A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

A Guy · Jul 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Okay, so I looked at one of Zeno's paradoxes, and it gave me an idea for another paradox. Well, here goes.

It is impossible for any amount of time to pass. Let's say that an hour was to pass. In order for that to happen, 1/2 the time between 0:00 and 60:00 would have to pass. Then half of the time between that. Then half of the time between that. Then half the time between that, on and on...

Because time must pass an infinite number of stages to reach a point, the passage of time is thus impossible.

Syler Bladewing · Jul 11, 2008 2:56 AM

Another good paradox is the liar's paradox.

I am lying now. This statement is false.

Don't try to solve this one. Some philosoper did, and he went mad and died. So yeah, better not to try.

Kamineko · Jul 11, 2008 8:04 AM

A Guy wrote:

Okay, so I looked at one of Zeno's paradoxes, and it gave me an idea for another paradox. Well, here goes.
It is impossible for any amount of time to pass. Let's say that an hour was to pass. In order for that to happen, 1/2 the time between 0:00 and 60:00 would have to pass. Then half of the time between that. Then half of the time between that. Then half the time between that, on and on...
Because time must pass an infinite number of stages to reach a point, the passage of time is thus impossible.

If the hour has passed then the passage of time is possible.

Just going into deeper things doesn't mean it's impossible.

That logic can just as easily (and wrongly) applied to if I move my arm. For it to move from point A to point B, it must have had to also reach the halfway point, and half from there, etc.

But my arm's moved. There's no doubt about that.

Juice box · Jul 11, 2008 8:17 AM

A Guy wrote:

Okay, so I looked at one of Zeno's paradoxes, and it gave me an idea for another paradox. Well, here goes.
It is impossible for any amount of time to pass. Let's say that an hour was to pass. In order for that to happen, 1/2 the time between 0:00 and 60:00 would have to pass. Then half of the time between that. Then half of the time between that. Then half the time between that, on and on...
Because time must pass an infinite number of stages to reach a point, the passage of time is thus impossible.

I've seen this before. I don't believe it but it's very interesting.

Fletch_Talon · Jul 11, 2008 8:32 AM

the problem is that after halving time a certain number of times the result becomes so small that its impossible to notice the difference

to use a better example, the moving an arm thing, eventually the difference between where the arm is and where it is heading becomes so small that there is really no difference at all, any actions or measurements of time that we measure can only go so far before we can see no difference between 1 measurement and the next

the same thing can be applied to any measurement, technically i have to walk half of the distance to the shops, and half of that difference, etc. but i always get there, its because measurements are a human invention, theyre useful sure, but as we can see here theyre flawed

A Guy · Jul 11, 2008 11:12 PM

There might be a (spoilered for possible screen stretching)

▼Hidden text

difference, but there is a difference, and that number can still be halved.

Stormy · Jul 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Atresac wrote:

A Guy wrote:
Okay, so I looked at one of Zeno's paradoxes, and it gave me an idea for another paradox. Well, here goes.
It is impossible for any amount of time to pass. Let's say that an hour was to pass. In order for that to happen, 1/2 the time between 0:00 and 60:00 would have to pass. Then half of the time between that. Then half of the time between that. Then half the time between that, on and on...
Because time must pass an infinite number of stages to reach a point, the passage of time is thus impossible.
If the hour has passed then the passage of time is possible.
Just going into deeper things doesn't mean it's impossible.
That logic can just as easily (and wrongly) applied to if I move my arm. For it to move from point A to point B, it must have had to also reach the halfway point, and half from there, etc.
But my arm's moved. There's no doubt about that.

[sub]That's why it's a paradox. wink

He's proved that it should be impossible, yet it undoubtedly can still happen. [/sub]

Kamineko · Jul 12, 2008 2:27 AM

But it shouldn't be impossible.

It's just "it needs to go through a lot of things to get there".

It's just a flawed logic.

Also: I just looked up the paradox in question: it's the same thing as this one, just applied to time. It's not a modification of it, just a different application of it.

