Philosophy Now Forum

"Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time."

The paradox fails to resolve that finite time is merely a distinction of moments by which there is an infinite set of relations between said moments, and that this finite time is purely an asserted distinction of the mind that contains immeasurable moments between said distinctions that allow time to occur.

And yet time still exists.

The paradox fails by its own nature.

These sort of issues are generally resolved by the concepts of limits and infinity that one is first exposed to in calculus.

Much is written about the infinite divisions, alas no mention that these divisions are infinitely small (and thus easily traversed). Don't believe me? Watch my finger.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 7:37 am Much is written about the infinite divisions, alas no mention that these divisions are infinitely small (and thus easily traversed). Don't believe me? Watch my finger.

Very true....very, very true...excellent point, solid and precise and above all has a 'hidden obviousness' to it.....

and for context I rarely give such compliments unless I genuinely mean them.

You sir, are not an idiot like most here.

Actually I will think about what you said for a while.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:15 am "Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time."

The paradox fails to resolve that finite time is merely a distinction of moments by which there is an infinite set of relations between said moments, and that this finite time is purely an asserted distinction of the mind that contains immeasurable moments between said distinctions that allow time to occur.

And yet time still exists.

'Time', itself, may still exist. But, how and in what form, exactly?

And, why would your own personal definition and/or version be the one and only Correct one, over any or every one else's definition/s or version/s, exactly?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:15 am The paradox fails by its own nature.

But, to some, the definition of the word, 'paradox', could never ever fail. So, by its own nature, failure is not possible.

But, then again, you believe that your own personal definition for 'that word' is the true, right, accurate, and correct one, correct?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 7:20 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 7:37 am Much is written about the infinite divisions, alas no mention that these divisions are infinitely small (and thus easily traversed). Don't believe me? Watch my finger.

Very true....very, very true...excellent point, solid and precise and above all has a 'hidden obviousness' to it.....

and for context I rarely give such compliments unless I genuinely mean them.

You sir, are not an idiot like most here.

And, 'who' are the so-called "idiots", here, exactly?

Would I be wrong in saying that 'they' would be 'the ones' who say, and/or claim, opposing things to your views and beliefs, here?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 7:20 am Actually I will think about what you said for a while.

What maybe better, and better advice, is you you think about what you, "yourself", said, instead, and think more about.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 8:03 am

And, 'who' are the so-called "idiots", here, exactly?

The real question is.. “who” was the first idiot and “who” will be the last idiot?

Just remember no one knows what the hell they are talking about. It’s all just noise heard as words, being given attention in this conception, appearing as a knowledge, that can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 8:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 8:03 am

And, 'who' are the so-called "idiots", here, exactly?

The real question is.. “who” was the first idiot and “who” will be the last idiot?

'Real', in relation to 'what', exactly?

Either way, the first so-called "idiot" was the first one to have an assumption, or belief, and who relied on 'that' to be 'the truth', which closed 'them' off to what was actually True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. And, the last "idiot" will be the 'last one' who 'looks at' and 'sees' Life, in that 'exact same way'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 8:26 am Just remember no one knows what the hell they are talking about.

Why do you, here, continually project 'your own views, assumptions, and/or beliefs' as though 'they' are the one and only true and right ones, in Life, as well as 'projecting' 'them' as though 'others' see and/or believe the 'exact same thing/s'?

'Trying to' claim what you just did, here, would be like 'trying to' claim that there is no truth or no absolute truth.

The 'claim', itself, contradicts, and thus refutes, absolutely, 'the claim', itself.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 8:26 am It’s all just noise heard as words, being given attention in this conception, appearing as a knowledge, that can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

The only 'illusory' nature of 'Reality', Itself, are 'the ones' you human beings keep assuming, believing, and telling "yourselves".

An example of an 'illusory nature of Reality' is presuming or believe that 'no one knows what they are talking about'. See, what is absolutely True, and thus not 'illusory' at all, is that when a baby human being is 'crying', because it is hungry, then it, literally, does Know what it is 'talking about'. And, will keep 'telling this Truth' until adult human beings 'listen', and start acting' accordingly, or what some might say, is 'start behaving properly, and Correctly, in Life'.

Some human beings, for example every new born human baby, Knows, exactly, what they are 'talking about'. you adult human beings just have to 'stop', (chasing False desires and money), and just 'start' 'listening', and 'Truly listening', in Life.

And, 'this' is not illusory, but what is actually Real, and True, in Life.

The dean paradox is negated by an infinitely small non-zero line segment.