Parmenides, Nothingness, & Zeno's Paradoxes

[@havenbastion]

We consistently do get as far as the door. The description of reality as a set of continuously smaller things is possible merely by continuously increasing the speed at which they occur, which well illustrates the point that nothing infinite is part of our reality. Paradox only ever exists in language, never in reality. Languages must be first descriptive of reality in order to be meaningful.

[@thomaskilroy3199]

This puts the mind in an awkward position though doesn’t it, in a way the Greeks did not consider. In a way we really need to counter the idea that ‘what cannot be thought cannot be’, and so say that it is possible that the unthinkable exists. Then the senses become a window into what may prove unfathomable. Zeno made travel here unfathomable, but rearranging our concept of travel to relate to speed and time doesn’t really solve the more general problem of how we should quantify units along something like a dimension, considered to be infinite.

[@el_equidistante]

Nonsense, how exactly do you derive language from reality if to understand reality you need language? And how do you know that paradoxes do not exist in reality? saying so, it is in fact projecting language into reality, i.e. the consistency of logic into reality

[@havenbastion]

@@el_equidistante We need language to understand complexity, not reality. Every being understands reality because they have experience of it. We need language to communicate perspective (our own experience) in order to gain the rudiments of complexity.

[@el_equidistante]

@@havenbastion experience is not the same as understanding, experience might not require language, but understanding does, I don't think you realize the problematic nature of what you just said.

[@rcourtri2]

Does this tv/video series have a title? I'd kinda like to see it in its entirety.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

The title is "Classical Greek Philosophy" from the series "Great Ideas of Philosophy".

[@rcourtri2]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Thanks.

[@alfredorezende580]

O paradoxo de nunca alcancar a porta é resolvido se for usado a referencia oposta à usada na primeira parte da explicaçao, pois nesse caso a distancia d que separa vc do objeto vai aumentando em vez de diminuir. "O velho grego" usa esse recurso. Aristoteles é outra conversa

[@marekvodicka]

2:10 This paradox occurs only when the notion of "a half" (or "number") is applied to a distance in the real world. If we didn't divide the path in half, or in smaller parts - if we didn't represent the distance in number - there would be no paradox. The fault is, therefore, in our concepts we apply on the world, not in the world in itself. Bergson's method of intuition, for example, avoids this completely, because it's a non-representational way of interpreting the world.

[@leggendario93]

My dude it's been around 2000 years, we know

[@Israel2.3.2]

Book VI of Aristotle's Physics contains the material referenced at the end. KZbin needs more lectures giving detailed examinations of Aristotle's scientific and metaphysical works.

[@havenbastion]

Whatever it is that we're experiencing IS reality. Actuality is what it's a filtered version of. There is nothing less illusory than that which continuously replicates.

[@lw256]

My very first essay for an undergraduate course in ancient philosophy was on the topic of Parmenides. My whole argument in a page and a half was that he arrived at the conclusion that change is impossible given the wholeness of reality. OK, not a groundbreaking conclusion (or is it?), but the assignment was to give an interpretation, not to philosophize independently. What surprised me is that my professor gave me a D on that paper and gave very direct notes that that is absolutely not the position he was arguing for. I mean I was a (relatively uneducated, going into that deep a field of inquiry) kid, just 18. I never got the proper feedback on that paper, so I've always wondered even until now what she expected a class of 70 freshmen to say about the very cryptic ideas of Parmenides that we read off of fragmentary writings. To be fair, I think I mentioned something about an "unchanging universe" which may have pushed the argument too far. But the expectation was for a B+ to A-, so I just wonder where I went wrong to get pushed down to a D.

[@YM-cw8so]

Don't care too much about grades in undergraduate, just pass your first year and study whatever you want in year 2 and 3

[@tapan97]

In order to deserve an A- or B+ you'd first have to be deserving of a D-, and then proceed towards D+. To do that you'll need to reach halfway between D- and D+, and to do THAT it is first necessary to cover half of the halfway point. But before that there's half of THAT point and befo-

[@TorMax9]

Where you went wrong? You chose the wrong professor. There is no "right" or "wrong" position here, just a well-argued, consistent, inferences-follow-logically-from-the assumptions paper or not so well argued paper. You could delve into the findings and philosophical positions of modern physics like Quantum Mechanics (nondeterministic), some 11 serious interpretations, and General Relativity (deterministic), but that would probable be way over her head. Don't worry about what she thinks. What do you think? The picture present-day Quantum Mechanics generally presents leans more towards Heraclitus than Parmenides among the Ancient Greeks. There is an excellent little book by Werner Heisenberg that covers this called Physics and Philosophy, 1958, free online. See also an excellent Wikipedia article called Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cheers!

[@TorMax9]

Also, If you accept that Planck Units, - Planck Length and Planck Time, also Planck Mass and Planck Temperature - are the smallest unit of time and length, then Zeno's paradoxes go out the window and are no longer an issue. Planck also declared that consciousness was foundational to reality itself. So, there is a whole other field to explore. Everything is provisional. There are no nailed down answers. Everything is in flux, process, becoming, including our understanding and our scientific models. It's all about human-all-too-human prediction and control.

[@Dazzletoad]

What's the original source for this video? 😊

[@EG-uv8fd]

3:45 Aristotle: infinity as an ever-expendable finitude

[@myaknirufesco-ryckexgajithov]

ever-extendable

[@araorangepeel]

fascinating

[@havenbastion]

Infinity is an instruction not a number. It means keep going or etcetera.

[@richard9480]

Gold dust in just 4 mins 40!

[@alfredorezende580]

"The number would be finite" Zeno says(He is right). That is in empirical world. We will get to the door only in metaphisic account because we would deal with infinite number. That is: we would ever die

[@alfredorezende580]

È impossivel incluir no seu argumento na defesa de algo filosofico, um trecho de outra linguagem, pois a funcao de transmitir o significado do conjunto de simbolos da linguagem original não é o mesmo de ququer outra limguagem

[@davidreay5911]

There's only one conclusion that explains everything.And that's....... well, it's so obvious. Can't you see?

[@junkjunk2493]

... turtles all the way ...

[@Danyel615]

To me it is confusing why they keep saying that it is a paradox today. The key part of the paradox is the "ad infinitum" part, but from a modern understanding that cannot be. If you keep going with half the distance 30 or 40 times, you'll get to the lengths of atoms and below and then you'll have to change your notion of position. 30-40 is very different from infinity! There is an implicit assumption in all this, that the concept of position is independent of length, no matter how big or small (formally, that it is scale invariant). That is the wrong assumption and the only reason why this appears to be a paradox, but it is not.

[@Danyel615]

@@stoyanfurdzhev I'm taking space as a given and assuming there is a solution to the question, but so is the opposite stance where you would think there is a paradox.

[@Danyel615]

@@stoyanfurdzhev I agree that a qualitative impression (idea) is implied whenever accepting or rejecting an argument, but I'm not following your argument. Could you express it in more simple terms or with a concrete analogy?

[@Danyel615]

@@stoyanfurdzhev I'm sorry, but your answers are really hard to follow word salads. I cannot really follow them. If you pleasee just give a concrete example of what you mean in a few words.