We criticize the claim made by Čiurlionis, namely that mathematical solutions to Zeno's aporia are unsatisfactory, as they rely on "a false conditional premise". First, the rules of formal logic do not forbid deriving true statements from false statements, so even if mathematical solutions rely on a false premise this does not guarantee the falsity of their conclusion. Second, the truth value of the antecedent of the conditional depends on an empirical fact, so even granted that the consequent is false, the conditional statement should be viewed as contingent. Third, and most important, the statement in the consequent admits of two interpretations: a strict qualitative interpretation of identity of space-time points, which makes the statement nomologically necessarily false but irrelevant to the Zeno's aporia; and a looser mathematical quantitative interpretation of the identity of space-time points, which makes the statement relevant but not only contingently false. We conclude that there is no reason to accept the claim that this conditional statement is false and that Čiurlionis takes a wrong path in his attempt to resolve Zeno's aporias.
|Number of pages||13|
|Publication status||Published - 2006|
ASJC Scopus subject areas