This is how Diogenes of Sinope answered the problem, he got up and walked thereby disproving that something cannot travel a distance. Furthermore, the arrow never "starts" its journey as stated it's perpetually moving at varying speeds (even while drawing the cord and aiming) hence it is in perpetual motion and never at the same place at the same time therefore instead of 'an arrow that never moves' we have 'an arrow that always moves' which negates the paradox.
To simply posit the practical conclusion, I must say that a theoretical position of static time is what renders this to be a pseudo paradox, as the arrow never stops at any number of halfway points; and so forth, your understanding of time as being something based in constant measurement is an impediment towards either an objective or rational truth.
The paradox exists if you only take into account the infinite regress of measurements, but not the forward progress of time. If you don't take time into account, then yes, nothing ever moves. However, we always are experiencing the phenomenon of time, and the infinite regress of measurements has no effect on the actual perceived movement of objects through space. The physical reality of the universe does not adhere strictly to the conceptual world of measurements, or flawed mental precepts.
@ChRIs23696 The point is that logically it shouldn't move. Because it has to go through an infinite number of infinitely small bits of space to travel any distance. So logically it shouldn't move, but it does move. Which is where the paradox comes in.
A student of philosophy would answer as follows: When one is launched into motion, can they ever reach their target by looking back? Would each decision not continue to split into a limitless end in why one does not progress forward? However, if one looks only forward; what is the chance of accuracy if they do not fight towards the center?
First let see what we mean by 'reaching' or 'never reaching'. We are simply asking whether the total time is finite or infinite. In all of these apparently paradoxical scenarios, if you simply sum over the time interval corresponding to each of infinite number of half-the-way sections, you will get a finite time. A simpler scenario is the ancient paradox in which Achilles wants to travel between two points in steps, each of which is half the distance remained. In this case too total time is fnt.
the arrow is moving along a trajectory, and is not "reaching points"
while it is theoretically possible to infinitely divide the trajectory into infinitely small parts, this kind of theorising is simply unrelated to moving objects.
i dont think its a paradox, i think they are unrelated ideas
wait... why isnt it moving? Yes, to reach the target you can put a half way point in the middle and then another one and another one till you hit the atom. But it still will fly if you release it
So you're saying if you cut something in half, cut it in a half again, and again, and continue to do this, the object you started with just magically disappears? Did your mother drop you as a child? or are you just the average woman? fuck..
@OrayngeDrank she never says it disappears... mathematically this is correct because the distant from point A to point B is infinite, but we all know it can cross it to reach point C. so the question is how did it reach point C
This isn't a paradox, if you continue to find the half way point it just gets smaller, eventually so small that the distance is impossible to see with your eyes, you can find the half-way point as many times as you want, it doesn't remove the fact of it moving.
she isnt saying that the arrow isnt moving, shes saying that its a paradox. she said it herself, we all know the arrow is moving, yet in order to reach its full destination it has to reach a halfwaypoint and the halfway point keeps getting smaller, i agree the example is kinda hard to follow if your not smart. but you dont have to bitch about a take on a paradox, this is why youtube sucks,
Wait, just because the arrow "must reach the halfway point" every time means that it's no longer moving?Since when?Why did the arrow stop mid journey to deduce their path? Arrows do not have logic nor comprehension of their direction, they begin at the quiver, engage with the bow and project across the direction it was pointed at and hit the target. The arrow never thinks about it's "halfway points". I have yet to see the logic behind this exercise. Other than "cool fractions ad infinitum bro!!"
...so basically it has to move at a non-constant / exponential rate so that it can move to one halfway point between a halfway point between a halfway point etc.
You do realize objects DON'T move at exponential rates? you don't fire the arrow, wait two years, then in half a second its at the target.
in order to reach the halfway "point" it must do so at a particular "point" in time. but what's a point in time? if durationless point then it cannot be considered to consist of or comprise time, and if not then it's a span of time and can be infinitely reduced. the problem is that time and space are mutually defined in a way that they both validate and negate each other. they're the same and yet different. this paradox of finite/infinity is everywhere: time, space, numbers, binary opposites...
Movement is change of place in relation to time, so without time you can't have motion. If you stop the time the arrow will be stopped as well because for motion you need time.
it would have sense, if there would be a energy loss at each halfway of a halfway. but there is no real "halfwaypoint" that is marked somehow. this is just theoretical. so this is just stupid.
Wrong!!!! All matter is in a state of constant motion. (unless at absolute zero, which at the current point in time, only exists in theory)
If you keep halving and halving... you get down to the atomic scale, and because of vibrations due to thermal energy, the atoms are always crossing back and forth over this half way point.
All it takes is more energy to cross more half way points.
Just because there are infinite half way points, doesn't make this impossible
isn't this flaud because an arrow cannot move without us as humans putting it in a bow and the process you just said imagine an arrow going through the air so it is not an example but a hypothetical scenario
Part of why I disliked was to be the #1337 dislike. But seriously, I don't like dramatic video descriptions of paradoxes like these because WE KNOW the fallacy and yet people will still be encouraged to come up with bs pseudo-philosophical banter.
This paradox only holds true if the object in motion stops at the halfway point, such as, it runs out of energy at the halfway point. The paradox is broken when the object in motion crosses that point. It'd be like an airplane or a car only having half the fuel it needs to get to its destination or a hiker only bringing half the food they need to get to their campsite.
It's kind of interesting to think that an apparent eternity goes on between every event in our lives. I guess it could be said that everything is infinite by virtue of existing, and we only perceive it as otherwise.
What the ancient greeks did not understand was that even though you may have a finite length of string you can always cut that same length of string into ever smaller halves. This does not mean that the string was never whole.
The same goes for movement - the finite amount of time an arrow has to travel can be cut into ever smaller halves.
That's pretty dumb. The fucking arrow is fucking moving. If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving.
Yo dawg, we heard you like halfway points so we put a halfway point in your halfway point. Shit like this isn't philosophy, this is just over-complicating simple matters to make the speaker feel more intelligent.
@noob5000000 noob is right. this paradox is one of the principles of Calculus, fuck head. It's not that the speaker seems more intelligent; it's the speaker being more intelligent than your degenerate 21st century fuck-tard ass.No wait, you're right! Aristotle is an idiot. You know, being the father of fucking logic and all. Yeah, Aristotle is an idiot. I have to go commit suicide now that i know the world is full of fucking morons! btw, it was Zeno.Aristotle just commented in bk3 physics
@noob5000000 I think this paradox is supposed to imply that space is infinite within every scale of measurement therefore motion is an illusion and all is one because you cant traverse infinite space. One can keep splitting distances past the atom's nucleus and keep going indefinitely.
