“The Stadium” paradox is described by Aristotle as follows:
The fourth argument is that concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as they proceed with equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row originally occupying the space between the goal and the middle point of the course and the other that between the middle point and the starting-post. This, he thinks, involves the conclusion that half a given time is equal to double that time. – Physics VI, Part 9
If it is not granted that Zeno was implicitly speaking about atomistic time and space here and instead used the “default” position, i.e. time and space being infinitely divisible – which he also implicitly assumed in his other three paradoxes
- “Achilles and the Tortoise”
- “The Dichotomy”
- “The Arrow” (here maybe less obviously)
– can we interpret “The Stadium” so that it is not trivially fallacious? That it reaches a paradoxical conclusion with the same implicit metaphysical assumptions as his other paradoxes?
PS: Okay this question keeps getting misunderstood. Again, please note: The question is NOT if Zeno assumed atomistic time and space here (there is no evidence for that, anyway!). The question is, how “The Stadium” can reach a paradoxical conclusion WITHOUT assuming atomistic time and space.