2

In the SEP article on supertasks, it states that:

Max Black (1950) argued that it is nevertheless impossible to complete the Zeno task, since there is no final step in the infinite sequence. The existence of a final step was similarly demanded on a priori terms by Gwiazda (2012). But as Thomson (1954) and Earman and Norton (1996) have pointed out, there is a sense in which this objection equivocates on two different meanings of the word “complete.” On the one hand “complete” can refer to the execution of a final action. This sense of completion does not occur in Zeno’s Dichotomy, since for every step in the task there is another step that happens later. On the other hand, “complete” can refer to carrying out every step in the task, which certainly does occur in Zeno’s Dichotomy. From Black’s argument one can see that the Zeno Dichotomy cannot be completed in the first sense. But it can be completed in the second. The two meanings for the word “complete” happen to be equivalent for finite tasks, where most of our intuitions about tasks are developed. But they are not equivalent when it comes to supertasks.

The question is a relatively simple one, that being, if the journey is from point A to point B, and the completion of the journey entails reaching point B by traveling point by point, how can one complete "every step" if reaching point B is one of the steps (as the reaching of point B would be a "final action")? In what sense can you posit completion of all the steps if it does not include the crossing of the point that signifies completion?

13
  • How can completion of the steps be inconsistent with the action of each steps leading up to the completion? Is it just semantics? Like saying the end is just the beginning. Any task can have an infinite amount of sub tasks. You can say how long is a piece of string? the outcome is the same but there are no definite ways to accomplish that path or a definite distance.
    – 8Mad0Manc8
    Commented Jun 22 at 2:19
  • @8Mad0Manc8 I'm not quite sure I understand you. I'm not stating that anything is inconsistent, I'm simply trying to make sense of how what the author of the entry says is coherent. He states that the completion of a super task in the sense of it having a final step is impossible, yet it is not impossible to complete all the steps in a super task. Yet in the case of Zeno's super task, it seems that completing all the steps requires the completion of a final step (that being crossing or steping on point B) in order to complete all the steps... I don't see how your comment sheds light on this
    – Max Maxman
    Commented Jun 22 at 2:24
  • 1
    The completion entails reaching point B by whatever means, "point by point" or not. Reaching B need not be "one of the steps" as long as it is reached, by an infinite chain of steps if need be. That accomplishing a task involves a "final step" where it is accomplished is just habitual bias from finite experience. Just as the idea that an infinite chain of steps cannot terminate in finite time.
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 22 at 2:24
  • 1
    "This is simply incoherent in the context of Zeno as reaching point B without a step doesn't make sense" is circular, and it is perfectly coherent in real analysis. The 'form' of Zeno's paradox, his definitions, presuppositions, etc., clear or otherwise, are subject to dispute as with any other argument, and can be rejected if that offers sufficient benefits. If someone's 'definitions' were dispositive we'd have to concede that existing unicorns must exist. That Zeno's 'definitions' are misguided and the paradox is the result is a perfectly valid response.
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 22 at 2:46
  • 1
    @LudwigV The standard mathematical solution to Achilles and the Tortoise can be found in multiple places, at the OP link or Wikipedia, among others. According to Zeno, catching up requires the 'final step' because infinitely many steps cannot terminate in finite time, according to mathematicians, Zeno is wrong on both counts. One can still hold, and some do, that the mathematical model does not fully capture the nature of motion, and look for alternative solutions (see the link in my comment), but the model is plausible and free of paradox, hence its popularity.
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 23 at 7:56

2 Answers 2

1

I think the simple answer is that the SEP article is wrong.

The argument seems to be:

  1. The infinite sequence 100m, 150m, 175m, ... has no final term
  2. The infinite sequence 100m, 150m, 175m, ... approaches 200m
  3. One can walk 100m, then walk 50m, then walk 25m, ...
  4. Therefore one can walk 200m without walking some final distance

The first thing to note is that this argument is invalid. The second premise only says that the sequence approaches 200m, whereas the conclusion is that one reaches 200m.

The second thing to note is that if we treat each distance in the infinite sequence as a single footstep then it isn't clear what it means to have "completed" every step in the sequence. At what distance is my foot after every step in the sequence has been performed? It certainly isn't on or past the 200m finish line because such a footstep is not a term in the sequence.