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
@Metticus You do know the dark ages were brought on by the Catholic Church burning all of the "Classics" such as Aristotle, Socrates, and Pluto right? Not the philosophers at all.
The answer to this 'paradox' is in quantum physics, but it can be summarized like this: sub-atomic particles don't move in the conventional sense. They can exist in a sort of 'cloud' of probability until they are observed. When they are observed, they can be somewhere entirely different from where they last were, without appearing to 'move' at all.
Philosophers may explore ideas and old paradoxes for whatever reason they always have. The solutions to the questions they ask, like why we feel the things we feel, how we experience reality, what life is, where the universe is heading, these millennia old 'paradoxes', are now all well understood by biologists, neuroscientists, physicists and mathematicians, yet philosophy somehow keeps on truckin'.
@666or999 Not at all... Aristotle famously believed that the brain was primarily a heat exchanger... The nervous system wasn't really understood before the 1800's. Before Edward Hubble, many believed in a static universe. Christian countries have been waiting on the four horsemen of the apocalypse for the universe to end, with numerous countdowns and disappointments. Look up celestial spheres. Science opens up the universe with discovery, something that philosophy fails to do.
@JaySmith91 I'm refering to the questions 'like why we feel the things we feel, how we experience reality, what life is,' and don't confuse philosophy with religion. Also it should be noted that science itself came from philosophy
@666or999 I'd be interested to know how these questions were answered before the development of neuroscience. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and all the fields that stem from biology. I wouldn't say life was well understood prior to work in molecular microbiology and certainly not before Darwin's time. I think philosophy might be more appropriate alongside history, as it's definitely not a good quest for new knowledge.
the assumption with philosophers who think up this paradox is that time dilates when space gets smaller. Of course this assumption is wrong. For every instance space is halved, time is halved also. Of course we have to assume the velocity of the arrow is constant. You can assume it is possible to half space an infinite amount of times, but when you do time equals 0, hence since a moving body is not at rest, the arrow will always have a finite distance to reach it's target. Paradox solved.
I think there are some basic problems with describing this Paradox. Firstly, you assume that you can measure a point in space absolutely. Neither an arrow or a target would be able to occupy a singe measurable point in space. Therefore, there cannot be a half way point to measure. (The more you 'zoom' into an 'edge' of an object, the more difficult it becomes to delineate it from what surrounds it.). Equally, you cannot ever say accurately that the arrow has reached the target.
@SpiderRift That is the assumption made, but it's wrong. The arrow has kinetic energy the instant after your record it's 0 displacement; no matter how small the distance it travels. In that instant the arrow has a finite time it has to reach it's destination before it violates newtons law.
Using this logic, time must stand still too. To get from 10 to 11, you must first get to 10:30, but before that 10:15, 10:07:30, 10:03:45, 10:01:52.500...
@DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 Yeah, theres a whole bunch of related paradoxes around Zeno's paradox that revolve around the nature of the infitesimal. Where they become basically wrong is that time etc seems to be quantized, theres a minimum step that things don't become smaller than, and thus the infinite regress described fails at that point. Sort of. Shit gets messy when you introduce infinity into things.
This is silly. You imply it's impossible for an object to reach a halfway point between where it was and where it's going? This happens all the time...! What would make it impossible? Silly.
@CaptainDummyTalk There are an infinite amount of half way points and as you know infinity is impossible to attain therefor the arrow couldn't possibly pass through them all, hence the arrow never moving. It's more of a quirk within the concept of our description of movement, not an actual logical scenario but it's funny none the less :)
only in theory. but as the act of movement is not based on finding the midway point but only in the action of movement, this trick is only cool if you're stoned out of your mind.
But if a point is infinitely small then there would be more and more space between the point and the tip of the arrow, so it would have to move to reach it.
And the answer to solve this lies in that 1. V=A/D*T. And for V=0 A=0 but because of a downward force of gravity says that A is 9.82 in a downward vector meaning that V must be something. So it has to move. And the other paradox is when you reach halfway you still have halfway left... so the arrow doesn't move at all even if it looks like it hit it's target it haven't which is true at quantum physics.
so if i shoot an arrow the opposite way to which the earth is spinning the earth will quickly spin the other way to get the arrow where it needs to go lol?
...... what she is saying is: since the arrow can't travel the distance x without travelling the distance x/2 first, it can't move.
Of course this is true, everyone just teleports an infinite short distance an infinite amount of times to move. Basic logic. Also v=ms is false because time is an illusion.
@hautster This movie maker has no concept about modern mathematics. In fact, the sequence is bounded. SO infinity times distance will be a constant. So it is not impossible.
We now know that you can't go infinitly dividing a distance in half. You will eventually go to the scale below the planck length where you can't divide the distance in half.
So something like quarks can only go a static point forward, bakwards, up and down? Quarks can not go half way of length of other quarks and half of that length again? I wonder how that will effect how quarks align together. Maybe you are on to something ;)
This has buged me my whole life. . I think i've finally figured it out. The latest advances in quantum physics teaches us the mindblowing fact that all matter behaves a certian way when observed by counsiousnness. In truth the atoms that make up the arrow are everywhere in every possible position in the universe. It is only our observations that present the illusion that the arow has moved. it didnt realy move we just observed it at different points in time. check out my play list about realiy
@kakoiarekkusu well you need to take a first step before you make a seconed step right? if you didnt take that first step, than you couldent take the seconed one could you? do you get what im saying?
Just like everything else in nature, time and space are fractals (look that word up) which means infinity can fit in a finite space, just like it was demonstrated. Movement is just a frame-by-frame illusion of an infinite number of parallel realities that ends up creating the effect of time; therefore, time is just how long it takes any kind of movement to take place.
infinitie parallel universe has the same flaw but only in disguise. If there exist an infinity many universes then there is always parallel universe being added. We have everything and then we add one which makes a new everything. Infinity without assuming it converges to spesific number is still unsolved.
It is just like gravity. We know it is there, but we can not tell why and what it is. But maybe there is still a link between infinity and finity to be discovered;)
@steverock85 Maybe rather than one reality 'added' to the last, it replaces the last. Which also implies the idea of non-locality and time would still be the effect from motion, i.e. the concept of the 'here-and-now' is all that exist & time/location is completely illusory.
So you define infinity somethink like an stack in array. And the last entry is removed when new comes in. Or did you mean something like an queue? That first entry is removed when new comes on top?
Why is that any more logical than one being added? Is that not just onother disguse for the same problem? And if it was so, then what is this finite number of parrael universe before the stacks or the queus get changes and what is the rate of this change?
