https://sites.google.com/site/thehappiestpoints/thexhappiestxpointsxphilosophyxjournalxversion.pdf
[math]What do you think of my philosophy manuscript?[/math]
>>8081032
how many times do you plan to post this shitty rewording of zeno bait here
>>8081038
Maybe I'm ready to prove how Zeno was on to something now?
So why and how do you disagree with what I've stated?
Zeno's paradox is irrelevant to everything, but also bullshit. It's on the level of "what's the sound of one hand clapping?"
1 cannot be divided, if it could we'd never be able to reach 1 from 0.
>>8081032
1 second.
1/999999999999999999999999999999999 is still some time, call it x.
x/99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
What am I doing? How am I still dividing. Well, I bet this has to be the indivisible part of time! Lets call it y!
y/99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
WTF. How am I able to keep dividing?
ITT: OP tries to discover something new without understanding the nature of the real number line.
Well, in the real world, there is a limit to "how small a thing can be" so you can't divide forever..
>>8081032
>if time can be divided infinetly then the first part of time to pass is an infinitely small part of time
Prove it.
It reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
>>8081229
Prove it
>>8081032
It fails the circularity test
