ZENO OF ELEA: THE MAN OF MYTH AND LEGENDARY PARADOXES ANTHONY N.

FARELLA Modern Geometry Carthage College Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 Submitted 16 December 2011
Various philosophical thinkers during the time of the Greek empire have influenced the way philosophy has been studied; one philosophical thinker who has traveled this route is Zeno. By questioning concrete mathematical principles, Zeno has asked questions that few have found answers for. This myth of a man introduced ideas of finite verves infinite amounts of time and space. By exploring his theories, mathematicians have continued to expand what they know about fields of mathematics as well as philosophy. Key Words: Zeno of Elea, Motion, Infinity, Paradox, Space, Time,

ABSTRACT

1.

Introduction It would only seem fitting that a man shrouded by time would produce works just as

mysterious as himself. Zeno, the great thinker of Elea, was born roughly in 490 B [5]. Many things are only roughly known about him because the main source of information about his life is from Platos dialogue The Parmenides [1]. As a young free spirit, Zeno was a bread of youth that had his hand in almost every aspect of life. From math to philosophy to politics, Zeno attempted to make an impact in his surroundings. Like any great trendsetter however, Zenos labors have faced critique along the way. His political endeavors carry hesitation because they are nothing but myths in history. His mathematical and philosophical are more or less the same, but seem to provide more to thinkers than he could have ever imagined. Paradoxical right? Zenos greatest work and contribution to the world of knowledge has been a collection of absurd paradoxes that when first studied, appear to be based on flaw-filled

logic. Yet, when viewing his work in a mathematical setting, these paradoxes find new ways to challenge mathematicians. Zenos trait of expanding assumptions past where they should is a popular place for attack, but even the most persistent attackers against Zenos work still give him credit where credit is due.

2.

History Zeno was a man born straight from history. With no first hand documents by or

about Zeno ever found, whatever has been said about this man has been taken to as truth with a gain of salt. When talking about his life and political accomplishments, a resource for information on these topics is The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers: Book VII written by Diogenes Laertius [3]. In here, a section is written about Zeno and his adventures. Around the streets of Elea, Zeno was supposedly know for his attempt at thwarting the Tyrant of Elea. In his efforts, stories say that Zeno bit an ear off the tyrant in a fight [3]. The exact details behind the story are not consistent; some myths even say that the Tyrant took Zenos life for this attempted overthrow. Laertius made a profession writing about the lives of Greek philosophers. His collection of stories about Zeno provides an idea of what Zenos life might have been like, but is largely considerer myths and provides no proof towards his accomplishments. What people consider to be a more accurate description of Zenos life is Platos dialogue, The Parmenides. This dialogue captures a visit made by Zeno and Parmenides to Athens [4]. Plato describes the 40-year-old Zeno to be tall, and good looking. He also comments on things such as age, physical stature, and intelligence. According to Plato, Zeno was a man that had an impressive physical appearance, and had an intellectual stature to

match his physical one. Zeno was regarded as one of the wisest and noblest minds in the field of philosophy. The strong relationship that Parmenides had with Zeno was something that caught Platos eye as well. The relationship shared by the adopted son and father would prove to be one of the things that would shape young Zenos mind. Parmenides at the time of Zenos youth happened to be a Greek philosopher himself. Also born in Elea, Parmenides founded the Eleatic school with a group of scholars from the town [3]. Here, Zeno was educated by Parmenides and other great scholars from the small country in Italy. It is also here, philosophers agree, that Zeno found the inspiration behind much of his work. Following in Parmenides footsteps, Zeno would defend any attack made by Parmenides critics [1]. His stances on the reality of change and pluralism were unique, and were also able to defend against the test of time. Thought the adventurous side of Zeno had many stories with little proof behind it, Zenos more famous philosophical side is more credible. The only way the world knows of his work is because of references of it by other philosophers at the time. It is estimated that Zeno has been attributed to 40 different paradoxes [7]. There are however only ten known paradoxes linked to Zeno. Out of these ten, only four of them have a specific name and are complete enough to be discussed [1]. The two main concepts that Zeno battled in his paradoxes were motion and plurality. These arguments largely originated from his schooling in Parmenidean philosophy. His stance against plurality was a stance against infinite division. The concept of dividing infinity is what fueled his work in mathematics.

2.