@steverock85 (1 out of 2 comments) I guess its like a queue of infinite parallel 'possibilities' that actually never exist except when present, but the possible reality that becomes actual reality is defined by the situation before it..So the past reality defines the present reality and you could say the present reality defines the 'next present' reality... B/c of this there is no 'finite number of parallel universe before the stacks or the queues get changes' b/c.............
@steverock85 (2 out of 2 comments) .........past & future realities don't exist, there is only one reality 'to count' or to experience, and we call that the present & and the present reality has no movement & no time...The rate of the change must be infinite b/c time/movement is divided up into infinity, like i mentioned in my first comment, infinity can fit in a finite space by virtue of fractals.
I know what they say in the quantum physics. But this does not really solve this paradox. With this you are giving up on explaining what infinity is and using it to fill in the gabs.
The reson of this paradox is to highlight how infinity causes fallacies. You can also consider the liar paradox.
You can also just skip those paradoxes and try to directly tackle infinity.
@steverock85 Well, i guess infinity is the paradox & we cannot understand this concept... but do we need to understand it? If you an infinite amount of moments or realities that proceed each other w/ an infinite, or basically no time at all why would those two infinities cancel and leave us with the linear time that we experience?
You are correct, we do not need to understand concept of infinity to go on with our lives. This is the only way we can see this but it does not solve this paradox. For this paradox to be solved, we need to understand what infinity is as we are looking at each interval. It is the observation that makes each point static.
@steverock85 Maybe the only point that is observed is the present moment, and it does disappear once it is no longer being observed...kinda cool stuff though
But the trick is that in our mind, we freeze the time, and give each observed point a static point in time. Thus observing itself will diverge to infinity while the movement of arrow will converge.
Kind of like the liar paradox. Now who is telling the truth of what is really happening. Also what is distance at all. In math any distance can be broken down to infinty, but yet, the distance it self is finite.
@steverock85 Yea, i think their are two truths/sides to every observation that really happen, which of course is what results in the phenomena of the paradox. One truth is perspective of the eyes and the other is perspective of mind, like you mentioned...to be honest with you, being able to have a conversation like this one is enough to prove to me that we are more than just a body and a brain...but ive had other experiences that led me to believe that anyway;)
Everything said contradicts this whole theory, "Before it may reach the target it must reach a half way point" To do either the arrow has moved. To reach is to to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc. To even consider this as a paradox you dont understand basic physics.
@Nacherel Ok, then consider this. When it will move, what will be the smallest possible unit of distance?
The very basics of math is about magnitute and quanity. You are free to think this is not a paradox but it shows in very simple way how limited that thinking is to descrepe our world when it comes to infinity. We can approx when the value converges to specific number but that is all there is to it. This is seen for example in pythagoras, irrational, series and limits.
And when it comes to our known world, infinity is but a title of nothing like everything and forever. Perhaps one day, these questions will have answers. Perhaps there is no answer?
And even so, what has this got to do with movement, and the so called paradox?
Hehe, yes this paradox will end when we have found the smallest possible unit :) And we could think light speed as the divisor for the time as nothing can go faster than light(well, neutrino seems not know yet..).
It is more our observation and attention to each point rather than the movement itself. But what is movement at all? Can you explain it? If the whole world was only two moving footballs heading for each other, then why do they move at all?
It isnt a paradox, everything moves, the electrons of an atom have no position, they are constantly zooming about sharing a wave from like everything in the universe, you and me share phosphorus from a meteorite ten thousand light years away from an undiscovered galax
As far as I'm concerned this is little more than a pathetic attempt at sophistry by a person lacking an understanding of basic mechanics in combination with simple algebra.
The fact that this still seems to impress people today is a tragic commentary on an educational system which seems to prove time and time again that a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous (in this case annoying) thing. You may as well make a video about how enthralled you are by the predictive capacity of your weekly horoscope.
To understand what is going on try look at this. Let distance be m and 2^n, n>1 be the division of time of this distance. So we have sum of series that will equal one or:
m/2+m/4+m/8+m/16+ ... +m/2^n = 1 (or almost one...)
You can put "sum 1/(2^n) from 1 to infinity" in input in wolframalpha . com to see what is going on.
The time to travel will not change, nor will the distance. This is more about what time is and what happens if we focus on each step in the way.
Or the "sum m/(2^n) from 1 to infinity" in the input and get m.
m/2+m/4+m/8+m/16+ ... +m/2^n = m not = 1... sry about this...
The paradox is that there will always be fraction missing that makes m or 1 whole. Kind a like sqrt(2), pi or any irrational number or rational number like 1/3, which can not be repisented as a magnitute in its purest form. ex: sqrt(2) = 1,4142... and 1/3 = 0,33333...
@steverock85 There's no paradox. After time T the arrow reaches the half way. After time 2T the arrow is at the end. There is no fraction missing when time is over. There is no paradox. There is only the mistake in thinking, that the time unit of observation are getting smaller (or equivalently the speed is decreasing), which, of course, is not allowed, because the arrow in reality is not getting slower either.
If we let the distance be 1m and the speed to be 1m/s, how long will it take to arrive to 0.5m?
That would be 1/2 of second right? You are not changing the speed, it is only 1m/s * 1/2m = 1/2s. And how long takes it to get to half of the half of that distance?
1m/s * 1/2m * 1/2 = 1m/s * 1/4m = 1/4s.
Sry I did write this in a confusing way as you might think this is 1/4m/s which it is not.
@steverock85 Why is that a paradox? For me, there is no paradox. It is only that philosophers from 3000 years ago or so wanted to tease / provoke / spite / ... whatever. Mathematicians explained it. This topic is stupid, I'm wasting my time with it. However, I have learned in this discussion that today there are still people which fall into this trap and do not understand that it is a stupid flight of fancy.
I will have to assert the football example again to proveke this paradox even more. We know today that every moving objects needs energy to move from each other and to each other. What was this first energy?
If the universe was only one football and one goal, then who kicked the football? O_O That is another paradox related to this one.
You tell me math has solved this paradox. What is the name of that proof?
@steverock85 The fact that mankind has not understood the origins of the universe does not make the existence of the universe a paradox. The falsification of the statement "movement is impossible" as well as the mathematically precise description of movement has of course been done. Computations and arguments are given below. Simple high-school mathematics do not need a name. Giving this stupid provocation a name would be a devaluation of all other respectable mathematical research.
So your proof is that we experience movement every day? Last time I checked, every mathematical statement needs theorems to be based on to be unambiguous. Even the most simple ones.
Theorems are not so highlighted in high-school but you can't study higher level of calculus like multivariable calculus, linear algebra without them less you build your mathematical foundation on leap of fath. So what is this about devaluation?
