Re: chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 09/24/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:32:23 GMT

> And that's why it's a paradox: because it CONTRADICTS YOUR COMMON
> SENSE AND EXPECTATIONS. It's really not that hard, once you take off
> the blinders you put on in the first place.

Suppose that your definition of what constitutes paradox is correct. Then,
one would expect that something like Russel's Paradox would cease to be
paradoxical after a while, because people would come to expect the twisted
conclusions and it would no longer "contradict our->expectations<-,
our ->common sense<-, or our ->assumptions<-. " After you have learned it
and grown accustomed to it, it no longer contradicts your expectation. Is ti
still a pardox - or not ?

If peolpe grew accustomed to the liars paradox, and grew to expect the
twisted conclusion, then by your definition it would then cease to be a
paradox.

Do you think that such a definition is reasonable if it allows for such an
event ? That "x is a paradix iff people are _surprised_ by it" ? I think
that you'd have a very dyanamic collection with things coming and going all
the time, and never really knowing what a paradox is or is'nt.

Now - who's really in worse shape ? Myself, having no definition whatsoever
(yet), or your friend Wilde who's definition seems quite contradictory ?

Quantcast