Doozel

10^(2000000) is an immensely large number. There are around 10^80 atoms in the universe, just saying: you couldn't even remotely represent it even if you assign a single atom to every book. In the future maybe we'll discover a powerful tool to get around it, but I feel like it'll remain sci fi for a long while.

I feel it's much more difficult, for me at least, since what you are trying to do is manually adjusting your focus. The further what you are trying to watch is, the less stressed your eyes are while mantaining focus. This means that if you want to defocus something close you can just relax your eyes, but the other way around is different. When it comes to observing an object our brain does everything for us and we don't really need to think about it.

I didn't see the video mentioned in the OP since it's been removed, but this is what Kip Thorne wrote in the book: "Time, he realized [referred to Einstein], must be warped by the masses of heavy bodies such as Earth or a black hole, and that warping is responsible for gravity.", and again: "The greater the slowing of time, the stronger gravity's pull.". I think that, since space and time are linked together, to make the explanation cleaner he simply uses the slowing of time to indicate space-time curvature. Don't forget that "The science of Interstellar" is mainly a divulgative book and indeed after these statements he continues his exposition talking about how the slowing of time is important in Interstellar.

Since Zeno formulated this paradox I think they understood the concept of adding more and more divisions and, without going into integrals, it should be a simple logic exercise to conclude that if you procedurally divide a segment in more pieces its overall lenght doesn't change. This is obviously without taking into account the infinitely small/large. I can't tell for sure how to approach the speed problem since, as with my previous statement, I'm biased by what we know today. An idea is to think about the fact that it takes the same amount of time to go from A to B even if you divide it multiple times. That would go around the immediate concept of speed but I doubt it would be a convincing explanation.

Because " It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change." and while developing more and more mental capabilities, we didn't need anymore claws, fangs or horns. As it has already been said, we are well equipped to survive even in harsh conditions, but in terms of combat large predators obviously outclass us. Something interesting is that we are still very good at fighting other humans, for example our fists have evolved for punching (https://phys.org/news/2012-12-fine-fists-fury-evolved-dexterity.html), most likely to resolve conflicts or self defense.

The paradox lays in the way it's proposed. If you think in terms of speed instead it appears more comprehensible: you can divide the lenght of the track in infinite many segments but the sum of all of them is always the total lenght of the track. If you are travelling at a constant speed it will take you t=s/v to reach the end, independently on how many segments you traverse.

I assume that with initial act you mean the collision between the two objects? I'm not sure what the information is needed for after the impact, but once (assuming there are no other forces involved) they are moving again at a constant speed, they are not acting upon each other anymore.

I always try to avoid any information about what I'm going to watch, so obviously spoilers are a no go for me. I usually decide what to watch or read based on other's opinions and the general setting/genre. I personally think that the experience would be much more immersing and enjoyable if I don't know what's coming. I rarely watch trailers too, maybe I'm paranoid.