@steverock85 I do not fall into your trap. It's the other way around: The above self-contradicting video has no logical / mahematical argumentation and does not prove "movement is impossible". All this is explained in many post below. You try to reverse argumentation? You criticise me for not proving "movement is possible". The point is: The fact that the arrow has to reach half way before reaching full way does NOT imply "movement is impossible".Video makes the mistake, not me.
Don't worry, the world will not freeze with this logic :)
Yes you are right, this is what we experience in every day. But it does not change the fact that we still have no explanation. We know it is there, but we really can not put a number on it can we?
I am not saying movement is impossible, but math is a little limited when it comes to define infinity. That is all what I am saying. I do not say movement is impossible, just debatable.
"According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions. To fully solve any of the paradoxes, however, one needs to show what is wrong with the argument, not just the conclusions. Through history, several solutions have been proposed, among the earliest recorded being those of Aristotle and Archimedes." - Zeno's_paradoxes - wiki
It was an attemt for a metaphor. I admit that this was an poor one. But if there were no one to kick the ball, then how did the ball start moving on its own? And if kicket, how did the kicker start to move? How did the universe start to move? This may lead us to conclution of an illusory world like what ronnyboy6o said. But even infinity parralell universes in stacks or queues have the exact same problem.
Stop harassing don't think literally think theoretically.
Boyscout910 3 hours ago
This is how Diogenes of Sinope answered the problem, he got up and walked thereby disproving that something cannot travel a distance. Furthermore, the arrow never "starts" its journey as stated it's perpetually moving at varying speeds (even while drawing the cord and aiming) hence it is in perpetual motion and never at the same place at the same time therefore instead of 'an arrow that never moves' we have 'an arrow that always moves' which negates the paradox.
MrBabablah 8 hours ago
burn the witch!
seanmchughinfo 1 day ago
To simply posit the practical conclusion, I must say that a theoretical position of static time is what renders this to be a pseudo paradox, as the arrow never stops at any number of halfway points; and so forth, your understanding of time as being something based in constant measurement is an impediment towards either an objective or rational truth.
indiebandit1 1 day ago
The paradox exists if you only take into account the infinite regress of measurements, but not the forward progress of time. If you don't take time into account, then yes, nothing ever moves. However, we always are experiencing the phenomenon of time, and the infinite regress of measurements has no effect on the actual perceived movement of objects through space. The physical reality of the universe does not adhere strictly to the conceptual world of measurements, or flawed mental precepts.
indiebandit1 1 day ago
heres the thing though. the fucking arrow will reach the fucking halfway point because it's fucking moving.
ChRIs23696 1 day ago
@ChRIs23696 The point is that logically it shouldn't move. Because it has to go through an infinite number of infinitely small bits of space to travel any distance. So logically it shouldn't move, but it does move. Which is where the paradox comes in.
limetang 1 day ago
A student of philosophy would answer as follows: When one is launched into motion, can they ever reach their target by looking back? Would each decision not continue to split into a limitless end in why one does not progress forward? However, if one looks only forward; what is the chance of accuracy if they do not fight towards the center?
stan6039 1 day ago
First let see what we mean by 'reaching' or 'never reaching'. We are simply asking whether the total time is finite or infinite. In all of these apparently paradoxical scenarios, if you simply sum over the time interval corresponding to each of infinite number of half-the-way sections, you will get a finite time. A simpler scenario is the ancient paradox in which Achilles wants to travel between two points in steps, each of which is half the distance remained. In this case too total time is fnt.
TRXW 1 day ago
the arrow is moving along a trajectory, and is not "reaching points"
while it is theoretically possible to infinitely divide the trajectory into infinitely small parts, this kind of theorising is simply unrelated to moving objects.
i dont think its a paradox, i think they are unrelated ideas
mikesomething 2 days ago
0:28 . Thats my Jizz face.
CJZDAMAN32 2 days ago
wait... why isnt it moving? Yes, to reach the target you can put a half way point in the middle and then another one and another one till you hit the atom. But it still will fly if you release it
CarlVonNirgendwo 3 days ago
So you're saying if you cut something in half, cut it in a half again, and again, and continue to do this, the object you started with just magically disappears? Did your mother drop you as a child? or are you just the average woman? fuck..
OrayngeDrank 3 days ago
@OrayngeDrank she never says it disappears... mathematically this is correct because the distant from point A to point B is infinite, but we all know it can cross it to reach point C. so the question is how did it reach point C
7Lakings7 3 days ago
This isn't a paradox, if you continue to find the half way point it just gets smaller, eventually so small that the distance is impossible to see with your eyes, you can find the half-way point as many times as you want, it doesn't remove the fact of it moving.
OrayngeDrank 3 days ago
she isnt saying that the arrow isnt moving, shes saying that its a paradox. she said it herself, we all know the arrow is moving, yet in order to reach its full destination it has to reach a halfwaypoint and the halfway point keeps getting smaller, i agree the example is kinda hard to follow if your not smart. but you dont have to bitch about a take on a paradox, this is why youtube sucks,
CharlieGarton 4 days ago
that's fucking retarted. that only deals with dividing numbers, not moving
YoseMiteEmery 4 days ago
Wait, just because the arrow "must reach the halfway point" every time means that it's no longer moving?Since when?Why did the arrow stop mid journey to deduce their path? Arrows do not have logic nor comprehension of their direction, they begin at the quiver, engage with the bow and project across the direction it was pointed at and hit the target. The arrow never thinks about it's "halfway points". I have yet to see the logic behind this exercise. Other than "cool fractions ad infinitum bro!!"
juraikken 4 days ago
...so basically it has to move at a non-constant / exponential rate so that it can move to one halfway point between a halfway point between a halfway point etc.
You do realize objects DON'T move at exponential rates? you don't fire the arrow, wait two years, then in half a second its at the target.
There is no paradox, it's just faulty logic.
VicariousExtrospect 1 week ago
i used to bee able to move but then i took that arrow to the knee
supersciz 1 week ago 2
in order to reach the halfway "point" it must do so at a particular "point" in time. but what's a point in time? if durationless point then it cannot be considered to consist of or comprise time, and if not then it's a span of time and can be infinitely reduced. the problem is that time and space are mutually defined in a way that they both validate and negate each other. they're the same and yet different. this paradox of finite/infinity is everywhere: time, space, numbers, binary opposites...
ratacatattack 1 week ago
The target must be a knee..
iPodTouchAngel 1 week ago
I'm not sure i understood that...
TenorCG 1 week ago
It is the paradox of Zenone, in Italy we usually study Philosophy at the high school..
orestemontinaro 2 weeks ago
Movement is change of place in relation to time, so without time you can't have motion. If you stop the time the arrow will be stopped as well because for motion you need time.