Fletch_Talon · Jul 12, 2008 2:53 AM

A Guy wrote:

▼Hidden text
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
difference, but there is a difference, and that number can still be halved.

but the human mind and sense of time can not and likely never will be able to tell the difference between

▼Hidden text

and

▼Hidden text

so as interesting as the whole paradox thing is, its irrelevent, the time that youre referring to is a measurement, not time itself, its our concept of time

besides which whose to say there isnt a unit of time which just cant be halved, take matter for instance, we're made of atoms, atoms have electrons nuclei and protons, and those subatomic particles are made of quarks i believe

but thats where it ends (at least for the moment) its supposedly impossible to divide these things any further, at least for humans

Juice box · Jul 12, 2008 7:25 AM

Fletch_Talon wrote:

so as interesting as the whole paradox thing is, its irrelevent, the time that youre referring to is a measurement, not time itself, its our concept of time

That's a very good explanation.

Fletch_Talon wrote:

besides which whose to say there isnt a unit of time which just cant be halved, take matter for instance, we're made of atoms, atoms have electrons nuclei and protons, and those subatomic particles are made of quarks i believe
but thats where it ends (at least for the moment) its supposedly impossible to divide these things any further, at least for humans

Not true if we're talking about halving. What about cutting a quark in half simply to make 1/2 quarks?

Fletch_Talon · Jul 12, 2008 7:43 AM

Juice box wrote:

Fletch_Talon wrote:
besides which whose to say there isnt a unit of time which just cant be halved, take matter for instance, we're made of atoms, atoms have electrons nuclei and protons, and those subatomic particles are made of quarks i believe
but thats where it ends (at least for the moment) its supposedly impossible to divide these things any further, at least for humans
Not true if we're talking about halving. What about cutting a quark in half simply to make 1/2 quarks?

i was of the impression that we were unable to do so, i dunno, i barely remembered the order of things (atom-subatomic particle-quark) let alone how they work or what they do

what i never though of before is that "half" is also a human concept, its funny how we create measurements to explain what happens around us, and yet then it leads to more confusion when you look too deeply into it

another paradox (i think thats an appropriate term for it) is creation, how can something exist without anything to have created it, its a way to shut up both atheists and theists

god created the universe... so who created him? who created the thing that created god? etc.
the big bang happened and scattered particles and stuff (technical terms FTW >_>) which eventually formed into planets and things... so where did the particles come from in the first place? what caused the bang? what created the thing that caused the bang? etc.

give it up people, who cares how we got here, we're here now, just like time, it passes, i dont care how it does it, as long as it keeps going

Fortune · Jul 12, 2008 10:02 AM

Fletch_Talon wrote:

god created the universe... so who created him? who created the thing that created god? etc.
the big bang happened and scattered particles and stuff (technical terms FTW >_>) which eventually formed into planets and things... so where did the particles come from in the first place? what caused the bang? what created the thing that caused the bang? etc.
give it up people, who cares how we got here, we're here now, just like time, it passes, i dont care how it does it, as long as it keeps going

Well Scientists don't just go with the "Big Bang" Theory. They have different theories depending on the shape of the universe: Whether being the Friedmann-LemaÃ®tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model of the universe, or one of the three constant curvature models (3-dimensional eucledian geometry, 3d spherical geometry or 3d hyberbolic geometry). One such theory dependant on the shape of the universe is the "Big Bounce" theory, which states that the universe will contract eventually, essentually being the reverse of the big bang, which would then proceed to expand again. But still brings to mind the fact that everything has existed forever and the life of a proton being 10^34 seconds, which defies logic and proceeds to confuse people. It has been theorised that time is a finite quantity: that it will eventually end (Lookup Time finitism on wikipedia (too lazy to put link in)).

As for the Zeno paradox, yes, the logic behind it is right, but the concept is iffish. Its like a limiting function to infinity (infinite number of half-intervals to reach the full number). My favourite Zeno paradox is the Arrow Paradox (found on wikipedia here), which I proceeded to write on the whiteboard in my physics class while the teacher wasn't around.

