Moving Without Being Where You’re Not; A Non-Bivalent Way

Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):235-259 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The classical response to Zeno's paradoxes goes like this: 'Motion cannot properly be defined within an instant. Only over a period' I show that this objection is exactly what it takes for Zeno to be right. If motion cannot be defined at an instant, even though the object is always moving at that instant, motion cannot be defined at all, for any longer period of time identical in content to that instant. The nonclassical response introduces discontinuity, to evade the paradox of infinite proximity of any point of a distance with any 'next'. But it introduces the wrong sort of discontinuity because, rather than assuming the discontinuity of motion, as Quantum Theory does, it assumes the discontinuity of space. Due then to the resulting spacetime disorder, though all else is certainly lost, the Tortoise now turns up at least as fast as Achilles and hence not even this much is rescued. Zeno rejects motion because he shows that a moving object must be where it is not. Hence motion, if to occur, must violate the Law of Contradiction. Applying the concept of quantum discontinuity, I produce an alternative. If an object is to move discontinuously between two boundary points, A and B, what actually obtains is, rather, that it is nowhere at all in-between A and B. And cannot therefore be at two places in-between A and B. And cannot therefore be where it is not. Thus, LNC is conserved. However, in these conditions, the Law of the Excluded Middle fails. To mitigate the undesirability of this effect, I show that LEM fails because LNC holds. Thus, the resulting nonbivalent logic, which is also appropriate for quantized transitions of all kinds, will always turn up nonbivalent, because consistent. And this is not too bad, considering.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,569

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Laws of Non-Bivalent Probability.John Cantwell - 2006 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 15 (2):163-171.
Moving Without Being Where You 'Re Not; a Non-Bivalent Way'.Constantin Antonopoulos - 2004 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):235 - 259.
Entailment and Bivalence.Fred Seymour Michael - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):289-300.
The Moving Spotlight Theory.Daniel Deasy - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (8):2073-2089.
Narration in Motion.K. J. Thomson-Jones - 2012 - British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (1):33-43.
Bivalence and the Sorites Paradox.John L. King - 1979 - American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1):17 - 25.
Moving Clocks, Moving Mirrors.Karl Dürr - 1964 - Bern, Schritt Verlag.
Not) Being There. Moving Through Images.Brian Price - 2011 - In John David Rhodes & Elena Gorfinkel (eds.), Taking Place: Location and the Moving Image. University of Minnesota Press.
Trois Contributions au Calcul des Propositions Bivalent.Alonzo Church - 1948 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 13 (3):164-165.
Visual and Tactile Scanning: Moving Scan Versus Moving Medium.Nicholas C. Noll & Robert J. Weber - 1985 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 23 (6):473-476.


Added to PP

14 (#725,509)

6 months
1 (#418,511)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?