JARMOPOWER 2 weeks ago
it would have sense, if there would be a energy loss at each halfway of a halfway. but there is no real "halfwaypoint" that is marked somehow. this is just theoretical. so this is just stupid.
Andruchon246 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Andruchon246 2 weeks ago
ill fire my arrow at your target.
TheAnubis754 2 weeks ago
Wrong!!!! All matter is in a state of constant motion. (unless at absolute zero, which at the current point in time, only exists in theory)
If you keep halving and halving... you get down to the atomic scale, and because of vibrations due to thermal energy, the atoms are always crossing back and forth over this half way point.
All it takes is more energy to cross more half way points.
Just because there are infinite half way points, doesn't make this impossible
Stupid. Totally, stupid. Go home.
7StringSeven 2 weeks ago
isn't this flaud because an arrow cannot move without us as humans putting it in a bow and the process you just said imagine an arrow going through the air so it is not an example but a hypothetical scenario
88spammer 2 weeks ago
this logic is flawed because if you keep dividing by half you never get back to the starting point at all.
ddd1 2 weeks ago
1,340 people took that arrow to the knee
4eyedphatguys 2 weeks ago
@10YNWA10 time..??
ksceriath 2 weeks ago
problem is, as the lines get closer and closer to the arrow, time would slow down more and more until eventually it would come to a stop.
10YNWA10 2 weeks ago
Part of why I disliked was to be the #1337 dislike. But seriously, I don't like dramatic video descriptions of paradoxes like these because WE KNOW the fallacy and yet people will still be encouraged to come up with bs pseudo-philosophical banter.
capefeather 3 weeks ago
One word: motion.
JohnSmith88823 3 weeks ago
This paradox only holds true if the object in motion stops at the halfway point, such as, it runs out of energy at the halfway point. The paradox is broken when the object in motion crosses that point. It'd be like an airplane or a car only having half the fuel it needs to get to its destination or a hiker only bringing half the food they need to get to their campsite.
Dargonhuman 3 weeks ago
Um. True, i'll go with true.
doctorseaweed2 3 weeks ago
am i the only one who finds her voice sexy?
smslax43 3 weeks ago 21
It's kind of interesting to think that an apparent eternity goes on between every event in our lives. I guess it could be said that everything is infinite by virtue of existing, and we only perceive it as otherwise.
NotGoodAtThis100 3 weeks ago
Well, this paradox of awrrow's movement was made way before Aristotel. It's Zeno's of Elea paradox of movement
rokas555 3 weeks ago
i searched paradox because i heard it from tyler the creator!!<x
badassmatt7 3 weeks ago
@badassmatt7 Kill yourself.
lilsk8erbro 3 weeks ago
What the ancient greeks did not understand was that even though you may have a finite length of string you can always cut that same length of string into ever smaller halves. This does not mean that the string was never whole.
The same goes for movement - the finite amount of time an arrow has to travel can be cut into ever smaller halves.
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
Xeno's paradoxes do not take into account momentum, speed, or time. At any point in its flight, an arrow always has momentum.
dangerouslytalented 3 weeks ago
tell it to the stormcloaks
MyMasterController 3 weeks ago
Why does this have so many dislikes? I'm going to sit back and watch some more youtube now.
lockedine 3 weeks ago
@lockedine Because its logic is wrong
Metalgears1 3 weeks ago
another simple paradox. "This statement is false"
GibsonProject 3 weeks ago
You're wrong cuz you're a girl
babansar 3 weeks ago
That's pretty dumb. The fucking arrow is fucking moving. If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving.
Yo dawg, we heard you like halfway points so we put a halfway point in your halfway point. Shit like this isn't philosophy, this is just over-complicating simple matters to make the speaker feel more intelligent.
noob5000000 3 weeks ago 12
@noob5000000 noob is right. this paradox is one of the principles of Calculus, fuck head. It's not that the speaker seems more intelligent; it's the speaker being more intelligent than your degenerate 21st century fuck-tard ass.No wait, you're right! Aristotle is an idiot. You know, being the father of fucking logic and all. Yeah, Aristotle is an idiot. I have to go commit suicide now that i know the world is full of fucking morons! btw, it was Zeno.Aristotle just commented in bk3 physics
ElmoStCarv 5 days ago
@ElmoStCarv Explain to this moron how this 'paradox' applies to anything in real life. Maybe I'll learn something.
noob5000000 4 days ago
@noob5000000 I think this paradox is supposed to imply that space is infinite within every scale of measurement therefore motion is an illusion and all is one because you cant traverse infinite space. One can keep splitting distances past the atom's nucleus and keep going indefinitely.
a1rh3add 20 hours ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
bishoptutuspants 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
bishoptutuspants 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
bishoptutuspants 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
bishoptutuspants 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noob5000000 ..what do you consider philosophy? "If I stand up and walk to the other side of the room, I'm fucking moving." Pretty sure that's not the sort of multilateral thinking that got us cars, e=mc2 or youtube..
bishoptutuspants 14 hours ago
Dude screw Aristotle. His philosophy brought the dark ages. We could of been in space by now. But I digress. I thought this paradox was made by Zeno.
Metticus 3 weeks ago
@Metticus You do know the dark ages were brought on by the Catholic Church burning all of the "Classics" such as Aristotle, Socrates, and Pluto right? Not the philosophers at all.
hansbrolo 3 weeks ago
@Metticus
philosophy brought us to the dark ages? nononono,no. NO
I agree, we could be in space now, but the one who stopped science and thinking (in general) was the christianity, in the middle age
did you have wonder why, the second middle of the middle age is called ''dark age''?
locoatarozo 3 weeks ago
@locoatarozo sure did. read the book "Zero, the biography of a dangerous idea" to see how aristotle's philosophy brought the dark ages
Metticus 3 weeks ago
The answer to this 'paradox' is in quantum physics, but it can be summarized like this: sub-atomic particles don't move in the conventional sense. They can exist in a sort of 'cloud' of probability until they are observed. When they are observed, they can be somewhere entirely different from where they last were, without appearing to 'move' at all.
RuskePerson 4 weeks ago
This paradox ain't a really paradox, it is just because we do not understand all of the dimensions yet,,,
LASSEJA1 4 weeks ago
@hautster This predates the limit.
bwrightau 4 weeks ago
Philosophers may explore ideas and old paradoxes for whatever reason they always have. The solutions to the questions they ask, like why we feel the things we feel, how we experience reality, what life is, where the universe is heading, these millennia old 'paradoxes', are now all well understood by biologists, neuroscientists, physicists and mathematicians, yet philosophy somehow keeps on truckin'.
JaySmith91 4 weeks ago
@JaySmith91 Yeh i'm pretty sure most of those questions were figured out long before science became prominent.
