The Impossible Goal of Zeno’s Paradox

My struggles with time, academia, and existence (both mine and otherwise)

Peter Lynds
Human Parts
Published in
20 min readAug 19, 2019

--

Illustration: Ryan Johnson

“You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about you fucking idiot,” one read. I had just gotten out of bed and checked my email. There were messages sharing similar observations. Others containing giddy superlatives and explanation points!!! People pleading for help with their theories of space, time, and the universe. An email written in bright multicolored font quoting long passages from scripture and postscripted with a personal message from God: “Peter, I am aware of the pain that you went through when you were three years old.” Another extolling the virtues of Ayn Rand. People with different takes than mine. Others enthusiastically agreeing but who I could tell hadn’t understood. Accusatory messages, some written in caps, telling me I was a FRAUD, and the editor of Hustler inviting me to write an article — about time, rather than likely sexier topics such as the origin of the universe or super massive black holes.

An internet search for my name returned thousands of results where there had previously been just one or two. The first was a message board discussion with the title “Peter Lynds is a hoax.” In addition to my possible nonexistence or hubris, much of the frenzied commentary revolved around Zeno’s motion paradoxes. These paradoxes, named after Zeno of Elea, the Greek philosopher who first expounded them some 2,500 years ago, purport to show that movement — and change in general — is impossible. Perhaps the most famous of the paradoxes, The Dichotomy, demonstrates this by showing one can never reach a said point or goal.

I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author’s arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I’m afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal rejection.

I find this paper very interesting and important to clarify some fundamental aspects of classical and quantum physical formalisms. I think that the author of the paper did a very important investigation of the role of continuity of time in the standard physical models of dynamical processes.

Author’s work resembles Einstein’s 1905 special theory of…

--

--