This teacher of mine had this strange theory

I understood it perfectly...

Interesting.

so he taught you the alphabet.

Colin1192

Alright wait a second, Planck proved thers no such as infinite. Then why do we keep using that term? to describe the universe for example, people say the universe is infinite.Drakes_Fortune

It's not your teacher's theory :| An ancient Greek philosopher came up with that. I think it was Epicurius (???)hamstergeddon

EDIT: Hm, turns out Zenon was not a sophist.

Anyway at school I was taught that sophists usually came up with such paradoxes.

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"][QUOTE="cheeselover"]Dude. No, just no. There is no law that states that we must be bound to walking these half distance. We just walk, that's it. When we get to point A, we're done. Boom. Happy ending.EMOEVOLUTION

Many interesting things stem from human imperfections.

Or more accurately put, its our imperfections that render them to our eyes interesting.

I also noticed no one cares about this thread at this point lol. Getting too much confusing ? Drakes_Fortune

Well to go to my room I need to get their half way first. And a quarter of the way as well... and so on... But as I travel to my room and end up there haven't I clearly traveled all that? Diablo112688

I also noticed no one cares about this thread at this point lol. Getting too much confusing ? Drakes_Fortune

why thats just crazy enough to make sense

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]Well to go to my room I need to get their half way first. And a quarter of the way as well... and so on... But as I travel to my room and end up there haven't I clearly traveled all that? Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]Well to go to my room I need to get their half way first. And a quarter of the way as well... and so on... But as I travel to my room and end up there haven't I clearly traveled all that? Drakes_Fortune

Interesting theory. Definitely something to think about. But if you put it to test in the real world, you'll see that it just doesn't work that way. The real question here is, why?

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well, in theory, since a distance can be infinitely divided into smaller distances, you do travel some distance but you never reach the end of the room.

jimmyjammer69

yes thats what i said. read my other post it was more clear, im getting sleepy and i might start to not make any sense.

Interesting theory. Definitely something to think about. But if you put it to test in the real world, you'll see that it just doesn't work that way. The real question here is, why?

Tauruslink

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"] according to Planck, iv posted this in my previous posts, you will get to the point that it doesnt matter if it gets smaller cause it wont have any effect in anything. But i still dont see how this proves this theory to be wrong. According to planck that size is very very small. As he says, its like comparing a tree to the universe. But still, even tough anything smaller than that, according to his theory has no effect in anything, its like it doesnt even exist, i still dont know how that proves thers no such thing as infinity.Drakes_Fortune

yes thats what i said. read my other post it was more clear, im getting sleepy and i might start to not make any sense.

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Are you sure you read that right? I thought that Planck was suggesting that there was a minimum traversible distance.jimmyjammer69

yes thats what i said. read my other post it was more clear, im getting sleepy and i might start to not make any sense.

Isn't this Zeno's paradox? *sees later posts* Yeah... zakkro

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

yes thats what i said. read my other post it was more clear, im getting sleepy and i might start to not make any sense.

unholymight

Many things we built based on something and yet that arent necessarily right, and sometimes are actually wrong. But thats not the point here, i dont think he was saying Planck is wrong, we arent doubting Planck theory here.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

yes thats what i said. read my other post it was more clear, im getting sleepy and i might start to not make any sense.

unholymight

Hang on, I didn't say Planck was wrong, did I?. Physicists seem to agree that the Planck length sets a minimum value for effective and measurable space, not that space isn't theoretically further divisible. Now, I might have this mixed up, but I think the value of Planck's ideas is in their applicability not in their ultimate truth.

It's probably been said already but:

What your teacher described is what's known as a limit in calculus. It's hardly anything groundbreaking. Furthermore, when it comes to limits you do reach a point where for all intents and purposes the difference between your point and the limit is non-existant. For example, we can agree that 1/3 = .33333333333 (repeating) right? Well, multiply both by 3 and see what happens. The reason we're able to still say that 1/3 = .33(repeating) is because that irrational number continues for infinity and thus the difference between .9999999999999(repeating) and 1 becomes infinitely smaller, to the point that there is no difference between the two except on a purely theoretical level.