666or999 4 weeks ago
@666or999 Not at all... Aristotle famously believed that the brain was primarily a heat exchanger... The nervous system wasn't really understood before the 1800's. Before Edward Hubble, many believed in a static universe. Christian countries have been waiting on the four horsemen of the apocalypse for the universe to end, with numerous countdowns and disappointments. Look up celestial spheres. Science opens up the universe with discovery, something that philosophy fails to do.
JaySmith91 3 weeks ago
@JaySmith91 I'm refering to the questions 'like why we feel the things we feel, how we experience reality, what life is,' and don't confuse philosophy with religion. Also it should be noted that science itself came from philosophy
666or999 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JaySmith91 3 weeks ago
@666or999 I'd be interested to know how these questions were answered before the development of neuroscience. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and all the fields that stem from biology. I wouldn't say life was well understood prior to work in molecular microbiology and certainly not before Darwin's time. I think philosophy might be more appropriate alongside history, as it's definitely not a good quest for new knowledge.
JaySmith91 3 weeks ago
have you never heard of how to sum up an infinite series to get a finite number? this is just as simple
dedly13 1 month ago
Infinite convergent series fail.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 month ago
This makes no sense... Obviously, the arrow started at the bow or whatever fired the arrow.
thenewnoob123 1 month ago
it is not the arrow that does not move, but it is the destination that is stationary and presents the endless halves.
WRECKLESSMYKE 1 month ago
Calaculus disproves it.
Canada10v2 1 month ago
Simple answer: The arrow isn't moving, it's everything around it. :)
mQtek 1 month ago
(insert science-y shit here) LIKE A BOSS
crby101 1 month ago
it's easy, apply the procedure to infinity, then the limit result is the other side of the room.
MrBigEnchilada 1 month ago
String theory explains this best, oh wait, actually it's The Count from Sesame Street. He explains it the best.
SilverCyclist 1 month ago
motion is a function both time and space a u cant describe a moving object only by referring to his position
CD070788 1 month ago
the assumption with philosophers who think up this paradox is that time dilates when space gets smaller. Of course this assumption is wrong. For every instance space is halved, time is halved also. Of course we have to assume the velocity of the arrow is constant. You can assume it is possible to half space an infinite amount of times, but when you do time equals 0, hence since a moving body is not at rest, the arrow will always have a finite distance to reach it's target. Paradox solved.
souldude81 1 month ago
@souldude81 Naw. Philosophers a few thousand years ago perhaps, but this paradox has been long solved , centuries ago infact.
MrShayneOneill 1 month ago
@MrShayneOneill duh.
souldude81 1 month ago
I think there are some basic problems with describing this Paradox. Firstly, you assume that you can measure a point in space absolutely. Neither an arrow or a target would be able to occupy a singe measurable point in space. Therefore, there cannot be a half way point to measure. (The more you 'zoom' into an 'edge' of an object, the more difficult it becomes to delineate it from what surrounds it.). Equally, you cannot ever say accurately that the arrow has reached the target.
puddingleaf 1 month ago
im so confused so the arrow never moves when shot in the air to reach its target ?
SpiderRift 1 month ago
@SpiderRift That is the assumption made, but it's wrong. The arrow has kinetic energy the instant after your record it's 0 displacement; no matter how small the distance it travels. In that instant the arrow has a finite time it has to reach it's destination before it violates newtons law.
souldude81 1 month ago
Using this logic, time must stand still too. To get from 10 to 11, you must first get to 10:30, but before that 10:15, 10:07:30, 10:03:45, 10:01:52.500...
DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 1 month ago 2
@DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 Yeah, theres a whole bunch of related paradoxes around Zeno's paradox that revolve around the nature of the infitesimal. Where they become basically wrong is that time etc seems to be quantized, theres a minimum step that things don't become smaller than, and thus the infinite regress described fails at that point. Sort of. Shit gets messy when you introduce infinity into things.
MrShayneOneill 1 month ago
@MrShayneOneill Ah, so THAT'S where planck's time/length come in.
DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrShayneOneill Ah, so that's where planck's time/length come in.
DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 1 month ago
I don't know why there are so many dislikes. I thought you did a decent job of explaining the paradox. I guess people just forget to be awesome.
hpobsessed21 1 month ago 14
@hpobsessed21 It's probably the quality of it...as well as some very technical people being anal about the paradox
BurntheJacket 2 weeks ago
@hpobsessed21 Nerdfighter?
VetGurl101 1 week ago
@VetGurl101 Yes! Nerdfighters forever and DFTBA!
hpobsessed21 1 week ago
ravenof POE. that explains the retarded paradox
Nixom1334 1 month ago
you forget that time is continuous, make as many distance divisions as you want, but the time divisions will also decrease
meringu 1 month ago
This is silly. You imply it's impossible for an object to reach a halfway point between where it was and where it's going? This happens all the time...! What would make it impossible? Silly.
CaptainDummyTalk 1 month ago 2
@CaptainDummyTalk There are an infinite amount of half way points and as you know infinity is impossible to attain therefor the arrow couldn't possibly pass through them all, hence the arrow never moving. It's more of a quirk within the concept of our description of movement, not an actual logical scenario but it's funny none the less :)
P500P500 1 month ago
confused
awesomemint 1 month ago
ok paradox time. THIS SENTENCE IS FALSE!!!!!
sethhero 1 month ago 2
thumbs down for me
TheJosh1111111111111 1 month ago
only in theory. but as the act of movement is not based on finding the midway point but only in the action of movement, this trick is only cool if you're stoned out of your mind.
Nixom1334 1 month ago
Бреед, зачем так ломать мозги, что-бы расчитать траекторию полета стрелы? *facepalm*
devailmay61 1 month ago
But if a point is infinitely small then there would be more and more space between the point and the tip of the arrow, so it would have to move to reach it.
XxTheXNerdXGuyxX 1 month ago
And the answer to solve this lies in that 1. V=A/D*T. And for V=0 A=0 but because of a downward force of gravity says that A is 9.82 in a downward vector meaning that V must be something. So it has to move. And the other paradox is when you reach halfway you still have halfway left... so the arrow doesn't move at all even if it looks like it hit it's target it haven't which is true at quantum physics.
livedandletdie 1 month ago
the reason why its a paradox is because your not relating to time
TheAusrali 1 month ago
Does having a crap involve a half way point? would be messy
MrHolden17 1 month ago
So... it is true.... the world really does revolve around me.. muahhahahha i knew it all along!!!!! -.-
itsjustperry 1 month ago
so if i shoot an arrow the opposite way to which the earth is spinning the earth will quickly spin the other way to get the arrow where it needs to go lol?
itsjustperry 1 month ago
Whatever she says, I'll try not to take an arrow to the knee.
DeeJayCrapsody 1 month ago 50
@DeeJayCrapsody to the knee*
MetroidSammich 1 month ago
@MetroidSammich what the fuck is the difference between to the knee and to the knee? bitch please.
DeeJayCrapsody 1 month ago
@DeeJayCrapsody As soon as i saw she drew an arrow i knew that somebody was going to go there.
drhollidayproduction 1 month ago
...... what she is saying is: since the arrow can't travel the distance x without travelling the distance x/2 first, it can't move.
Of course this is true, everyone just teleports an infinite short distance an infinite amount of times to move. Basic logic. Also v=ms is false because time is an illusion.
...
%#&¤/()=/&%¤#%/()()/#¤&%/()¤%)
TITOR002 1 month ago
The arrow stands still; it is the earth that moves.
VideoSlob 1 month ago
for this case we have the concept from the limit of a function ;-)
hautster 1 month ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
@hautster This movie maker has no concept about modern mathematics. In fact, the sequence is bounded. SO infinity times distance will be a constant. So it is not impossible.
mscdancer 1 month ago
Zeno, apparently, was a moron who failed to actually add distances together.
Unclevertitle 1 month ago
We now know that you can't go infinitly dividing a distance in half. You will eventually go to the scale below the planck length where you can't divide the distance in half.
mcmadbat3 1 month ago
@mcmadbat3 Science, killing philosophy since leucib.
AxeHomeless 1 month ago
@mcmadbat3
So something like quarks can only go a static point forward, bakwards, up and down? Quarks can not go half way of length of other quarks and half of that length again? I wonder how that will effect how quarks align together. Maybe you are on to something ;)
steverock85 1 month ago
This has buged me my whole life. . I think i've finally figured it out. The latest advances in quantum physics teaches us the mindblowing fact that all matter behaves a certian way when observed by counsiousnness. In truth the atoms that make up the arrow are everywhere in every possible position in the universe. It is only our observations that present the illusion that the arow has moved. it didnt realy move we just observed it at different points in time. check out my play list about realiy
ChrisTomo50 1 month ago
why does an arrow need to reach a halfway point to get to another half way point
kakoiarekkusu 1 month ago
@kakoiarekkusu well you need to take a first step before you make a seconed step right? if you didnt take that first step, than you couldent take the seconed one could you? do you get what im saying?
o0LanternLight0o 1 month ago
Comment removed
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
Comment removed
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
Just like everything else in nature, time and space are fractals (look that word up) which means infinity can fit in a finite space, just like it was demonstrated. Movement is just a frame-by-frame illusion of an infinite number of parallel realities that ends up creating the effect of time; therefore, time is just how long it takes any kind of movement to take place.
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
infinitie parallel universe has the same flaw but only in disguise. If there exist an infinity many universes then there is always parallel universe being added. We have everything and then we add one which makes a new everything. Infinity without assuming it converges to spesific number is still unsolved.
It is just like gravity. We know it is there, but we can not tell why and what it is. But maybe there is still a link between infinity and finity to be discovered;)
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Maybe rather than one reality 'added' to the last, it replaces the last. Which also implies the idea of non-locality and time would still be the effect from motion, i.e. the concept of the 'here-and-now' is all that exist & time/location is completely illusory.
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
So you define infinity somethink like an stack in array. And the last entry is removed when new comes in. Or did you mean something like an queue? That first entry is removed when new comes on top?
Why is that any more logical than one being added? Is that not just onother disguse for the same problem? And if it was so, then what is this finite number of parrael universe before the stacks or the queus get changes and what is the rate of this change?
steverock85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 (1 out of 2 comments) I guess its like a queue of infinite parallel 'possibilities' that actually never exist except when present, but the possible reality that becomes actual reality is defined by the situation before it..So the past reality defines the present reality and you could say the present reality defines the 'next present' reality... B/c of this there is no 'finite number of parallel universe before the stacks or the queues get changes' b/c.............
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@steverock85 (2 out of 2 comments) .........past & future realities don't exist, there is only one reality 'to count' or to experience, and we call that the present & and the present reality has no movement & no time...The rate of the change must be infinite b/c time/movement is divided up into infinity, like i mentioned in my first comment, infinity can fit in a finite space by virtue of fractals.
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
I know what they say in the quantum physics. But this does not really solve this paradox. With this you are giving up on explaining what infinity is and using it to fill in the gabs.
The reson of this paradox is to highlight how infinity causes fallacies. You can also consider the liar paradox.
You can also just skip those paradoxes and try to directly tackle infinity.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Well, i guess infinity is the paradox & we cannot understand this concept... but do we need to understand it? If you an infinite amount of moments or realities that proceed each other w/ an infinite, or basically no time at all why would those two infinities cancel and leave us with the linear time that we experience?
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
You are correct, we do not need to understand concept of infinity to go on with our lives. This is the only way we can see this but it does not solve this paradox. For this paradox to be solved, we need to understand what infinity is as we are looking at each interval. It is the observation that makes each point static.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Why does a point need to be observed to be static?
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
What is an observed point? Does it disappear when you are not looking? That is also intresting topic to look at.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Maybe the only point that is observed is the present moment, and it does disappear once it is no longer being observed...kinda cool stuff though
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
@ronnyboy6o
Might be, kind of like that idea.
But the trick is that in our mind, we freeze the time, and give each observed point a static point in time. Thus observing itself will diverge to infinity while the movement of arrow will converge.
Kind of like the liar paradox. Now who is telling the truth of what is really happening. Also what is distance at all. In math any distance can be broken down to infinty, but yet, the distance it self is finite.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Yea, i think their are two truths/sides to every observation that really happen, which of course is what results in the phenomena of the paradox. One truth is perspective of the eyes and the other is perspective of mind, like you mentioned...to be honest with you, being able to have a conversation like this one is enough to prove to me that we are more than just a body and a brain...but ive had other experiences that led me to believe that anyway;)
ronnyboy6o 1 month ago
Everything said contradicts this whole theory, "Before it may reach the target it must reach a half way point" To do either the arrow has moved. To reach is to to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc. To even consider this as a paradox you dont understand basic physics.
Nacherel 1 month ago
@Nacherel Ok, then consider this. When it will move, what will be the smallest possible unit of distance?
The very basics of math is about magnitute and quanity. You are free to think this is not a paradox but it shows in very simple way how limited that thinking is to descrepe our world when it comes to infinity. We can approx when the value converges to specific number but that is all there is to it. This is seen for example in pythagoras, irrational, series and limits.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85
The length of what ever makes up quarks :P
Or quarks themselves
And when it comes to our known world, infinity is but a title of nothing like everything and forever. Perhaps one day, these questions will have answers. Perhaps there is no answer?