5
  • 1
    This is just semantics. It seems simple enough to define "reaches" as "approaches to within any small difference (and you may tell how small you want it to be". So the game to "reach" the finish line can either be played (and finished) as a finite game (where you give the epsilon) or as an infinite one, where you want to play again, each time with smaller epsilons - but in each of those the finish is "reached".
    – mudskipper
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:07
  • 1
    It's not just semantics. The distinction between approaching the finish line and reaching/passing the finish line is central the Zeno's paradox.
    – Michael
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:09
  • Do you seriously think it's still worth thinking about this paradox? I believe it was a (very) good paradox until we got a clear mathematic definition of limit which totally resolved it. So, now I see it more as an amusing children's game than a serious topic.
    – mudskipper
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:26
  • 1
    The purpose of my answer is to show how the mathematical definition of a limit does not resolve the problem. It only shows that the second premise is true, not that the argument is valid or that the conclusion is true.
    – Michael
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:38
  • @Michael I couldn't work out which of the proposed solutions the SEP article accepts. Could you explain which solution you think that article accepts?
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jul 4 at 3:43
0

Your first question is:-

if the journey is from point A to point B, and the completion of the journey entails reaching point B by traveling point by point, how can one complete "every step" if reaching point B is one of the steps (as the reaching of point B would be a "final action")?

If point B is one of the steps, then a next step can be defined, so point B cannot be the final action. The final action is not defined, and arguably the possibility of such a thing is excluded by the definition of the problem.

Your second question is:-

In what sense can you posit completion of all the steps if it does not include the crossing of the point that signifies completion?

The passage you quoted does suggest there is another sense of "complete". I think it is this:-

On the other hand, “complete” can refer to carrying out every step in the task, which certainly does occur in Zeno’s Dichotomy.

Working out what this means in the SEP article is not easy, but I'm pretty sure that it is referring to the demonstration (long after Zeno) that a convergent series of this kind does have a sum, on which the series converges. Clearly, this solution has not convinced many other philosophers and mathematicians. The problem is that "converge" does not mean "reach" or "complete". The so-called "sum" is a limit, which the series can approach, but not reach.

Even if one accepts this solution, it is surely clear that the series cannot pass its limit and that is what is implied by your phrase "crossing the point that signifies completion". Yet we know that Achilles can not only reach the finishing lime, but pass beyond it. So the solution is, to coin a phrase, not complete.

What is hard to grasp here is that one can complete every step in the series, but it does not follow that one can complete all the steps. Each step is defined with perfect clarity and can therefore be completed. So any finite number of steps can be completed. But it does not follow that all the steps can be completed.

In any case, the SEP article explains another version of this problem:-

In this description of the Achilles race, we imagine winding time backwards and viewing Achilles getting ever-closer to the starting line (Figure 1.1.2).

There is no initial step in this task, so Achilles not only cannot complete his race, but cannot even start it.

Even if one accepts the sum of a convergent series as a solution, supertasks have been devised which evade it. Indeed, the SEP article goes on to consider a number of variants, each of which evades one or other possible solution. This does suggest that the sum of a convergent series does not get to the heart of the problem.

7
  • "But it does not follow that all the steps can be completed." What is the first step that is not completed?
    – user4894
    Commented Jun 22 at 19:37
  • The one after the last step that is completed? Let's suppose that I said the nth step. Then you would ask me why the n+1th step is not completed. There might be any number of reasons, none of them identified in the formula. So whatever I suggest you will say that is an arbitrary limit and there is no reason why the n+1th step cannot be completed. But you cannot be suggesting that all of an infinite number of steps can be completed. If you do, I shall ask you which is the last one to be completed.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 22 at 21:49
  • Mind you, I could suggest ways in which all of an infinite number of steps can be completed, but I don't think you would like them.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 22 at 21:50
  • But you cannot be suggesting that all of an infinite number of steps can be completed. If all steps are not completed, what is the first step that is not completed? If you do, I shall ask you which is the last one to be completed Of course there is no last step. An infinite sequence has no last step. It may, however, have a limit.
    – user4894
    Commented Jun 24 at 5:36
  • Why are you asking again a question I already answered? Perhaps I wasn't clear. The first step that is not completed is the next one after the last step that is completed. Who suggested that an infinite sequence could not have a limit?
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 24 at 9:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .