 Well, parminides, it's going to tell us that there's no change around us right now. In fact, there's no distinction between the river and the trees and the bank and the air and you. It's all one. All those things you just listed are illusions. A common sense tells us that of course there's a river and it's changing. Of course there's a tree and a river and the bank and the bed and you and these are all distinct things. Of course, common sense tells us this. So, parminides, while you provided a clever trick, a clever little argument, you were nevertheless mistaken. Zeno says not so fast. Common sense is not the end-all, be-all of knowledge that you think it is. It's not going to be able to automatically refute everything you think it can. In fact, common sense results in a lot of contradictions, results in absurdities, but things that you think can't be true, but common sense tells you must be true. So, for Zeno, I am, you know, walking further down the river and I am walking back to the camera and common sense tells you that I've moved and Zeno says that's not possible because if you move, if you move, then you've crossed an infinite and it's impossible to cross an infinite. Therefore you didn't move and therefore common sense is flawed. To see how this is supposed to work, let's take a look at this ship here. You think it's moving from the left hand side of the screen to the right hand side, but in order for it to do that, it has to cross a halfway point. Okay, well you think no problem, it crossed a halfway point so it can get to the end. Not so fast, it has another halfway point to cross and then after that halfway point it has another halfway point and then after that halfway point there's another halfway point and then after that halfway point there's yet another halfway point. In fact, this can keep going on indefinitely. Now as before we can't just simply reject a conclusion and walk away. Zeno's argument can be put into a deductively valid argument. That means if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. If we reject the conclusion, we have to reject at least one of the premises and figure out which premise to reject can be a little complicated because every time we reject a proposition you are committed to its logical contradictory. Okay, well you've seen this before. I showed it in the video and by now this should be a little bit of a, you should expect this to happen. Here is the argument that Zeno provides, or at least a reconstruction of it. These are the premises upon which the conclusion relies. If you reject the conclusion, you have to reject one of these premises, but if you reject the premise and reject one of these propositions, then you are committed to its logical contradictory. Here are the contradictories. So, which one and why?