This isn't really a paradox but its cool all the same:
Proof that 1 does not equal 1.
Let c = 0.9999... (0.9 recurring)
10c - c = 9.999... - 0.9999...
9c = 9
c = 1
0.9999... = 1
The same can be proven by showing the sum of 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...

Fletch_Talon · Jul 12, 2008 10:07 AM

Fortune wrote:

Fletch_Talon wrote:
god created the universe... so who created him? who created the thing that created god? etc.
the big bang happened and scattered particles and stuff (technical terms FTW >_>) which eventually formed into planets and things... so where did the particles come from in the first place? what caused the bang? what created the thing that caused the bang? etc.
give it up people, who cares how we got here, we're here now, just like time, it passes, i dont care how it does it, as long as it keeps going
Well Scientists don't just go with the "Big Bang" Theory. They have different theories depending on the shape of the universe: Whether being the Friedmann-LemaÃ®tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model of the universe, or one of the three constant curvature models (3-dimensional eucledian geometry, 3d spherical geometry or 3d hyberbolic geometry). One such theory dependant on the shape of the universe is the "Big Bounce" theory, which states that the universe will contract eventually, essentually being the reverse of the big bang, which would then proceed to expand again.
As for the Zeno paradox, yes, the logic behind it is right, but the concept is iffish. Its like a limiting function to infinity (infinite number of half-intervals to reach the full number). My favourite Zeno paradox is the Arrow Paradox (found on wikipedia here), which I proceeded to write on the whiteboard in my physics class while the teacher wasn't around.
This isn't really a paradox but its cool all the same:
Proof that 1 does not equal 1.
Let c = 0.9999... (0.9 recurring)
10c - c = 9.999... - 0.9999...
9c = 9
c = 1
0.9999... = 1
The same can be proven by showing the sum of 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...

the problem remains, if we go by human logic, then something has to cause everything, it doesnt matter what the explanation is for the beginning of the universe, supposedly it all had to start somewhere, which means something, somewhere existed or happened before anything had the potential to exist or happen

Spyro_Loves_Me · Jul 13, 2008 5:32 AM

Fortune wrote:

This isn't really a paradox but its cool all the same:
Proof that 1 does not equal 1.
Let c = 0.9999... (0.9 recurring)
10c - c = 9.999... - 0.9999...
9c = 9
c = 1
0.9999... = 1

Well ... Actually, there are many proofs that show .999... does equal 1.
Besides that, .999... has been accepted as 1.

About that time theory ...
I really prefer not to think too hard. So I just say there are 60 minutes in an hour. :-P
"the passage of time is thus impossible" can easily be proven false. Time is obviously passing right now. Therefore, by common knowledge, the passage of time is possible.

A Guy · Jul 13, 2008 8:48 PM

Spyro_Loves_Me wrote:

Fortune wrote:
This isn't really a paradox but its cool all the same:
Proof that 1 does not equal 1.
Let c = 0.9999... (0.9 recurring)
10c - c = 9.999... - 0.9999...
9c = 9
c = 1
0.9999... = 1
Well ... Actually, there are many proofs that show .999... does equal 1.
Besides that, .999... has been accepted as 1.
About that time theory ...
I really prefer not to think too hard. So I just say there are 60 minutes in an hour. :-P
"the passage of time is thus impossible" can easily be proven false. Time is obviously passing right now. Therefore, by common knowledge, the passage of time is possible.

That's why it's a paradox wink

#1 Jul 10, 2008 10:10 PM

A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#2 Jul 11, 2008 2:56 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#3 Jul 11, 2008 8:04 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#4 Jul 11, 2008 8:17 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#5 Jul 11, 2008 8:32 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#6 Jul 11, 2008 11:12 PM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#7 Jul 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#8 Jul 12, 2008 2:27 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#9 Jul 12, 2008 2:53 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#10 Jul 12, 2008 7:25 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#11 Jul 12, 2008 7:43 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#12 Jul 12, 2008 10:02 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#13 Jul 12, 2008 10:07 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#14 Jul 13, 2008 5:32 AM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

#15 Jul 13, 2008 8:48 PM

Re: A Guy's paradox on time (Modification of one of Zeno's paradoxes)

Board footer