2
$\begingroup$

Zeno's Paradoxes are a series of problems intended to challenge our view of reality. Some of these paradoxes (e.g. Achilles and the Tortoise) have been disproven by a better understanding of physics and the concept of infinity. Here is his "Paradox of Place":

"If everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum."

So my question is, is this argument rigorous, and if so, what are the implications of the fact that (as a direct consequence) every object in the universe has an infinite number of places? (e.g. I am at my "place", my place's "place", my place's place's "place", etc. as given by Zeno's argument)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Being a philosophical person I can accept that a place has a place and further on. I just don't see the paradoxical nature of that fact.

Here is my example:

Take the Klein model of hyperbolic geometry. This is a whole place for those who live in it. But this place does have a place since it is embedded in the Euclidean space. But what is the place of the Euclidean space? We know that the Euclidean space can be modelled in the hyperbolic space. So we found the place for the Euclidean space.

We can start the whole thing over again.

But where is the contradiction?

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.