No such thing as finite value (split from Achilles and the tortoise)

[Mr. Laymen]

I would be willing to believe that there is no such thing as a finite value in reality, and this might lead to some linguistic paradoxes, or misconceptions anyways.

 

I'd be interested in any example of a finite value in reality, not an abstract or mathematical one, but a natural example of anything that maintains a distinct finite identity. I don't think it actually makes any sense to describe something this way. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to expect Zenos Paradox to be anything more than a linguistic misinterpretation.

[studiot]

 

I'd be interested in any example of a finite value in reality

 

The Earth has one moon.

 

Is that finite enough for you?

[Mr. Laymen]

 

The Earth has one moon.

 

Is that finite enough for you?

It would seem that simple, but this is trivializing and neglecting a multitude of information for the sake of simplifying communication with analogous categories, and is not accurate.

 

What is "the Moon" that the Earth supposedly has just one of?

 

It's a multitude of phenomena. It's a combination of seemingly countless particles and waves with varying relationships. When or where does one atom become of the moon or not of the moon? Any "thing" is in constant spatiotemporal flux and is not a finite entity.

 

If we choose to go deeper we could acknowledge how some physics/maths predict parallel worlds and therefore a multitude of moons and earths.

 

Or we could just ask what is the moon without gravity, without electromagnetism, without a human labels? The abstract human label asserts it is finite for the sake of defining a category, but in nature nothing is actually finite.

 

Our Earth has many moons on a more simple perspective as well. The term "moon" just refers to orbiting masses. Well the sun is a moon in that sense. Both the Earth and Sun exert force on one another and are orbiting one another, though levels of influence vary depending on mass. But the Sun is not the Earths moon when commonly spoken of in generalities. Likewise common generalities are not the most accurate interpretations.

 

And that's what this all boils down to, degrees of accurate interpretation. Stating, "The moon is a "thing", is an interpretation of the moon. But it's less accurate than, "The moon is an orbiting mass", which is less accurate than, "The moon is a multitude of parameters, and those parameters are in constant flux".

 

So I think it's safe to say that a multitude of fluctuating values, is not a finite value. You're attempt was still a mathematical abstraction, not a natural example of expressing a finite singularity. After all "finite" means singular and with limits or bounds.

 

Zeno made assumptions that numbers and percentages were actualities of nature, and when trying to locate those finite values he observed it not being possible. But this is simply a misconception for the sake of communicating categories. I may count "one moon" that the Earth appears to have, but that would just be using words to generalize what I am seeing. It's not that simple in reality though, because of relativity.

 

So, No. It's not finite enough for me.

[studiot]

MrLaymen

That mixture of statements attributed to me that I didn't make, nonsense, inappropriately applied technical terms and plain incorrect statements belongs on the politicians' election trail, the pub after 8 pints or the trash can here.

Edited April 19, 2015 by studiot