Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeroca Sub,
I hear about Russel’s paradox for the first time. I’m not familiar with it. Can you formulate it briefly anew?
Here’s the paradox from bible, which (together with other paradoxes…) led me to the system “active zero”:
Jesus says: I’m in father and father is in me (this isn’t quote from bible, but only is main idea of told). How would you interpret it?
To say figuratively, can the mug, which contains water, be in the same water, which is placed inside it?
Or another paradox from Dao de Tzin (Lao Tse), which together with the paradox above, led me to mentioned system “active zero”:
Only a few in this universe act by mean of inactivity (this sentence isn’t quote from Dao de Tzin, but only is main idea of told)
Regards,
zeroca |
Zeroca,
I think what Jesus is essentially saying is that he and the father are together, contiguous, synonymous. If we consider that something always contains itself then we can deduce that God and Jesus are one according to the paradox. So yes, the mug and the water can both be inside eachother but only if you consider the mug and the water to be the same single object.
Russell's paradox is about set theory and set theory is about grouping numbers together in sets. For example, you can have the set of natural numbers which is just the counting numbers 1 2 3 4 5... etc. You can also supposedly have the empty set which contains nothing, i.e. zero. Now Russell's paradox asks about having a set which does not contain itself. Specifically, it asks if you had the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, then would that set contain itself? Generally you think it would have to contain itself if it contains all sets that don't contain themselves, but then once it contains itself it no longer is a set which does not contain itself and thus we arrive at a paradox. I am solving the paradox by saying that all sets must contain themselves in order to exist and the only set which does not contain itself per se is the empty set. Therefore the set of all sets which do not contain themselves is the same as any set which does not contain itself which is simply the empty set. Therefore the simple answer is that the paradox is based on an irrelevant question because it is a question about the empty set and the empty set is considered to be irrelevant because it has no value and no contents.