Zeno’s Paradoxes and the Quantum Microworld: What the Aporias Convey

Authors

  • Ivan A. Karpenko Moscow City University; HSE University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2303438K

Keywords:

Zeno’s paradoxes, philosophy of science, macroworld, microworld, duality, space, time, motion, continuity

Abstract

The article considers new approaches to four of Zeno’s paradoxes: the Arrow, Achilles and the Tortoise, the Dichotomy, and the Stadium. The paradoxes are analyzed in the light of current research in the field of elementary particle physics and some promising directions in the development of the quantum gravity. Physical theories, provided with the necessary philosophical interpretation, are used in order to clarify Zeno’s paradoxes and to search for answers to them. The text shows that using modern approaches to solve the paradoxes is not effective, because the paradoxes become irrelevant when analyzed in the context of microworld physics, at very small scales.

The main part of the paper is devoted to demonstrating this circum- stance – that the questions posed by the paradoxes are impossible to answer (at least in their classical interpretation). As a possible explanation, the article puts forward that in the formulation of the paradoxes, the properties of the macroworld and the microworld are mixed (which is historically justified, given the intuitive homogeneity of the large and the small, and the fact that non-classical physics – quantum mechanics – did not emerge until the twentieth century); that is, from the observation of large physical objects, a transition is made to the infinitely small in terms of discreteness and continuity. However, the principles of organization of space at very small scales are beginning to be clarified in general terms only now, and, perhaps, these principles may turn out to be quite far from the classical ideas about fundamental physical reality.

References

Angel, Leonard (2002), “Zeno’s Arrow, Newton’s Mechanics, and Bell’s Inequalities”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):161–182.

Anisov, Aleksandr (2000), “Aporii Zenona i problema dvizheniya”, in Trudy nauchno- issledovatel’skogo seminara Logicheskogo tsentra IF RAN, XIV, Moscow, pp. 139–155.

Aristotle (1976), Physics, Мoscow: Mysl.

Banks, Тom; Fischler, Willy; Shenker, Stephen Hart; Susskind, Leonard (1997), “M-theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture”, Physical Review D 55: 5112–5128.

Bar, Dorit (2000), “The Zeno Effect in the EPR Paradox, in the Teleportation Process, and in Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Experiment”, Foundations of Physics 30 (6): 813–838.

Bathfield, Maël (2018), “Why Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion Are Actually About Immobility”, Foundations of Science 23 (4): 649–679.

Calenda, Guido (2013), “Are Zeno’s Arguments Unsound Paradoxes?”, Peitho 4 (1): 125–140.

Davey, Kevin (2007), “Aristotle, Zeno, and the Stadium Paradox”, History of Philosophy Quarterly 24 (2): 127–146.

Gomes, Henrique; Koslowski, Tim (2012), “Frequently Asked Questions about Shape Dynamics”, Foundations of Physics 43 (12): 1428–1458.

Gubser, Stephen; Klebanov, Igor; Polyakov, Alexander (1998), “Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory”, Physics Letters B 428 (1–2): 105–114.

Hilbert, David; Bernays, Paul (1979), Osnovaniya matematiki. Logicheskie ischisleniya i formalizatsiya arifmetiki, Moscow: Nauka.

Karpenko, Ivan (2016), “What is Time in Modern Physics?”, Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 49 (3): 105–123.

Komarova, Vera (1988), Uchenie Zenona Eleiskogo: popytka rekonstruktsii sistemy argumentov, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.

Koyré, Alexandre (1985), “Zametki o paradoksakh Zenona”, in Ocherki istorii filosofskoi mysli. O vliyanii filosofskikh kontseptsii na razvitie nauchnykh teorii, Мoscow: Progress, pp. 25–70.

Maldacena, Juan (1998), “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity”, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2: 231–252.

Razavy, Mohsen (2003), Quantum Theory of Tunneling, River Edge, NJ; Singapore: World Scientific.

Reeder, Patrick (2015), “Zeno’s Arrow and the Infinitesimal Calculus”, Synthese 192 (5): 1315–1335.

Ren, Ji-Gang; Xu, Ping; Yong, Hai-Lin; Zhang, Liang; Liao, Sheng-Kai; Yin, Juan; Liu, Wei-Yue; Cai, Wen-Qi; Yang, Meng; Li, Li; Yang, Kui-Xing (2017), “Ground-to- satellite Quantum Teleportation”, Nature 549: 70–73.

Sathiapalan, Balachandran (1987), “Duality in Statistical Mechanics and String Theory”, Physical Review Letters 58 (16): 1597–1599.

Sattler, Barbara (2015), “Time is Double the Trouble: Zeno’s Moving Rows”, Ancient Philosophy 35 (1): 1–22.

Smirnov, Andrei (2000), “Soizmerimy li osnovaniya ratsional’nosti v raznykh filosofskikh traditsiyakh? Sravnitel’noe issledovanie zenonovskikh aporii i uchenii rannego kalama”, in Sravnitel’naya filosofiya, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura RAN, pp. 167–212.

Vilesov, Yurii (2002), “Aporii Zenona i sootnoshenie neopredelennostei Geizenberga”, Vestnik MGU, seriya 7 (filosofiya) 6: 20–28.

Witten, Edward (1998), “Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography”, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (2): 253–291.

Published

27.09.2023

How to Cite

Karpenko, I. A. (2023) “Zeno’s Paradoxes and the Quantum Microworld: What the Aporias Convey”, Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. Belgrade, Serbia, 34(3), pp. 438–451. doi: 10.2298/FID2303438K.