The approximate and the absolute
In my first book I prove that thinkers didn’t actually observe the existence of –seemingly- insignificant detail. It is about a simple, invisible relation which obviously remained unobserved up to this day. Though as soon as this small detail is perceived, a domino effect of understanding everything starts to develop endlessly leading directly to infinity. Some thoughts on this subject, in the form of questions, perhaps might help the reader to understand why the mathematical approach to these ancient riddles isn’t feasible.
a—-Isn’t it clear through the first reading of Zeno’s paradoxes that their subject is “infinity”?
b—-Respectively, can this “boundless” be entrenched in Mathematical equations as this is supposedly being achieved through the mathematical method of mathematical analysis? (Undoubtedly, this way, infinity …is manipulated – supposedly – appropriately so that it can be converted into finiteness). This way, physicists get the finite-therefore useful limit values they need).
c—-Consequently, does the infinitesimal calculus (through the introduction of limit values) accomplish anything more than the conversion of infinity into finiteness and therefore it’s “fencing”?
e—-Is it right to expect a mathematical fencing (any kind of equation) to restrict infinity?
f—-Isn’t it that approximate values always emerge from the infinitesimal calculus?
g—-Don’t the approximate belong to the daily routine of physicists, mathematicians and engineers?
h—-Do physicists actually realize that the “approximate” in Mathematics, is struggling in vain to approach the “absolute”?
i–.–Isn’t this exactly that is happening with Zeno’s Paradoxes, when one is trying to solve them in a mathematical way? (The approximate and the absolute constitute however the two sides of the same coin).