In any instant, a moving object is indistinguishable from a non-moving object: Thus motion is impossible.
This is called the arrow paradox, and it’s another of Zeno’s arguments against motion. The issue here is that, in a single instant of time, zero seconds pass, and so zero motion happens. Zeno argued that if time were made up of instants, the fact that motion doesn’t happen in any particular instant would mean motion doesn’t happen.
As with the dichotomy paradox, the arrow paradox actually hints at modern understandings of quantum mechanics. In his book "Reflections on Relativity,
" Kevin Brown notes that, in the context of special relativity, an object in motion is different from an object at rest: Relativity requires that objects moving at different speeds will appear different to outside observers and will themselves have different perceptions of the world around them.
As promised this is the begining of the philosopical journey into some of the craziest parodoxes ever created.
THE DICHOTONY PARADOX
To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance,
and half of the remaining distance and so forth to infinity: Thus motion is impossible.
This paradox has been attributed to ancient Greek philosopher Zeno, and it was supposedly created as a proof that the universe is singular and that change, including motion, is impossible (as posited by Zeno’s teacher, Parmenides).
People have intuitively rejected this paradox for years. From a mathematical perspective, the solution, formalized in the 19th century, is to accept that 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16 … adds up to 1. This is similar situation to saying that 0.999… = 1.
But this theoretical solution doesn’t actually answer how an object can reach its destination. The solution to that question is more complex and still murky, relying on 20th century theories about matter, time, and space not being infinitely divisible.
"I know one thing," Socrates famously said, "that I know nothing."
This statement is a paradox in itself, demonstrating complexities of self-referential statements; but it also suggests an insight from one of the founders of Western philosophy, that you should question everything you think you know.
Indeed, the closer you look, the more you’ll start to recognize paradoxes all around you.
This is a beginning of a series of some of the greatest paradoxes ever created.
What to buy first? A car or a piece of land? This question is as controversial as the chicken and egg dilemma. Although the car or land dilemma is just a matter of logic. It has troubled people for a long time as car prices go down and land prices shoot up.
Let’s break down some facts. Owning a car comes with a social status, one quits the walking class and joins the driving class. Owning a car also seems to attract ladies unless u are driving a blue Subaru or a Toyota probox. With those as the advantages it’s safe to say a car is not an asset, so definitely it lies on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. The car doesn’t add to ua income unless it’s a commercial vehicle, which also has it fine share of disadvantages. The car needs fuel, insurance, repairs and the list goes on. Then comes the issue of depreciation of the “asset’s” value. As soon as u buy a car it depreciates within a range of 5%-15% of it’s original value. Lets get into some simple mathematics, if u buy a car at 1 million then u will sell it at between 950k and 850k the minute you drive it. Now That’s a new second hand, ex-Japan or ex-UK, Impreza that you don’t want as ua first car. I won’t even try to calculate the expenses for the small jalopy that costs 200k, the thing spends more time at the garage than on the road. The depreciation rate is much higher than that of Lusaka’s 109k wheelbarrows. Now with that in mind why buy a jalopy and you are still paying rent? I also don’t know why.
Every African man is expected to have a piece of land by his name. Land is an appreciating asset. This means that if you buy land today you expect to make a profit if you sell it in future. The appreciation rate of land depends on the location of the parcel and size. If you bought a small piece of land and build a small house on mortgage, you would say goodbye to your landlord and start paying towards financial freedom. If you wish to own a bedsitter and become a nagging landlord then you will have to start by owning a piece of land somewhere. With vision 2030 fast approaching investing in “soil” as we call it in my native tongue will be a very smart investment. A plot around Menengai crater costed 20k in the beginning of the millennia is now selling at a whooping 250k, that’s over 10 times the original price.
I am not telling you to buy land instead of a car, I don’t want to cause you any trouble with the missus, neither am i against you parking your Range Rover sports next to your landlord’s probox somewhere in South B, but consider what you want to add on your balance sheet, an asset or a liability.