The reason it fails in real life is because there is a minimum distance that you must cover whenever you move. It is impossible for a human to step forward only one atom when walking. As a result, you void the limit because you can't infinitelly decrease how much distance you move each step. At a certain point the minimum possible distance you can move is greater than the distance left to your goal. Even assuming you could keep moving less and less for infinity, the logic I pointed out in the first paragraph still stands and thus you will still reach your destination for all intents and purposes.

And that's why philosophy majors are only qualified to teach philosophy, because they can never get anything done in the real world. They can't even walk down the street apparently.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] It's quite possible you did say that. On a side point, the word "atom" literally means indivisible, and I think that the work of Planck was really an effort to restore faith in this idea that the universe is made up of identical, indivisible particles, and so is ultimately ordered and quantifiable. You've probably hit on something that whether there is a distance smaller than this Planck length is more something that we might never be able to know than a question already answered by his theories, and I guess this thread is a nice reminder that most of us laymen put quite a bit of faith in the idea that scientists probably know the answers without bothering to check whether it's always even possible.jimmyjammer69

Hang on, I didn't say Planck was wrong, did I?. Physicists seem to agree that the Planck length sets a minimum value for effective and measurable space, not that space isn't theoretically further divisible. Now, I might have this mixed up, but I think the value of Planck's ideas is in their applicability not in their ultimate truth.

It's probably been said already but:

What your teacher described is what's known as a limit in calculus. It's hardly anything groundbreaking. Furthermore, when it comes to limits you do reach a point where for all intents and purposes the difference between your point and the limit is non-existant. For example, we can agree that 1/3 = .33333333333 (repeating) right? Well, multiply both by 3 and see what happens. The reason we're able to still say that 1/3 = .33(repeating) is because that irrational number continues for infinity and thus the difference between .9999999999999(repeating) and 1 becomes infinitely smaller, to the point that there is no difference between the two except on a purely theoretical level.

The reason it fails in real life is because there is a minimum distance that you must cover whenever you move. It is impossible for a human to step forward only one atom when walking. As a result, you void the limit because you can't infinitelly decrease how much distance you move each step. At a certain point the minimum possible distance you can move is greater than the distance left to your goal. Even assuming you could keep moving less and less for infinity, the logic I pointed out in the first paragraph still stands and thus you will still reach your destination for all intents and purposes.

gameguy6700

And that's why philosophy majors are only qualified to teach philosophy, because they can never get anything done in the real world. They can't even walk down the street apparently.

jubino

[QUOTE="jubino"]

And that's why philosophy majors are only qualified to teach philosophy, because they can never get anything done in the real world. They can't even walk down the street apparently.

Drakes_Fortune

its been some years know, but i still remember this theory, i found it cool back then. His classes were pretty interesting, he was a cool guy, very charismatic.

So the theory was like this:

To go to point A to point B, from your house to your job for example, first you need to get to half of that path.

to get from A to B....

A B

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....first you need to get to C.......

A C

------------------------------------------------------------------

....but before you get to C, you obviously need to pass trough D

A D

------------------------------

But to get to D you need to pass trough E first, and so on

A E

----------------

This is will get you to the point that its the size of an atom. And even tough, we know that atoms have even small particles, has protons and electrons for example. And even there, we can continue to get even smaller sizes, and so on, and so on till infintum. cause an atom can be divided infinite times.

So theoretically we cant really get to point B in this theory. I dunno, i dont believe any of this, but what you think about it? i was a kid so i found it cool back then, and the way he explained was pretty cool, everyone in the class was pretty interesting in it. It was pretty rare to see the entire class so interested in anything. thers always someone talking and not paying any attention to the class ( i was one of those cases in many ocasions), but in this class everyone was so quiet listening to it. His classes were pretty cool, but it only lasted 2-3 months cause we changed teacher.

bad english i know.

Drakes_Fortune

There's no paradox here. The distance to your end goal doesn't change and neither does your velocity; so that means you'll get there regardless of how many points you pass through or how small they are.

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

its been some years know, but i still remember this theory, i found it cool back then. His classes were pretty interesting, he was a cool guy, very charismatic.

So the theory was like this:

To go to point A to point B, from your house to your job for example, first you need to get to half of that path.

to get from A to B....

A B

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....first you need to get to C.......

