First, read this article on a 27 year old Peter Lynds, a college droppout, who published, at the very least, an interesting paper discussing Zeno's Paradox: Guardian - The Strange Story of Peter Lynds.Next, read his paper on time: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/ (it's available as PDF on this page).Comments? I'll post mine a bit later... I'm still writing a critique.

He seems to be saying that there is a fundamental difference between a body in motion and one that is still no matter how small the observation interval is made. Implicit in this is the assumption that you can't freeze time down to a single instant when moving bodies will be frozen like all those Sci-Fi films - effectively time is not quantisable.There's no real argument or derivation - just a statement that to that effect really with plenty of padding. It doesn't seem like much to me.

yea there is a good response herehttp://www.lexnet.bravepages.com/ZENO.htmlthe topic is VERY interesting, that time & space can (are?) be discrete is very important - problem is the guy just skips over that issue.

There is always room for this kind of thinking. People have been doing it fruitlessly with qm's for 75 years. EPR stood around for a long time, then they had a good experiment, and people have just kinda stopped talking about it. It never really upset progress in qm's though. People have been talking about zeno forever. It is interesting to talk about, and to think about. We all know that we can overtake a vehicle that starts out before us. That being said we also have experienced overtaking a walker that has started before us. These empirical facts should tell us to look at how the question is posed: they go 1/2, we go 0, they go 3/4, we go 1/2, etc. When posed as series, that is precisely the problem: they are series, but are two different series. One starts at 0, the other starts at 1/2. We have all seen conditionally and absolutely convergent series and the havoc that those wreak. Mathematicians have never questions to deeply why certain series converge when grouped a certain way compared the the divergence of the same series, just with a different starting point.

QuoteOriginally posted by: chiral3Mathematicians have never questions to deeply why certain series converge when grouped a certain way compared the the divergence of the same series, just with a different starting point.You think so?

I said "too" deeply. Of course Euler's massive treatise on the infinite discussed it. I meant that mathematicians in modernity have not questioned it too much. I should have been more specific. Like the physics paradoxs, people have just began to accept. EPR is a great example.