On Shackel’s nothing from infinity paradox

European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (3):1-13 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The objective of this article is to provide a discussion that counters the infinite particle disappearance conclusion argued by Shackel, 417–433, 2018). In order to do this, clear criteria to disprove the results of the applications of his continuity principles are provided, in addition to the consideration of the fundamental Classical Mechanical principle of mass conservation as an independent and clear basis for this disproof.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,601

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-05-19

Downloads
57 (#401,026)

6 months
3 (#1,118,764)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Nothing from Infinity paradox versus Plenitudinous Indeterminism.Nicholas Shackel - 2022 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12 (online early):1-14.
Framing the Epistemic Schism of Statistical Mechanics.Javier Anta - 2021 - Proceedings of the X Conference of the Spanish Society of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.
Unmoved movers: a very simple and novel form of indeterminism.Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia - 2022 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12 (3):1-23.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Tasks and Supertasks.James Thomson - 1954 - Analysis 15 (1):1--13.
Tasks, super-tasks, and the modern eleatics.Paul Benacerraf - 1962 - Journal of Philosophy 59 (24):765-784.
A beautiful supertask.Jon Perez Laraudogoitia - 1996 - Mind 105 (417):81-83.
Achilles and the Tortoise.Max Black - 1970 - In Wesley Charles Salmon, Zeno’s Paradoxes. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Bobbs-Merrill. pp. 67-81.

View all 9 references / Add more references