explain the truth in this paradox?

Question

1. for all things (x), (x) has at least one characteristic.
2. in order for all things (x) to has at least one characteristic, (x) must exist.
3. at least one characteristic all things (x) can have is the characteristic of non-existentence.
4. Therefore, it is impossible for all things (x) not to exist.

ps I hope you see the paradox, yet you also see how the truth of my premises support the truth of my conclusion.

the purpose here is to get you to see that i have found a way to reconcile contradictory things: thus the paradox. it isn't trying to prove anything. moreover, the truth i;m referring to is logical truth, nothing else.

Answer 1

This is a derivation of the liars paradox which has been around since the middle of the 4th century BCE. The most ancient attribution is to Eubulides of Miletus who included it among a list of seven puzzles. and it goes

This following statement is true, the preceding statement is false.

or the short form

This sentence is not true.

The thing that is interesting is that the sentence above has proper form, the mechanics are flawless, yet something that proclaims a negative truth value to that very proclamation creates a paradox.

Many of our literary superiors have balked at these paradoxical quips as illegal referents but then provided us with no explanation of how they were illegal, nor how to make them lea gal. Because of these types of logical issues, the field of semantics was born.

Check out the below listed site if you are interested in this type of mind bender.

~Toll Booth Willy

Answer 2

But you presuppose the existence of certain things (x), don't you?
That's rather queer!
What is the universe unless we won't know nothing about it?
(Cf. Goedel)

Edit: As Wittgenstein puts it: A logical truth doesn't refer to our world. A logical truth tells us everything and nothing about the world.
What we are able to think is a world of its own - but this "world" may be quite different from the world we live in.
And we always have to reconcile paradoxes - this is called "life"!

Furthermore: Examine step 2: If I'm not wrong there is a petitio principii ( - hope there's none).

Answer 3

Sorry I don't get it. I don't understand your notation. I take it (x) is any class of real things or the class of all real things. Non-existence is not a characteristic of anything real, therefore it is not an attribute of any class (x). The aspect non-existence (or hypothetical universal) is not distributive over all or any members of the class (x). Your conclusion is a confusion.

Answer 4

why couldn't something have one characteristic alone which is the characteristic of not existing - like a unicorn.

if you're talking about the concept of a unicorn, that's different.

Answer 5

Not a paradox. Non-existence does exist, and therefore fits nicely into your model.

Answer 6

Pretty sad, really, what you've done to poor old [x]. Going along fine there, minding his own business, suddenly finds himself on the horns of a whatchacallit, delimma things, hoisted on his own petard.

Cruel.

Answer 7

what if existance is not a characteristic but a state for all possible (x).

Answer 8

huh?