# Do simple infinitesimal parts solve Zeno’s paradox of measure?

- 20 Downloads

## Abstract

In this paper, I develop an original view of the structure of space—called *infinitesimal atomism*—as a reply to Zeno’s paradox of measure. According to this view, space is composed of ultimate parts with infinitesimal size, where infinitesimals are understood within the framework of Robinson’s (Non-standard analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966) nonstandard analysis. Notably, this view satisfies a version of additivity: for every region that has a size, its size is the sum of the sizes of its disjoint parts. In particular, the size of a finite region is the sum of the sizes of its infinitesimal parts. Although this view is a coherent approach to Zeno’s paradox and is preferable to Skyrms’s (Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis. Volume 76 of the series Boston studies in the philosophy of science, pp 223–254, 1983) infinitesimal approach, it faces both the main problem for the standard view (the problem of unmeasurable regions) and the main problem for finite atomism (Weyl’s tile argument), leaving it with no clear advantage over these familiar alternatives.

## Keywords

Continuum Zeno’s paradox of measure Infinitesimals Unmeasurable regions Weyl’s tile argument## Notes

## References

- Arntzenius, F. (2008).
*Gunk, topology and measure*. Oxford studies in metaphysics: Volume 4 Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar - Arntzenius, F. (2003). Is quantum mechanics pointless.
*Philosophy of Science*,*70*(5), 1447–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bell, J. L. (2017). Continuity and infinitesimals. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
*The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy*. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/continuity/. - Bricker, P. (1993). The fabric of space: Intrinsic vs. extrinsic distance relations.
*Midwest Studies in Philosophy*,*18*(1), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chen, L. (Manuscript a)
*Infinitesimal gunk*. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar - Chen, L. (Manuscript b)
*Intrinsic local distances: A mixed solution to Weyl’s tile argument.*Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar - Conway, J. H. (1976).
*On number and games. London Mathematical Society Monographs*. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Cotnoir, A. J., & Varzi, A. C. (2018). Natural axioms for classical mereology.
*The Review of Symbolic Logic*,*12*(1), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Forrest, P. (1995). Is space–time discrete or continuous?—An empirical question.
*Synthese*,*103*, 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Forrest, P. (2004). Grit or gunk: Implications of the Banach–Tarski paradox.
*The Monist*,*87*(3), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Furley, D. J. (1967).
*“Indivisible magnitude,” two studies in the Greek atomists*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Geroch, R. (1972). Einstein algebra.
*Communications in Mathematical Physics*,*26*(4), 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goldblatt, R. (1998).
*Lectures on the hyperreals: An introduction to non-standard analysis*. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Grünbaum, A. (1973).
*Philosophical problems of space and time*(Vol. XII). Boston studies in the philosophy of science Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar - Hogan, C. (2012). Interferometers as probes of Planckian quantum geometry.
*Physics Review D*,*85*(6), 064007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lawvere, F. W. (1980). Toward the description in a smooth topos of the dynamically possible motions and deformations of a continuous body.
*Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques*,*21*(4), 277–392.Google Scholar - Lewis, D. (1991).
*Parts of classes*. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar - Maudlin, T. (2014).
*New foundation for physical geometry: The theory of linear structures*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Reeder, P. (2015). Zeno’s arrow and the infinitesimal calculus.
*Synthese*,*192*, 1315–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Robinson, A. (1966).
*Non-standard analysis*. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar - Roeper, P. (1997). Region-based topology.
*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,*26*(3), 251–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Russell, B. (1958).
*A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz*(2nd ed.). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar - Russell, J. (2008).
*The structure of gunk: Adventures in the ontology of space*(Vol. 4). Oxford studies in metaphysics Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar - Salmon, W. (1980).
*Space, time, and motion*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar - Skyrms, B. (1983) Zeno’s paradox of measure. In
*Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis*. (Volume 76 of the series Boston studies in the philosophy of science) (pp. 223–254).Google Scholar - Solovay, R. M. (1970). A model of set-theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable.
*Annals of Mathematics, Second Series*,*92*, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Van Bendegem, J. P. (1987). Zeno’s paradoxes and the Weyl tile argument.
*Philosophy of Science*,*54*(2), 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Van Bendegem, J. P. (1997). In defence of discrete space and time.
*Logique et Analyse*,*38*(150–152), 127–150.Google Scholar - Wagon, S. (1985).
*The Banach–Tarski paradox (encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications)*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Weyl, H. (1949).
*Philosophy of mathematics and natural sciences*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zimmerman, Dean. (1996). Indivisible parts and extended objects: Some philosophical episodes from topology’s prehistory.
*The Monist*,*79*(1), 148–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar