In
logic, a paradox is a contradictory or implausible conclusion which seems to follow
by valid argument from true premises. Aside from Zeno’s paradox, and Maxwell’s
demon, proposed by James Clerk Maxwell, Erwin Schrödinger’s cat and Olber’s
paradox, all dealt with in other places, the most interesting paradoxes are all
logical challenges.
The paradox of the Spanish barber concerns a barber who
is asked how business is doing. “Not badly,” says the barber. “I shave
everybody in the village who does not shave himself.” The problem: who shaves
the barber?
Logicians with a smattering of Greek will share my delight in this Athenian street sign. |
Epimenides of Crete is credited with one of the simplest
paradoxes: “All Cretans are liars”, meaning by implication that this statement
(made by a Cretan) was necessarily untrue. But if it is untrue, then not all
statements made by Cretans are liars, and so on.
There is a more complex form of this paradox, consisting
of two sentences. “The next sentence is false” and “The previous sentence is
true”. Or "there are two erors in this sentence".
The dilemma of the crocodile: a crocodile seizes a
child, but promises to let the child go, if the father guesses correctly
whether he will do so or not. If the father offers as his guess the opinion
that the crocodile will not return the child, what should an honest crocodile
do?
A lawyer is trained by a teacher who says “you must pay
me for your tuition after you win your first case”. Several years go by, during
which time the teacher gets annoyed because the lawyer has yet to win a case,
and sues the lawyer, saying “If I win my case, you must pay me, but if I lose,
you have won your first case and must pay me.”
“Not so fast”, says the young lawyer. “If I lose the case, I have yet to win a case and need not pay you. But if I win, then by the court’s judgement, I do not have to pay you.” Does the lawyer have to pay?
“Not so fast”, says the young lawyer. “If I lose the case, I have yet to win a case and need not pay you. But if I win, then by the court’s judgement, I do not have to pay you.” Does the lawyer have to pay?
Some words describe themselves, so “short” is a short
word, but “long” is not a long word, “English” is an English word, but “German”
is not a German word, and so on. We call words which describe themselves as
autological, while words which do not describe themselves are called
heterological.
But what about the word “heterological” — does it describe itself or not? If “heterological” is heterological, then it describes itself, and so it is autological. But if the word is autological, then that means it is a word that does not describe itself … or something.
But what about the word “heterological” — does it describe itself or not? If “heterological” is heterological, then it describes itself, and so it is autological. But if the word is autological, then that means it is a word that does not describe itself … or something.
Paradoxes can be useful ways of extending our knowledge,
or at least ways of finding the right questions to ask. Fermi’s conjecture,
also known as Fermi’s paradox, was offered by Enrico Fermi. In simple terms, it
asks why, if the Galaxy is filled with intelligent and technological
civilizations, haven’t they come to us yet?
There are several possible answers to this question
(good taste on the ETs’ part, distance, or a recognition that contact with a
superior civilisation is damaging to the more primitive one), but as we only
have the vaguest idea what the right conditions for life and intelligence in
our Galaxy, this paradox probably has no ready answer.
Paradoxes are also useful as a form of the mathematical
proof called reductio ad absurdum, an
argument which comes to an absurd or contradictory conclusion, hence showing
that an initial assumption must be wrong. This shows up well in the so-called
grandfather paradox of relativity. Imagine that your grandfather has just built
a time machine, which you then use to go back in time, to give your grandfather
the plans, so he can later build the time machine.
You reach him at a time where he has yet to meet your
grandmother, he refuses to believe you, and in an argument, he steps out into a
road, and is run over and killed by a passing car. He has now died before he
met your grandmother, so you do not exist, since one of your parents does not
exist, and the time machine does not exist, so you cannot be there in any case.
This is one of the arguments physicists use to support
their belief in the causality principle. Others say the fact that we have never
met time travellers proves that there will never be any, but this is probably
one of the most useless of paradox types.
Let's get back to more practical stuff!
Let's get back to more practical stuff!
No comments:
Post a Comment