Zeno's Para-what?!

Paradox. I guess two docs are better than one, eh? (Heh-heh.)

I just finished the article by Nick Hugget at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/. Sometimes I wonder whether my brain is half the size of someone like Hugget or if I'm just not utilizing what is there. Either way, the result is the same! I simply confess that, though I understand Zeno's paradox, I just don't understand Hugget's explanation in standard OR non-standard mathematics. I applaud those who do! What does seem clear to me, however, is that the current space/time continuum is what it is, and I find it interesting that we are ever in search of how it operates (e.g., has anyone read something of the Haldron Collider located on the border of Switzerland/France lately?) Anyway, the most sensible thing I read in the Hugget article was the following:

“Our belief that the mathematical theory of infinity describes space and time is justified to the extent that the laws of physics assume that it does, and to the extent that those laws are themselves confirmed by experience. While it is true that almost all physical theories assume that space and time do indeed have the structure of the continuum, it is also the case that quantum theories of gravity likely imply that they do not. While no one really knows where this research will ultimately lead, it is quite possible that space and time will turn out, at the most fundamental level, to be quite unlike the mathematical continuum that we have assumed here.”

Two thoughts: (1) science tells us that the universe is currently expanding, so my question is what is outside of the current universe? If we could reach there, would it have the same properties as our space/time continuum? (2) Could it be that what is outside of our space/time continuum is what we define as the present; i.e., outside the constraints of time & space? If so, are we somehow connected to it?

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

It would be impossible to overestimate how much we owe Dr. King. He clearly understood the risks associated with what he terms the Socratic method of “creating tension in the mind”. However, he also understood the greater efficacy of such a tactic vs using violence as a means. In his letter, he states “if this philosophy (of nonviolence) had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood”. No doubt about it!
Can we draw any implications from the potential, and largely averted, “force of bitterness and hatred” Dr. King spoke of? Are there any lessons we can take forward on a global scale to begin mitigating terrorist violence? It would appear that we treat terrorism that same way we treat cancer in the body. We only know how to cut it out and/or kill it. Cancer is big business; I often wonder if we are pouring more efforts into it’s treatment than we are into our efforts to prevent it. I wonder if there isn’t some parallel to that in terms of terrorism. Are we really trying to understand it, or are we simply focusing our efforts on ways and means to “kill it”, just as we would treat a symptom and not a cause, thereby making it even worse?
With regard to racial equality, we can no doubt point out ways we have made progress. In general, I suspect that our military may be ahead of the general population, if for no other reason to do otherwise is counter to essential order and discipline. Note I did not say we have eliminated it; as long as there is fear we will probably never eliminate it. Perhaps the motivation isn’t always correct; nevertheless, we need to keep working on it. Further, this business of discrimination for otherwise capable people need not end on the basis of pigmentation in the skin, either.