsoever, and thus cannot contain anything that depends on time, like motion.
We tend to imagine that a three dimensional object is real and substantial because we think that we experience three dimensional objects all the time. But in fact, what we are experiencing is four dimensional objects–objects with length, width, height, and duration (time). Just as point and planes are not real things, but just concepts, because they lack at least one spatial dimension, an instant–the three dimensional state of things at a timeless position in space-time–is not a real thing, but just a concept. Without a complete object, including it’s temporal attributes, we have only a simplification–an idea–not a real object.
The gap between instants and motion cannot be bridged by adding more instants–not even an infinite number of instants–because instants do not contain time. An apple pie can not be constructed only using apples, because there is no crust in an apple. Even with an infinite number of apples, there is no crust unless you add a crust. Even with an infinite number of instants, there is no space-time unless you add time. Thus motion is impossible if all we have is a collection of instants. If we understood time as well as we understand the three spatial dimensions, this would be as obvious as the fact that you can’t fill a three dimensional object if all you have is planes.
Finally, let’s restate each of the paradoxes in a way that makes their flaws more apparent. Z: it’s impossible for a line to have length, because none of the points that make it up add any length to it. Ze: it’s impossible for a two dimensional shape to have area because none of the line segments that make it up add any area to it. Zen: it’s impossible for an object to have volume because none of the planes that make it up add any volume to it. And last but not least, Zeno: motion is impossible because none the instants that make up space-time contain any motion.
December 31st, 2005 at 12:15 am
“I’ll start there: a line isn’t made up of a bunch of points–points are just descriptions of positions on a line. We tend to imagine points as infinitesimally small objects, but in fact they are not real objects at all–a point is a zero-dimensional concept, completely devoid of length, height and width–not even a real object.”
Then a line (segment) being a real or imaginary mark positioned in relation to (non-existent) fixed points of reference…..cannot exist!
July 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I think I agree with most if not all of this blog. This was interesting:
“I’ll start there: a line isn’t made up of a bunch of points–points are just descriptions of positions on a line.”
As was this:
“space-time, or the four-dimensional space in which motion occurs, isn’t made up of a bunch of instants–an instant is just a description of a “position” in space-time.”
In both of those quotes, Antone Roundy tells us what those things are NOT made up of but he does say what they ARE made up of. Here are my thoughts on Zeno’s paradox: It is true that IF you could infinitely divide the amount distance something can move, then you could not move because if there are an infinite number of halfway points, and each of them takes a certain amount of time to get there, then it would take you an infinite amount of time to get there. Therefore, I conclude that there must be a smallest amount of movement possible for anything. At some point, it either moved or it didn’t move. One could call this ‘binary movement’ because at some point something either moved or it didn’t move, with no possible half way point. A bit is the smallest amount of information imaginable because it specifies that something is either true or false, 1 or 0, on or off, yes or no. I suppose you could refer this smallest amount of movement possible as one unit of space. But if there is “binary movement”, then there has to be “binary time” as well because otherwise, there would be a point in time, at which something moved halfway between the 2 points which make up a length of the smallest amount of movement possible, which would mean that it was not the smallest amount of movement possible. Of course if you are moving from point A to point B, and you keep only moving by halfway, you would never get there, because you are moving by a smaller amount each time (not just smaller but half the distance of your previous movement), so there has to be a point at with you or anything else cannot move half a that distance. This makes it seem like time is something more than just a concept because you cannot move the smallest amount of movement possible in less than the smallest amount of time possible, which gives it a real world property of the smallest amount of itself. You could refer to this as one unit of time. So now I have this concept of single units of space and single units of time and the slowest anything can ever move is with a 1:1 ratio between space and time units. I am not completely sure about any of this, but sounds very logical to me. Let me know what you think.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:44 am
In reponse to INTPnerd’s arguement:
If, like you say, there is a single smallest unit of movement, such as the binary movement, then it would undoubtably be movement over an amount of space. We also know that space is able to be represented by a number. Whether that number be one inch or one centemeter etc. However, if it is movement over space then theoretically that space can get smaller, because numbers can always become smaller. Therefore Space, time and anything represented by numbers can become smaller and smaller into infinity.
Please respond with any well thought out arguements.