this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
141 points (96.1% liked)

Showerthoughts

29805 readers
761 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The dust line thinneth but never gone.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ambiorickx@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] call_me_xale@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 year ago

Furthermore, it's "Zeno's Paradox", (as in, attributed to Zeno) not "The Zeno Paradox"

Could also be related to the Zima paradox: nobody wants to drink it, somebody keeps buying it but it still won't disappear from the shelves despite taking a decade off from production.

[–] 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's also an example of calculus because the amount of dust approaches zero, but is never quite zero

[–] gonzoleroy@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Thank fuck for the vacuum. The Son of Shark, the Anti-Calculus, Destroyer of Integrals

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It's also an example of dust being fucking annoying!

[–] astrsk@artemis.camp 15 points 1 year ago

That thin line of dust is just a reminder that you need to vacuum after you sweep.

No matter how far we progress as a species, that line will remain.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What makes Zeno’s paradox a paradox is that, despite the logical requirement that moving objects must cover an infinite number of sub-intervals in order to do so, we do, in fact, observe objects move.

But we never observe that final bit of dust getting successfully swept up, so in that case the paradox is averted.