In this paper I will be discussing the concept of the paradox, examples from Zeno and McTaggart, and how modern science has potential solved the paradox put forth by McTaggart. Both of these paradoxes have a enormous repercussion on how objective fact about the world can be understood. I claim that McTaggart’s theory of time can be solved by modern physics as Einstein’s theory of relativity makes time a relative factor in how time is understood. Before discussing the idea of paradoxes, I will first describe what a paradox is. A paradox, strictly speaking, is when a theory with logical premises leads to the creation of two logical, but contradictory, conclusion. This definition of paradox works, but is very limited in scope of what we can classify as a paradox. Thus modifying the definition of a paradox to mean an argument that leads to wildly different conclusion… . Using this understanding of paradox, I will give a famous example of a paradox thought up by the Greek philosopher Zeno. I will now discuss Zeno’s paradox of motion. Zeno argues that motion does not exist through this argument: 1) there is an object at point A that is moving to a point B; 2) in order to reach point B, the object must pass the halfway point of points A and B; 3) we continue halving the remain distance and point B, all the way up to infinity; 4) this means that the object is taking an infinite distance to cross, and therefore, motion cannot exist, as an object cannot move an infinite
In 1950, a man, Enrico Fermi, during a lunch break conversations causally asked his co-workers an interesting question, “where is everybody”. (Howell, 2014) By which he meant, since there are over a million planets which are capable of supporting life and possibly some sort of intelligent species, how come no one has visited earth? This became known as The Fermi Paradox, which came from his surname and two Greek words, para meaning contrary and doxa meaning opinion, about a 100 years ago. (Webb 2002) A paradox arises when you set self-evident premises and then a certain conclusion contradicts the idea. For example, Fermi realized that extra-terrestrials have had a large amount of time to appear in the
Meno 's paradox is a very prevalent paradox in the area of philosophy. It arises during a conversation between Socrates and Meno in the book Five Dialogues. Meno and Socrates are speaking about what virtue is when Meno raises an interesting point, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?” (p. 70). In simple terms, Meno is asking Socrates how he will
To understanding a paradox is to understand the many comparisons and definitions this enigma contains. The critical thinking implied in trying to understand the absurd proposition can seem unreal, but still expresses a possible truth. A paradox is contradictory, however a mere contradiction is nonsense
The paradox in question makes it seem as if two objects can inhabit the same location at the same time, yet this is not the case eternally. At least one or both exist subsequently or beforehand the time of coincidence. In specific, the example being looked at is the statue-clay paradox whereby a lump of clay is moulded and therefore a statue is created. It is then displayed for all to see, however the question becomes what is currently being displayed? It seems obvious to say that it is the statue, but what happened to the lump of clay? The clay was moulded, not destroyed so logically speaking it still exists but in a different shape. Could there be two individual objects being displayed, that of the statue and that of the lump of clay? It seems almost counterintuitive to suggest that there are two distinct objects but when examining them they are in essence not the same as each other; for example the statue can be claimed have the “art” property whereas the clay cannot. The differences in properties suggest that these two objects, as hard as it is to accept, are inhabiting the same location at the same time. Leibniz’s Law is often used to articulate this argument of co-existence or coincidence. It states that if objects vary in their properties, then it can be said that they are not the same object.
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however tenacious." Albert Einstein
The example of Hilbert’s Hotel to prove his point that an actual infinite cannot exist is a valuable argument because it demonstrates how implausible an actual infinite of physical objects. However, it does not demonstrate the implausibility of an actual infinite amount of time or knowledge. The second scientific confirmation that Craig uses does demonstrate the impossibility of an infinite amount of time in the past but does not in this paper, add anything about an actual infinite of time in the
I contend that J.J. C. Smart’s second rate of passage argument is sound, and that time does not pass. The passage of time has been a widely debated topic among philosophers. Commonly, humans perceive time to be faster at one time than at another time, or slower, and vice versa. Although it may seem that time accelerates, whether or not it does, is the question at hand. In his paper, “The River of Time,” J.J. C. Smart establishes the foundation of his argument, which later philosophers would build upon through counterarguments or supporting arguments.
Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. (Gleick, 84)
Meno’s Paradox states that you cannot search for either what you know or what you do not know, and comes to the conclusion that therefore you cannot search for anything. Socrates does not seem to agree with the implications behind the statements, and so tries to show Meno that his reasoning is wrong by questioning Meno’s slave and proving that even though the slave does not know geometry, he can still find the answer to a geometric question with minimal assistance from Socrates. Socrates starts off by just asking general questions to the slave about squares and the properties of squares, but it pretty quickly becomes clear that although the slave is answering almost every question correctly, Socrates is asking the questions in such a way that
I will argue that the Paradox of the Stone shows that it is possible for there to be an omnipotent being and rejecting the original argument for the Paradox of the Stone because I believe that the argument in itself is contradictory and limits God’s power to a certain extent rather than adheres to the definition of omnipotence and views God’s power as infinite.
1. Meno’s paradox states that inquiry or the search for truth is impossible. The point of meno’s paradox is that we have the knowledge, or we don’t, we cannot obtain what we don’t know. One of the ways that this is shown in his paradox is that if we do not have knowledge, we don’t know what we are looking for so we cannot obtain it. Meno’s paradox was a discussion that started between Socrates and Meno and was written by Plato.
J.M.E McTaggart’s ‘The Unreality of Time’ is respected today as his foremost and best known work within Academia. It is appropriate that this work shares the title of one of his most enduring Philosophical projects, establishing that Time is unreal or does not exist. In regards to the question ‘Did He Succeed?’ while being a perfectly typical critical Philosophical essay topic, it would be beyond the scope of this essay to definitively say Yes or No. The standards of Western Philosophy just seem to be that for any of those enduring questions that have been the topic of study for in some cases nearly three thousand years in the discipline to be said to be definitively answered, the standard and breadth of evidence would be so great that no one would be asking if a Philosopher really did succeed in his project nearly a century after his death. So in this essay I will discuss how McTaggart attempted to establish the unreality of time, but in the context of not trying to argue he actually established it beyond doubt. McTaggart sought to establish the unreality of time by means of demonstrating how flawed conventional conceptions within Philosophy of Time were. So I will also seek to demonstrate he did at least establish that current conceptions of time were flawed and throw serious doubt upon then.
Parmenides argues that 1. It is and is not possible for something not to exist, 2. Something that is there in thought and through senses must exist. He believes that there are two paths one can follow. The path of error, trusting ones’ sensory inputs, and the path of truth, conclusion through reasoning and logical thought. His idea of change is for something that exists to not exist anymore, something that wasn’t is now. To conceptualize this picture a block of stone, a sculptor chisels it into a beautiful piece of art, the statue is still the same piece of rock, only in a different shape. Parmenides thinks that those who follow the path of error would argue that the stone did change, however he believes that their senses are deceiving them. The rock instead ceased to exist, and the beautiful sculpture came into existence. As a result of this belief, change is impossible due to the fact that something that has changed does not exist anymore, instead a new body is created with different properties. Zeno’s most famous example on why flux/flow are impossible his race paradox. Zeno lets a tortoise have a 5-minute head start on him and then tries
I show first that there is a reason to adopt many-worlds view on modality and time; in short, transworld identity is meaningful for both of them, while it is not for space. In that sense time is closer to modality than to space. Second I argue however that trans-moment identity is different from trans-possible-world identity concerning reality; the former is a realistic relation, while the latter is not. Thus I find the reality of time in the relation of trans-moment identity. Such a view has a merit of recognizing the reality of time in a sense that is not true of space.
All in all, the core arguments by William Grey, no destinations, double occupation, time paradox, and possibility restriction, which seek to prove that time travel is impossible, have rebuttals. However, in a bid to drum up support for his point of view, Dowe has offered his rejoinder without in-depth explanations as to why Grey’s ideas are preposterous. The outcome is the article that leaves a lot in abeyance, further muddling the discourse on time