Work When looked at collectively, the work of Zeno of Elea has grown out of nothing. Ex

nihilo. Zenos existence in history could have gone unrecorded entirely. Zenos life work has nothing directly written by Zeno himself. With his foundation in philosophy, Zeno introduced many ideas that appear to have come out of nothing, or at least non-sense. Zenos collection of known works is only found in Aristotles essay, Physics [7]. In his essay, Aristotle writes about one of Zenos ten paradoxes: The Argument from Complete Divisibility. Like most of his paradoxes, the paradox is written only as a paraphrase of Zenos real words. The technique behind Zenos logic is however consistent. The main approach for the majority of Zenos logic is reductio ad absurdum, Latin for reduction to the absurd [4]. With this method, a person would take a situation or concept and extend it to its absolute limit where it would reach the point of absurdity: Stating that matter is divisible throughout completely, when dividing matter, a person will have the out come of matter or no matter remaining. If matter is remaining, then you cannot divide matter throughout because something will always remain to be divided. If you have nothing remaining, then it can be assumed that all matter must be negligible as well; meaning objects are only an appearance and not actual matter. However, if parts of matter do remain, it can be said that this matter does not possess any mass due to the fact that mass is divisible [7]. As exampled in his argument, Zeno took the concept of dividing matter and expanded it to an absurd, yet completely logical conclusion. The paradox that he creates with this logic challenges any physicists view on matter. The concept Zeno was arguing against with this paradox is Pluralism [5]. The majority of his work was spent discussing

this issue in great detail, and is the subject that his 40 lost paradoxes is written on. The issue that has been looked at more closely by scholars is his paradoxes on motion [4]. The paradoxes that focus on mathematical concepts are Achilles and the Tortoise, the Arrow, the Moving Blocks, and the Race Course [1]. As separate works, each paradox reveals a small oddity or paradox in the way motion operates. The concepts of space and time are divided and compared to show how motion is a strange occurrence. When these two concepts are compared across each paradox, Zeno is able to assume that motion itself does not make sense at all. Zeno stages his argument against motion by breaking the concept down into two key variables: space and time. Any variation of motion in our three known dimensions have distance or space covered during a period of time. By manipulating how these variables are viewed as elements in terms of finite and infinity as he did in The Argument from Complete Divisibility Zeno created one of most intriguing paradoxes of all time [6]. The most commonly known paradox written by Zeno is Achilles and the Tortoise. The paradox states that: When in a race, the faster runner could not overtake the slower if the slower runner has had a head start [6]. Zeno brings into question the ability to infinitely divide a distance traveled and duration of time, while starting at various points. Zeno uses the clear-cut example of the swift Achilles competing against a tortoise. According to Aristotle: Here, Zeno argues that a person observes after the start of a race, the fastest runner has traveled a distance, while the slower has also traveled a distance. Zeno notes that to cover the distance of the slower runners head start, the faster runner must first make it half way to the point where the slower was originally. And with the new distance the

slower moved, this process of first traveling half the distance to the old spot, to only go another half more is a never-ending cycle. The result of this paradoxical situation is a potentially infinite number, divided by a finite number [5]. The question this argument is raises is, why is the distance between two runners in any race at any given time infinite? When looking at the race like this, a person can see that no matter how much time has past, the fastest runner must always cover some amount of space to catch up. Since the space that the runner must catch up exist as a sequence of points where order matters, mathematicians refer to this space as having ordinal numbers, or number dependant on arrangement [7]. By assuming that before the faster runner can occupy the space needed to be considered caught-up, the faster runner would have to have overcome the distance during a duration of time. Remembering that distance traveled is equal to infinity, and noticing how the Distance Between Runners is approaching zero, a person can see that these variables can never be equal. The actual existence of motion in this race then appears to depends on an objects ability to travel an infinite about of points, in a finite about of time [6]. Zenos next paradox uses the same process of absurd logic to explore the idea of duration of time. He argues that since time can be captured and measured, it is entirely composed of singular instances, and nothing else [7]. Consider that an arrow occupies the same amount of space at t(0) and t(1), and that when t is equal to zero there is no time for motion to occur. Zeno deduced that this definition of time does not allow motion to occur:

The possibility of velocity in this scenario of time is non-existent. Since a unit of time could not yield any change in a single instant, distance would cease to be traveled. Motion

in this light is now not practical or even conceptually tangible. Zenos argument, The Dichotomy or Race Course paradox, is created in response to this finding. He said that like distance, motion could be divided in the same manner of continually accomplishing half an action before the whole, yielding infinity [5]. When applied as described, motion is continuous. In order to accomplish a complete motion or act, one must first pass a halfway stage to carry out the motion. Motion under this definition can then be viewed as potentially infinite, but yet feasible to the human mind again. Zeno concluded that something about time must also be different than it appears [1]. His paradox, The Stadium, questions where the continuousness of time fits into his collection of paradoxes: Take three small groups of several objects. Group (A) is stationary in the middle of a plane while Group (B) and Group (C) traverse the width of the plane at the same speed. Assume that t is time need for a group to fully traverse across the line (A) , and set (A)s time as t. When considering time as a continuous conceptsuch as distanceZeno discovered that when groups traverse times are compared, the time a group uses to traverse relies on relative motion:
(A) time(B) time referenced to (A)(C) time referenced to (A)(C) time referenced to (B)

(B) has a constant time for its transverse because (B) will always have a speed in constant ratio to (A). When viewing (C) in relative motion to (A), the same velocity is found. When viewing (B) compared to (C) however, double the traverse times is equal to half the traverse time.

