Russell's Paradox - a simple explanation of a profound problem (28:28) ~ Jeffrey Kaplan

submitted by JasonCarswell from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
Because it was dead.
Why did the monkey die?
Because it fell out of a tree.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, was that his paradox? I know he was involved in the work on this after Godel, but I didn't watch the video due to my strict policy on only reading. Godel's was essentially 'this sentence is lie'

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The paradox is, "Can a thing be something, that it isn't?"

Answer: No.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"This sentence is false"

What's the answer? Is it true or false?

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"This sentence is false"

What's the answer? Is it true or false?

It's a statement. The question creates paradoxical conditions that aren't inherent to the stand-alone statement.

The entire paradox is predicated on arbitrary rules that are assigned to the set.

"Bad things are good."

Is this a true/false statement?
Who cares. It's irrelevant, without a real world context.

These sets are designed to factor out real world issues, so the ruling class (Bertrand Russell, etc.) can pretend they're objective, and that their decisions are logically justifiable.

Heavy emphasis on in-group and out-group classification. Consistent with a culture of class-oriented scumbags.