2006-10-15 10:53:11 · 15 answers · asked by KatGuy 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Russell's Paradox
(1) Let M = "the set of all sets that do NOT contain THEMSELVES as elements" (x is an element of M if and only if x is NOT an element of x)
(2) If M does not contain itself, then M has to be a member of M, by definition.
(3) If M does contain itself, then M is NOT a member of M, again by definition.
(4) The statements "M is a member of M" and "M is NOT a member of M" cannot both be true, because they are contradictory.
If you think about it long enough, your head starts to feel fuzzy.
2006-10-15 11:53:34 · answer #1 · answered by Jon 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The operation of human free will with the framework of divine sovereignty without violating it. Many people find this concept unworkable and therefore consider it a contradiction rather than a paradox. But I have found that after years of careful study that despite its complexity it not only makes perfect sense but is the only logical conclusion to explain the world in which we live.
2006-10-15 11:05:27 · answer #2 · answered by john c 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nicholas of Cusa made the following interesting point regarding the shape of an infinite circle. The curvature of a circle's circumference decreases as the size of the circle increases. For example, the curvature of the earth's surface is so negligible that it appears flat. The limit of decrease in curvature is a straight line.
An infinite circle is therefore... a straight line!
2006-10-17 00:32:06 · answer #3 · answered by Led*Zep*Babe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
definite. Calculus provides a mathematical thanks to get to the bottom of his "paradoxes," in that it shows that it is conceivable to compute the sum of an "countless" sequence. That by technique of itself in difficulty-free words shows his *end* incorrect, yet no longer the common sense itself. the easy answer to the common sense itself is that "infinity" isn't authentic; that this is utilized by technique of Zeno as a stand-in (and in a number of of places in mathematics) for "it would want to take me too lengthy to count number that top, so i'm no longer likely to bother." :)
2016-12-04 21:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by veloso 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the paradox of nihilism, which states that human being are incapable of finding out any truth and being certain of anything.however this statement in itself is disproving nihilism, as it s an attempt of truth.
2006-10-15 11:29:02 · answer #5 · answered by inDmood 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People see often, others dying, and yet, try to possess things as if they believe that they can live for ever !
2006-10-16 02:20:55 · answer #6 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The paradox of the stone, which asks, "Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"
2006-10-15 10:58:41 · answer #7 · answered by Paley Pale 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That God supposedly gave us free will but evidently doesn't want us to use it and wants us to be sheep.
2006-10-15 11:46:40 · answer #8 · answered by lillith6662000 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That water is wet but the water atoms are not.
2006-10-16 15:43:36 · answer #9 · answered by Freddy F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi, JKatra,
"The "proof"we have that time travel is not possible.. is the fact that people from the future have not come back in time.. to tell us..."..
>>>>>>>>
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.".
>>>>>>>>
Thanks, for the question!;)
My regards!
2006-10-15 11:41:24 · answer #10 · answered by Kimberly 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