Paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Paradox (disambiguation).
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true.
[1][2]
Most logical
paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promotingcritical thinking.
[3]

Some paradoxes have revealed errors in definitions assumed to be rigorous, and have caused
axioms of mathematics and logic to be re-examined. One example is Russell's paradox, which
questions whether a "list of all lists that do not contain themselves" would include itself, and
showed that attempts to found set theory on the identification of sets
with properties or predicates were flawed.
[4]
Others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet
resolved.
Examples outside logic include the Ship of Theseus from philosophy (questioning whether a ship
repaired over time by replacing each of its wooden parts would remain the same ship).
Paradoxes can also take the form of images or other media. For example, M.C.
Escher featured perspective-based paradoxes in many of his drawings, with walls that are
regarded as floors from other points of view, and staircases that appear to climb endlessly.
[5]

In common usage, the word "paradox" often refers to statements that are ironic or unexpected,
such as "the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking".
[2]


paradox
AAA
Part of the Business terms glossary:
A paradox is a statement or concept that contains conflicting ideas. In logic, a paradox is a
statement that contradicts itself; for example, the statement "I never tell the truth" is a
paradox because if the statement is true (T), it must be false (F) and if it is false (F), it must
be true (T). In everyday language, a paradox is a concept that seems absurd or
contradictory, yet is true. In a Windows environment, for instance, it is a paradox that when
a user wants to shut down their computer, it is necessary to first click "start".




The best explanation that I could give based on my learning is this... Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox was
Zeno's way of attempting to explain that motion is an illiusion based on the idea that one could never
actually traverse a "set" distance. This is because the individual must first travel half the distance and
in order to travel half the distance he must first travel two quarters of the distance and so on. Until, the
person is actually travelling such small distances that he is not moving at all. The reason that his idea
must be flawed is because if an observer watches a person walking the person does, in fact, travel
from point A to point B. Therefore, motion is a reality.
Zeno's paradoxes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Achilles and the Tortoise" redirects here. For other uses, see Achilles and the Tortoise
(disambiguation).
"Arrow paradox" redirects here. For other uses, see Arrow paradox (disambiguation).
Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised
by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (ca. 490430 BC) to support Parmenides'sdoctrine that
contrary to the evidence of one's senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in
particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. It is usually assumed, based
on Plato's Parmenides (128a-d), that Zeno took on the project of creating
these paradoxes because other philosophers had created paradoxes against Parmenides's view.
Thus Plato has Zeno say the purpose of the paradoxes "is to show that their hypothesis that
existences are many, if properly followed up, leads to still more absurd results than the
hypothesis that they are one." (Parmenides 128d). Plato has Socrates claim that Zeno and
Parmenides were essentially arguing exactly the same point (Parmenides 128a-b).
Some of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes (preserved
in Aristotle's Physics
[1][2]
and Simplicius's commentary thereon) are essentially equivalent to one
another. Aristotle offered a refutation of some of them.
[1]
Three of the strongest and most
famousthat of Achilles and the tortoise, the Dichotomy argument, and that of an arrow in
flightare presented in detail below.
Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad
absurdum also known as proof by contradiction. They are also credited as a source of
the dialectic method used by Socrates.
[3]

Some mathematicians and historians, such as Carl Boyer, hold that Zeno's paradoxes are simply
mathematical problems, for which modern calculus provides a mathematical
solution.
[4]
Some philosophers, however, say that Zeno's paradoxes and their variations
(see Thomson's lamp) remain relevant metaphysical problems.
[5][6][7]

The origins of the paradoxes are somewhat unclear. Diogenes Laertius, a fourth source for
information about Zeno and his teachings, citing Favorinus, says that Zeno's
teacherParmenides was the first to introduce the Achilles and the tortoise paradox. But in a later
passage, Laertius attributes the origin of the paradox to Zeno, explaining that Favorinus
disagrees.
[8]

Contents
[hide]
1 Paradoxes of motion
o 1.1 Achilles and the tortoise
o 1.2 Dichotomy paradox
o 1.3 Arrow paradox
2 Three other paradoxes as given by Aristotle
o 2.1 Paradox of Place
o 2.2 Paradox of the Grain of Millet
o 2.3 The Moving Rows (or Stadium)
3 Proposed solutions
o 3.1 Simplicius of Cilicia
o 3.2 Aristotle
3.2.1 Saint Thomas Aquinas
o 3.3 Archimedes
o 3.4 Bertrand Russell
o 3.5 Nick Huggett
o 3.6 Peter Lynds
o 3.7 Hermann Weyl
o 3.8 Hans Reichenbach
4 The paradoxes in modern times
5 Quantum Zeno effect
6 Zeno behaviour
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links
Paradoxes of motion[edit]
Achilles and the tortoise[edit]


Distance vs. time, assuming the tortoise to run at Achilles' half speed
"Achilles and the Tortoise" redirects here. For the 2008 Japanese film, see Achilles and the
Tortoise (film).
In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach
the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead. as recounted
by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15
In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles
allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts
running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finitetime,
Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time,
the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 meters. It will then take Achilles some
further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then
more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles
reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there
are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can
never overtake the tortoise.
[9][10]

Dichotomy paradox[edit]
That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal. as
recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b10
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway
there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a
quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.


