New answers tagged

1

There is no 'this sentence' for "This sentence" to refer to at the instant when it is spoken, heard, written or read. Speaking, hearing, writing and reading "This sentence is false" takes time, even it only a second or two. So at the instant "This sentence" is spoken, heard, written or read, there is no sentence for "This sentence" to refer to. So if no ...


3

No, there is not really a connection here. You have to be careful: natural-language sentences generally aren't even expressible in a given formal framework, and even when they are they don't necessarily behave as expected. For example - assuming we're looking at classical first-order logic - the sentence "This statement is false" is never expressible in ...


0

Zeno's paradox was formulated after Parmenides theoriesed about the ontological status of being: One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete, immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now it is, all at once, a continuous one. ...


1

It seems to me this is a useful paradox in the sense that where it arises we know we must be thinking incorrectly. But as phrased it seems easy to overcome. I feel there is a more interesting and real paradox underlying this one. It is not thoughts that think. If you drop this idea and rephrase the paradox then it might have more bite.


-1

Whilst some said it is resolved like Russell by defining clearly the concept of motion as over time, it really does not. The problem is that even if you accept motion over time, the Achilles vs tortoise still there. Yes but a and t move over time. But by taking snapshot infinity small in time a can never take t. Even worst qm has a quantum Zeno effect about ...


Top 50 recent answers are included