[spunkets]

"Is this mainstream yet?"

It's been mainstream. This guy just missed it like the one reviewer that rejected his paper said. He doesn't have a grasp of limits, calculus as the reviewer mentioned. The series of "half the times left" converges to the time it takes for the arrow to get there, because the remaining terms added in are essentially zero.

Of course time doesn't flow, time is a dimentional coordinate. All that matters are time differences measured with the appropriate references.

[spunkets]

t s

[headsonpikes]

The guy didn't 'miss it'.

He points out that the apparent 'solutions' to Zeno's Paradoxes create a mathematical artifact - the 'instant', which does not exist.

There's nothing wrong with the calculus as a means of calculation, but one must avoid reifying the artifact 'moment'.

There are no instants - I'm still letting that thought percolate! ;^)

Seriously, I'm convinced this will be in the Philosophy journals soon.

P.S. The 'Jack Smart' referred to in the article as a supportive correspondent of Lynds is no fool.
It'll be J.J.C.Smart, highly-regarded modern philosopher.

[JasonC]

The operative word is actually "measure", and all he is going on and on about can be reduced to saying that measure is a distinct concept from any accumulation of points. Which is elementary measure theory, well known from special counterexamples in analysis, etc.

[norton]

As someone who ran screaming away from mathematics following a spirited exchange regarding the value "i" (imaginary unit, Sq Root of -1) versus the 'unscientific assumptions' of other pursuits:
The whole half way there, again, again, and again parable has always seemed simply a cute bit of silliness.

Stating that "The series...converges to the time it takes for the arrow to get there, because the remaining terms added in are essentially zero." reminds me of the 'usefulness' of any mathematical imaginary unit:
It disproves the model simply because it is required to explain the model.

That's why I wound up with a degree in Political Science and a career in aerospace (in which my math requirements were studiously limited).

The value of this guy's work seems to lie in (a) the fact that many established scientists detest it - causing one to marvel at the entrenched nature of much 'science', and (b) the fact that many others seem to believe it will allow for new investigation and, possibly, knowledge.

The I read in FR that it isn't a big deal, knew it all along, measurement does not freeze time, etc. And wonder what the causes of (a) and (b) are - ?