I got into an argument with a friend who says logic and reason alone cannot determine the truth, and that we need emotions too. He says that Zeno’s Paradox is proof of the shortcomings of math/physics in determining the nature of reality. Is he right about this? I thought math/physics are the holy grails for understanding the nature of the universe.
In: Physics
> I got into an argument with a friend who says logic and reason alone cannot determine the truth, and that we need emotions too.
That in itself isn’t an unreasonable view. When you start looking deeply at the underpinnings of maths and science, it becomes clear that there is a lot of uncertainty about what exactly they are based on. Many of the fundamental assumptions they make are somewhat vague. One of the most basic and central ideas in science is induction – the idea that you can learn general principles by making repeated observations. For example if I keep dropping objects and they keep falling, I can conclude there is some consistent process that makes every object fall to the ground. But how many observations do I need to make, how certain do I need to be about them, what exactly is the appropriate generalisation (e.g. should I assume that things on the other side of the world fall up or down?) and what should I do if I notice rare exceptions like birds? Arguably our emotions and gut feelings do play a big role in how we decide the answers to those kinds of questions.
> He says that Zeno’s Paradox is proof of the shortcomings of math/physics in determining the nature of reality.
I don’t really see how Zeno’s paradoxes have much to do with any of these issues.
If we’re talking purely about maths, Zeno’s paradoxes were put completely to rest with the development of real analysis. You can construct mathematical systems in which (for example) something travels a finite distance in a finite amount of time but its journey is broken down into infinitely many steps. There is no contradiction there.
If we’re talking about the real world, it’s not really clear how applicable the paradoxes are in the first place. We have no idea if time or space can be broken down into infinitely many pieces. Most likely we’ll never know for certain.
> I thought math/physics are the holy grails for understanding the nature of the universe.
I don’t know if I’d go that far? They’re certainly useful for understanding many things about the universe, but there are plenty of things they can’t tell us yet (what will ultimately happen to the universe, does extraterrestrial life exist, etc.) as well as things they will probably never be able to tell us (is it moral to eat meat, how should governments be run, what is consciousness, etc.).
Latest Answers