A C

------------------------------------------------------------------

....but before you get to C, you obviously need to pass trough D

A D

------------------------------

But to get to D you need to pass trough E first, and so on

A E

----------------

This is will get you to the point that its the size of an atom. And even tough, we know that atoms have even small particles, has protons and electrons for example. And even there, we can continue to get even smaller sizes, and so on, and so on till infintum. cause an atom can be divided infinite times.

So theoretically we cant really get to point B in this theory. I dunno, i dont believe any of this, but what you think about it? i was a kid so i found it cool back then, and the way he explained was pretty cool, everyone in the class was pretty interesting in it. It was pretty rare to see the entire class so interested in anything. thers always someone talking and not paying any attention to the class ( i was one of those cases in many ocasions), but in this class everyone was so quiet listening to it. His classes were pretty cool, but it only lasted 2-3 months cause we changed teacher.

bad english i know.

Barbariser

There's no paradox here. The distance to your end goal doesn't change and neither does your velocity; so that means you'll get there regardless of how many points you pass through or how small they are.

It should be A to Z since there is no letters between them so no.

[QUOTE="LZ71"]Sounds like that turtle riddle. Drakes_Fortune

Here it is, I think.

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"][QUOTE="LZ71"]Sounds like that turtle riddle. LZ71

Here it is, I think.

I've taken a few philosophy classes in college so far, and I always end up arguing over this theory. It usually end up with me giving a "watch me" presentation. Like, "Your theory says I can't pick up that pencil. Watch me".jubino

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"][QUOTE="jubino"]

And that's why philosophy majors are only qualified to teach philosophy, because they can never get anything done in the real world. They can't even walk down the street apparently.

jubino

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

its been some years know, but i still remember this theory, i found it cool back then. His classes were pretty interesting, he was a cool guy, very charismatic.

So the theory was like this:

To go to point A to point B, from your house to your job for example, first you need to get to half of that path.

to get from A to B....

A B

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....first you need to get to C.......

A C

------------------------------------------------------------------

....but before you get to C, you obviously need to pass trough D

A D

------------------------------

But to get to D you need to pass trough E first, and so on

A E

----------------

This is will get you to the point that its the size of an atom. And even tough, we know that atoms have even small particles, has protons and electrons for example. And even there, we can continue to get even smaller sizes, and so on, and so on till infintum. cause an atom can be divided infinite times.

So theoretically we cant really get to point B in this theory. I dunno, i dont believe any of this, but what you think about it? i was a kid so i found it cool back then, and the way he explained was pretty cool, everyone in the class was pretty interesting in it. It was pretty rare to see the entire class so interested in anything. thers always someone talking and not paying any attention to the class ( i was one of those cases in many ocasions), but in this class everyone was so quiet listening to it. His classes were pretty cool, but it only lasted 2-3 months cause we changed teacher.

bad english i know.

Drakes_Fortune

There's no paradox here. The distance to your end goal doesn't change and neither does your velocity; so that means you'll get there regardless of how many points you pass through or how small they are.

There is no paradox. My velocity is constant; suppose that "A to B" carries a distance of 10 metres, and that it would take me 10 seconds to cross that distance. Even if there were a hundred points between A to B that I would theoratically have to cross, it would take me ~0.1 seconds to reach each of those points - therefore, it would still take me 10 seconds to cross all the points. If there is an infinite number of points, then it would take me an infinitely small time to cross each individual point - which still means that I can reach B from A.

If it was specified that I would have to take an absolute amount of time to cross each point regardless of distance, then you'd have a point - but it's not, and that is not how movement works in real life anyway.

Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox fails because it doesn't assign a required amount of time to reach each infinitely small point. In fact, this counterargument I proposed to you was also brought up by Aristotle over 2300 years ago.

And that's why philosophy majors are only qualified to teach philosophy, because they can never get anything done in the real world. They can't even walk down the street apparently.

jubino

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"][QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

yes. before you walk 0.0000000000001 first you need to walk 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001and so on, this will lead to an infinite number. you cant just skip the distance no matter how small it is, that way you would be teleporting.

harashawn

Jump out the window.

I don't get it, is there a moral to the story?

dark-warmachine

Drugs are bad mmkay.