Zenos Stadium paradox is the most vague paradox and has relied the most on outside interpretations. This paradox may have the least historical documentation out of the known ten, however it may also be the most intriguing one of them all. By suggesting time is a continuous flow, instead of instances in a sequence, Zeno has created a scenario where time behaves proportionally to space. Motion in this scenario is then dependant on the happenings of time, which decides how much motion to produce. Since the two variables are in portion to each other, motion can then control time. Wrapping up Zenos life work has brought us back to the beginning of our discussion on motion. By analyzing what Zeno has produced, there are two popular ways to judge his work credibility: One is to assume that all his assumptions are entirely correct, and that his paradoxes carry credible questions. The other way to view his work is to critically think about assumptions Zeno has made, and bring up areas of concern while pondering his paradoxes.

3.

Premature Paradoxes Yet another paradox that can be aligned with Zeno is the paradox of how the only

copy of his life work is written by a man that did not agree with his work. The main antagonist for Zenos collection of paradoxes was Aristotle. He was a man that did not have the mathematical background of Zenos caliber, but made up for it with his background of philosophy and logic. The main flaw for most of Zenos logic behind his paradoxes is the assumptions made on logic. From a philosophical standpoint, any assumptions may be grounds for a claim of error. The unique twist in Zenos dilemma is that his assumptions are supported by math, and not logic. As separate statements, Zenos boisterous

assumptions gave his paradoxes grounds to be mathematically sound, and unable to be disproving with logic alone. When his work is reviewed in its entirety, philosophers will raise red flags in a hurry. On infinity, Aristotle argues that Zeno has no understanding between actual and potential infinities. In theory, Zeno is entirely correct. There are an infinite number of points that can be divide in half in a given distance. There are not, however an infinite number of instances where this occurs. In regards to Achilles and the Tortoise, Aristotle writes that Zenos assumption of infinite division is correct, until this assumption is applied to distance. Any type of movement does indeed cover an infinite about of points. Zeno unfortunately did not realize that his points are only units of space, not conceptually proportional units of space and time. The division of any two points may continue on forever, but once Achilles has passed the tortoise, there are no more points needing to be divided. Based on the logic above, when discussing distance, a person may actually cover an infinite amount of points in a finite amount of time. For example, say that the center of an atom marks a point of space. By walking alone, a person can cover a number of points to large to count very rapidly. If a person where to make the points even smaller and closer together, and this number grows even fast. When the size of the point is decreased to an absurd size, the number of points traveled begins to grow too large to think about. A simple size definition may enable any object capable of motion to travel a distance of infinitely many points, in a finite amount of time. In regards to time, Zenos paradox incorrectly assumes the inverse of having infinitely many points in a distance; the ability to have infinitely many amounts of time in

time. Zeno attempted to show thought relative motion that time for duration of space traveled may equal an infinite amount of possibilities. What Zeno instead showed, according to Aristotle, is that as objects approach one another, their net distance decreases and gives the appearance of traveling a distance in less time.

4. 5.

Further Research Summary & Conclusion

The way Zeno was able to manipulate the concept of constituency allowed mathematics to support his conclusions when taking variables to their absurd ends. Zenos paradoxes are a collection of modifying the atomic nature of two concepts: space and time. By enabling space and time to be both continuous, Zeno explored a world of divisible distances across divisible instances, where even the fastest runner could never overtake an object ahead of him, showing that motion is illusionary. By making both variables atomic, Zeno created an environment where time and space restricted one another to a point where time and space could only exist in a state of atomic and continuousness. By changing the combination of space and time being atomic or continuous, Zeno created a paradox of motion. With motions main variables of space and time assuming both plausible forms of existence, Zeno has created an argument that is logically and mathematically legitimate against motion. By paring together and disproving space and times existence in atomic and continuous states, look impossible. Zenos paradoxes do not explicitly argue against

motions existence. It instead acted as a foundation for a larger understanding of how things can be infinite and finite.

References [1] "Ancient Greek Philosophy." Manchester College Personal Web Sites. Ed. Steve Naragon. Manchester College, 8 Aug. 2009. Web. Glossary [2] Cohen, S. M. "Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow." UW Faculty Web Server. University of Washington, 17 Nov. 2003. Web. [3] "Diogenes Lartius: The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers: Book VII: The Stoics." Ancient History Sourcebook. Ed. John Coker. Fordham University, 2000. Web. [4] Dowden, Bradley. "Zenos Paradoxes." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee at Martin, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. [5] McGreal, Ian Philip. "Zeno of Elea." Great Thinkers of the Western World. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1992. N. pag. Print. [6] "Zeno of Elea." Ancient Greek Philosophy. Trans. M. R. Wright. Giannis Stamatellos, 2006. Web. [7] "Zeno's Paradoxes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Nick Huggett. Stanford University, 2004. Web.