The resulting sequence can be represented as:

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains
is an impossibility.
This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for
any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after
all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel
over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be
an illusion. An equally valid conclusion, as Henri Bergson proposed, is that motion (time and
distance) is not actually divisible.
This argument is called the Dichotomy because it involves repeatedly splitting a distance into
two parts. It contains some of the same elements as the Achilles and the Tortoiseparadox,
but with a more apparent conclusion of motionlessness. It is also known as the Race
Course paradox. Some, like Aristotle, regard the Dichotomy as really just another version
of Achilles and the Tortoise.
[11]

There are two versions of the dichotomy paradox. In the other version, before Homer could
reach the stationary bus, he must reach half of the distance to it. Before reaching the last
half, he must complete the next quarter of the distance. Reaching the next quarter, he must
then cover the next eighth of the distance, then the next sixteenth, and so on. There are thus
an infinite number of steps that must first be accomplished before he could reach the bus.
Expressed this way, the dichotomy paradox is very much analogous to that of Achilles and
the tortoise.
Arrow paradox[edit]
If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in
locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is
therefore motionless.
[12]

as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to
occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an
arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither
moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.
[13]
It cannot move to where it is not, because no
time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In
other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless
at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Whereas the first two paradoxes divide space, this paradox starts by dividing timeand not
into segments, but into points.
[14]

Three other paradoxes as given by Aristotle[edit]
Paradox of Place[edit]
From Aristotle:
if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad
infinitum.
[15]

Paradox of the Grain of Millet[edit]
From Aristotle:
there is no part of the millet that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why
any such part should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole
bushel moves in falling. In fact it does not of itself move even such a quantity of the
air as it would move if this part were by itself: for no part even exists otherwise than
potentially.
[16]

Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:
The argument is that a single grain of millet makes no sound upon falling, but a
thousand grains make a sound. Hence a thousand nothings become something,
which is absurd.
[17]

Description from Nick Huggett:
This a Parmenidean argument that one cannot trust one's sense of hearing.
Aristotle's response seems to be that even inaudible sounds can add to an audible
sound.
[18]

The Moving Rows (or Stadium)[edit]
From Aristotle:
concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal number of
bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as they proceed with
equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row originally occupying the space
between the goal and the middle point of the course and the other that between the
middle point and the starting-post. This...involves the conclusion that half a given
time is equal to double that time.
[19]

For an expanded account of Zeno's arguments as presented by Aristotle,
see Simplicius' commentary On Aristotle's Physics.
Proposed solutions[edit]
Simplicius of Cilicia[edit]
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.
Aristotle[edit]
Aristotle (384 BC322 BC) remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to
cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly
small.
[20][21]
Aristotle also distinguished "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (such as a unit
of space that can be mentally divided into ever smaller units while remaining spatially the
same) from things (or distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their
extremities").
[22]
Aristotle's objection to the arrow paradox was that "Time is not composed of
indivisible nows any more than any other magnitude is composed of indivisibles."
[23]

Saint Thomas Aquinas[edit]
Saint Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Aristotle's objection, wrote "Instants are not parts of
time, for time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is made of points, as we
have already proved. Hence it does not follow that a thing is not in motion in a given time,
just because it is not in motion in any instant of that time."
[24]

Archimedes[edit]
Before 212 BC, Archimedes had developed a method to derive a finite answer for the sum of
infinitely many terms that get progressively smaller. (See: Geometric series, 1/4 + 1/16 +
1/64 + 1/256 + , The Quadrature of the Parabola.) Modern calculus achieves the same
result, using more rigorous methods (see convergent series, where the "reciprocals of
powers of 2" series, equivalent to the Dichotomy Paradox, is listed as convergent). These
methods allow the construction of solutions based on the conditions stipulated by Zeno, i.e.
the amount of time taken at each step is geometrically decreasing.
[4][25]

Bertrand Russell[edit]
Bertrand Russell offered what is known as the "at-at theory of motion". It agrees that there
can be no motion "during" a durationless instant, and contends that all that is required for
motion is that the arrow be at one point at one time, at another point another time, and at
appropriate points between those two points for intervening times. In this view motion is a
function of position with respect to time.
[26][27]

Nick Huggett[edit]
Nick Huggett argues that Zeno is begging the question when he says that objects that
occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.
[14]

Peter Lynds[edit]
Peter Lynds has argued that all of Zeno's motion paradoxes are resolved by the conclusion
that instants in time and instantaneous magnitudes do not physically exist.
[28][29][30]
Lynds
argues that an object in relative motion cannot have an instantaneous or determined relative
position (for if it did, it could not be in motion), and so cannot have its motion fractionally
dissected as if it does, as is assumed by the paradoxes. For more about the inability to know
both speed and location, see Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Hermann Weyl[edit]
Another proposed solution is to question one of the assumptions Zeno used in his paradoxes
(particularly the Dichotomy), which is that between any two different points in space (or time),
there is always another point. Without this assumption there are only a finite number of
distances between two points, hence there is no infinite sequence of movements, and the
paradox is resolved. The ideas of Planck length and Planck time in modern physics place a
limit on the measurement of time and space, if not on time and space themselves. According
to Hermann Weyl, the assumption that space is made of finite and discrete units is subject to
a further problem, given by the "tile argument" or "distance function problem".
[31][32]
According
to this, the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle in discretized space is always
equal to the length of one of the two sides, in contradiction to geometry. Jean Paul Van
Bendegem has argued that the Tile Argument can be resolved, and that discretization can
therefore remove the paradox.
[4][33]

