Russell's Paradox and the Excluded-Middle reasoning

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lama
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Russell's Paradox and its implications within excluded-middle reasoning. It argues that tautologies like "x = x" do not lead to new information through recursion, suggesting that the paradox arises from meaningless questions such as "x is not x." The participants contend that the existence of sets is not dependent on their properties, and therefore, the paradox does not hold in this logical framework. The conversation also touches on the distinction between false statements and meaningless ones, asserting that the paradox can be avoided by rejecting the law of excluded middle or by adopting a different set theory approach. Ultimately, the conclusion is that Russell's Paradox is rendered meaningless when viewed through this lens.
  • #201
Hi arildno,

No, I did not read any of Hegel's work.

Thank you for the information, I'll try to find an English version of it.

Can you give us some example, which shows the similarity between Hegel's work and my ideas?

Thank you.

Lama
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
Lama said:
Hi arildno,

No, I did not read any of Hegel's work.

Thank you for the information, I'll try to find an English version of it.

Can you give us some example, which shows the similarity between Hegel's work and my ideas?

Thank you.

Lama

Well, it's been years since I read Hegel, but he opposed, for example, to what he found was a philosophically incorrect concept of the limit.
(Basically, he meant the limit concept involved a "qualitative change" in the fundamental nature of the number)

Now, this is possibly of little interest/relevance to your own concepts, but I sensed a "resonance" of your ideas with Hegel's, rather than any specific concepts I could pinpoint at the instant.
 
  • #203
Last edited:
Back
Top