And even so, what has this got to do with movement, and the so called paradox?
Nacherel 1 month ago
@Nacherel
Hehe, yes this paradox will end when we have found the smallest possible unit :) And we could think light speed as the divisor for the time as nothing can go faster than light(well, neutrino seems not know yet..).
It is more our observation and attention to each point rather than the movement itself. But what is movement at all? Can you explain it? If the whole world was only two moving footballs heading for each other, then why do they move at all?
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85
It isnt a paradox, everything moves, the electrons of an atom have no position, they are constantly zooming about sharing a wave from like everything in the universe, you and me share phosphorus from a meteorite ten thousand light years away from an undiscovered galax
Nacherel 1 month ago
@Nacherel
Intresting, has everything and this wave been going on forever? Is the phosphorus diffrent 20 thousand light years away then it is here?
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85
No one knows yet.
Most likely not.
Nacherel 1 month ago
@steverock85
Cause the footies are in love my friend! They can not bare to be without each other any longer Hahaha
Perhaps we have just solved the big bang theory Haha
Nacherel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85
Cause the footies are in love my friend! They can not bare to be without each other any longer Hahaha
Perhaps we have just solved the big bang theory Haha
Nacherel 1 month ago
As far as I'm concerned this is little more than a pathetic attempt at sophistry by a person lacking an understanding of basic mechanics in combination with simple algebra.
The fact that this still seems to impress people today is a tragic commentary on an educational system which seems to prove time and time again that a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous (in this case annoying) thing. You may as well make a video about how enthralled you are by the predictive capacity of your weekly horoscope.
U5K0 1 month ago
didn't Zeno come up with this?
chr0n0naut 1 month ago
so i dont have to take an arrow to the knee?
Cheetree1 1 month ago
@Cheetree1 lololololol
Vallru1992 1 month ago
To understand what is going on try look at this. Let distance be m and 2^n, n>1 be the division of time of this distance. So we have sum of series that will equal one or:
m/2+m/4+m/8+m/16+ ... +m/2^n = 1 (or almost one...)
You can put "sum 1/(2^n) from 1 to infinity" in input in wolframalpha . com to see what is going on.
The time to travel will not change, nor will the distance. This is more about what time is and what happens if we focus on each step in the way.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85
Or the "sum m/(2^n) from 1 to infinity" in the input and get m.
m/2+m/4+m/8+m/16+ ... +m/2^n = m not = 1... sry about this...
The paradox is that there will always be fraction missing that makes m or 1 whole. Kind a like sqrt(2), pi or any irrational number or rational number like 1/3, which can not be repisented as a magnitute in its purest form. ex: sqrt(2) = 1,4142... and 1/3 = 0,33333...
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 There's no paradox. After time T the arrow reaches the half way. After time 2T the arrow is at the end. There is no fraction missing when time is over. There is no paradox. There is only the mistake in thinking, that the time unit of observation are getting smaller (or equivalently the speed is decreasing), which, of course, is not allowed, because the arrow in reality is not getting slower either.
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
I never said time will change or the distance.
If we let the distance be 1m and the speed to be 1m/s, how long will it take to arrive to 0.5m?
That would be 1/2 of second right? You are not changing the speed, it is only 1m/s * 1/2m = 1/2s. And how long takes it to get to half of the half of that distance?
1m/s * 1/2m * 1/2 = 1m/s * 1/4m = 1/4s.
Sry I did write this in a confusing way as you might think this is 1/4m/s which it is not.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 I understand what you say, don't worry about units... :) I totally agree.
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
We are only observing each half point in the way. The paradox is about that we can observe to infinity.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Why is that a paradox? For me, there is no paradox. It is only that philosophers from 3000 years ago or so wanted to tease / provoke / spite / ... whatever. Mathematicians explained it. This topic is stupid, I'm wasting my time with it. However, I have learned in this discussion that today there are still people which fall into this trap and do not understand that it is a stupid flight of fancy.
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
Paradox is meant to tease and provoke:)
I will have to assert the football example again to proveke this paradox even more. We know today that every moving objects needs energy to move from each other and to each other. What was this first energy?
If the universe was only one football and one goal, then who kicked the football? O_O That is another paradox related to this one.
You tell me math has solved this paradox. What is the name of that proof?
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 The fact that mankind has not understood the origins of the universe does not make the existence of the universe a paradox. The falsification of the statement "movement is impossible" as well as the mathematically precise description of movement has of course been done. Computations and arguments are given below. Simple high-school mathematics do not need a name. Giving this stupid provocation a name would be a devaluation of all other respectable mathematical research.
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
So your proof is that we experience movement every day? Last time I checked, every mathematical statement needs theorems to be based on to be unambiguous. Even the most simple ones.
Theorems are not so highlighted in high-school but you can't study higher level of calculus like multivariable calculus, linear algebra without them less you build your mathematical foundation on leap of fath. So what is this about devaluation?
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 I do not fall into your trap. It's the other way around: The above self-contradicting video has no logical / mahematical argumentation and does not prove "movement is impossible". All this is explained in many post below. You try to reverse argumentation? You criticise me for not proving "movement is possible". The point is: The fact that the arrow has to reach half way before reaching full way does NOT imply "movement is impossible".Video makes the mistake, not me.
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
Don't worry, the world will not freeze with this logic :)
Yes you are right, this is what we experience in every day. But it does not change the fact that we still have no explanation. We know it is there, but we really can not put a number on it can we?
I am not saying movement is impossible, but math is a little limited when it comes to define infinity. That is all what I am saying. I do not say movement is impossible, just debatable.
steverock85 1 month ago
Well since the clock says 02:10 here in Germany, my movement is towards my bed now. I hope I will reach it sooner or later. Bye
BuggaUgga 1 month ago
@BuggaUgga
"According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions. To fully solve any of the paradoxes, however, one needs to show what is wrong with the argument, not just the conclusions. Through history, several solutions have been proposed, among the earliest recorded being those of Aristotle and Archimedes." - Zeno's_paradoxes - wiki
Good night and sleep well:)
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85
If the universe was a footy and a goal, no one kicked the ball, it wasnt even kicked"? Do you even know what you said??? :P
Nacherel 1 month ago
@Nacherel
It was an attemt for a metaphor. I admit that this was an poor one. But if there were no one to kick the ball, then how did the ball start moving on its own? And if kicket, how did the kicker start to move? How did the universe start to move? This may lead us to conclution of an illusory world like what ronnyboy6o said. But even infinity parralell universes in stacks or queues have the exact same problem.
steverock85 1 month ago
I got an arrow in the knee...how is even possible?!
MrGurthanthoclops 1 month ago
high school math... didn't you study limits?
iambill3 1 month ago 2