Hans Reichenbach[edit]
Hans Reichenbach has proposed that the paradox may arise from considering space and
time as separate entities. In a theory like general relativity, which presumes a single space-
time continuum, the paradox may be blocked.
[34]

The paradoxes in modern times[edit]
Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the late 19th
century. The epsilon-delta version of Weierstrass and Cauchy developed a rigorous
formulation of the logic and calculus involved. These works resolved the mathematics
involving infinite processes.
[35][36]

While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will
overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft
[5][6]
claim
that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the
mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.
Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often
said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinitewith the
result that not only the time, but also the distance to be travelled, become
infinite.
[37]
However, none of the original ancient sources has Zeno discussing the sum of any
infinite series. Simplicius has Zeno saying "it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of
things in a finite time". This presents Zeno's problem not with finding the sum, but rather
with finishing a task with an infinite number of steps: how can one ever get from A to B, if an
infinite number of (non-instantaneous) events can be identified that need to precede the
arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?
[5][6][7][38]

Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been
resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument
confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea,
the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'".
[39]

Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics,
[citation
needed]
but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's
probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on
motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach
image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if
they have any)."
[5]

Pat Corvini offers a solution to the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise by first distinguishing
the physical world from the abstract mathematics used to describe it.
[40]
She claims the
paradox arises from a subtle but fatal switch between the physical and abstract. Zeno's
syllogism is as follows: P1: Achilles must first traverse an infinite number of divisions in order
to reach the tortoise; P2: it is impossible for Achilles to traverse an infinite number of
divisions; C: therefore, Achilles can never surpass the tortoise. Corvini shows that P1 is a
mathematical abstraction which cannot be applied directly to P2 which is a statement
regarding the physical world. The physical world requires a resolution amount used to
distinguish distance while mathematics can use any resolution.
Quantum Zeno effect[edit]
Main article: Quantum Zeno effect
In 1977,
[41]
physicists E. C. G. Sudarshan and B. Misra studying quantum mechanics
discovered that the dynamical evolution (motion) of a quantum system can be hindered (or
even inhibited) through observation of the system.
[42]
This effect is usually called the
"quantum Zeno effect" as it is strongly reminiscent of Zeno's arrow paradox. This effect was
first theorized in 1958.
[43]

Zeno behaviour[edit]
In the field of verification and design of timed and hybrid systems, the system behaviour is
called Zeno if it includes an infinite number of discrete steps in a finite amount of
time.
[44]
Some formal verification techniques exclude these behaviours from analysis, if they
are not equivalent to non-Zeno behaviour.
[45][46]

In systems design these behaviours will also often be excluded from system models, since
they cannot be implemented with a digital controller.
[47]

A simple example of a system showing Zeno behaviour is a bouncing ball coming to rest.
The physics of a bouncing ball, ignoring factors other than rebound, can be mathematically
analyzed to predict an infinite number of bounces.
Zeno's Paradoxes
A set of four paradoxes dealing with counterintuitive aspects of continuous space and time.
1. Dichotomy paradox: Before an object can travel a given distance , it must travel a distance . In order to
travel , it must travel , etc. Since this sequence goes on forever, it therefore appears that the
distance cannot be traveled. The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that
infinite geometric series such as can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed
is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances.
2. Achilles and the tortoise paradox: A fleet-of-foot Achilles is unable to catch a plodding tortoise which has been
given a head start, since during the time it takes Achilles to catch up to a given position, the tortoise has moved
forward some distance. But this is obviously fallacious since Achilles will clearly pass the tortoise! The resolution
is similar to that of the dichotomy paradox.
3. Arrow paradox: An arrow in flight has an instantaneous position at a given instant of time. At that instant,
however, it is indistinguishable from a motionless arrow in the same position, so how is the motion of the arrow
perceived?
4. Stade paradox: A paradox arising from the assumption that space and time can be divided only by a definite
amount.
The dichotomy paradox leads to the following mathematical joke. A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer
were asked to answer the following question. A group of boys are lined up on one wall of a dance hall, and an
equal number of girls are lined up on the opposite wall. Both groups are then instructed to advance toward each
other by one quarter the distance separating them every ten seconds (i.e., if they are distance apart at time 0,
they are at , at , at , and so on.) When do they meet at the center of the dance
hall? The mathematician said they would never actually meet because the series is infinite. The physicist said
they would meet when time equals infinity. The engineer said that within one minute they would be close enough
for all practical purposes.


Suppose Sam wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get
halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there.
Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth;
and so on.
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno
maintains is an impossibility. This sequence also presents a second problem in that it
contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided
in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin.
The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither
be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.