There’s an article about him in the latest issue of Wired (June 2005). And you can check out his site and read his papers here.
From what i can gather, he posits that it is impossible to derive a static point from time. Time is a continuum and is pointless to divide it ad infinitum. Among other things, he gathers that since there is no such thing as a static point in time, you cannot arrive at a precisely determined relative position (because no matter how short of a time frame you’re using to determine it’s position in time, it’ll always show that object in motion) which, ultimately, allows motion to be possible.
I’m sure there’s more to it than that, but is he on to something?
From a mathematical standpoint, Zeno’s paradoxes have been resolved for some time. If time is a continuum, he may be on to something, but that’s not clear, is it?
You have to distinguish physics from mathematics here. As ultrafilter says, in mathematics the paradox has been resolved. In physics, it would seem likely that nothing is infinitely divisible, because as you divide finer and finer, things become more and more fuzzy (or uncertain, to use the technical term). So for very small things, you will only have an approximate value of the position, velocity, and time of measurement – the paradox assumes a precision of measurement that you cannot get in practice.
Then is the whole paradox flawed from the very beginning? Since it is assuming you can just keep dividing the intervals by half, are you saying that concept just does not jive with reality as we know it? I’m also curious as to the mathmatical resolution. Can someone explain it in layman terms?