I had thought before doing some bantering around for paradoxes that other folks didn’t appreciate them in the same way that I do. It was a mistake, Reddit shows that every person is about as unique in thought as something fairly not so. It’s not a big deal, I’m still learning what my mind can do and if I happen to reach certain ranges at different times than others that’s still new experiences for me. Take right now for example, I’m writing this post late at night and I’m absolutely exhausted. My brain is putty and I’ll come back to this post in a couple months and wonder what kind of drug I was on.
Even now I can’t know for sure if what I’m saying is legitimately worth reading or just complete nonsense. That’s the wonder of being tired, the only tool you have for diagnosing your state of being is your diagnostic processor.
So anyways. I like Paradoxes because they do one of two things. Either they ask a question poorly, or they reveal that a theory is unfinished.
I realize that’s a bit redundant, it is laws of nature that we consider complete, not theories, but again I’m tired so you’ll need to give me some breaks. Basically if you cannot answer a paradox that deals with a theory, you must then examine the question of the paradox, if the question appears sound, then examine the theory. One of these two things is wrong.
I would not be surprised if we find that most paradoxes are just questions being asked wrongly.
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.
Now it is a complicated thing to try and argue against someone who was likely far smarter than you, worse still to do so while you are drunk off exhaustion. But I’m going to take a small stab at this one before I go to bed. [Edit: Looks like he’s quoting Zeno and actually says basically what I said below. Now I kinda feel smart, but that might still be the tired talking.]
I think the error here is a human one. Perhaps an error inverse to that of randomness. In random events people assume that the results of one moment in time influence the possibility of the other outcomes for the moments preceding and the moments following. Let me give you an example. If you flip a coin 5 times and you get 5 heads, the error would be to assume that tails is very likely to come next. Tails is never more likely to come than 50%. You could flip a coin 999,999 times and get gets each time, this does not mean that tails is any more likely on flip 1,000,000. This is because probability is independent of prior outcomes, each flip is a unique incident with unique odds.
Similarly I believe the issue here is looking at each individual frame of time as if it can exist independently of the moments preceding and following. I would look at this issue on two levels. The first would argue that no moment in time can exist independently, it can be abstractly perceived but it cannot actually happen. The laws of nature work over time and if you remove time from the formula you break the equation. Basically you are dividing by time, but if time is 0, you have an illegal equation.
I actually buried my other point. The locomotion of an arrow is a feature of time, if you freeze a frame of time so that you see the arrow appearing as if frozen in space it only appears frozen in space, this object is still in motion it merely is missing a component of motion. Just like the blind spot trick, just because you can’t see the dot on the paper doesn’t suddenly make the dot cease existing. Perception is flawed and does not override natural law.
So yeah…that’s philosophy while stupid tired, hope you enjoyed. I think I did.