> In a related vein, it seems characteristic of the kind of philosophy that the later Wittgenstein, and more recently Peter K Unger, criticise as linguistic illusion,
I tend to agree.
Thomson's lamp paradox assumes that time is continuous, i.e., that time intervals are infinitely divisible. Physicists do not know whether that's the case. They don't know whether the space is continuous either, so Zeno's paradox also stands on very shaky foundations.
I tend to agree.
Thomson's lamp paradox assumes that time is continuous, i.e., that time intervals are infinitely divisible. Physicists do not know whether that's the case. They don't know whether the space is continuous either, so Zeno's paradox also stands on very shaky foundations.