Interpretation of paradox

Paradox is that there are two opposite conclusions on the surface of the same proposition or reasoning, and both conclusions can be proved to be justified. The abstract formula of paradox is: if event A occurs, it is deduced that it is not A, if it is not A, it is deduced that it is A. Although this kind of thing will happen, it is very rare and does not exist in macro objects.

There are three popular paradoxes-complete error, unscientific error and observation object error.

First look at the first kind of mistakes-complete factual errors, such as the liar paradox. In the 6th century BC, Epiminides, a philosopher of Park Jung-soo, famously said, "All clitoris are lying."

If Epiminides is true, then Cretes are all liars, and Epiminides, one of Cretes, is no exception, so what he said should be a lie, but this contradicts the previous assumption that this statement is true; Suppose this statement is false, that is to say, all Cretans don't lie, and Epiminides, who is also a Crete, doesn't lie, that is to say, this statement is true, but if it is true, there will be contradictions. Therefore, it is generally believed that this sentence is an unsolvable paradox.

However, this is not the case. This paradox is completely wrong, because it is fundamentally wrong, just as some people say that 1+ 1 = 3, 1+ 1 = 3 is not a paradox, but a complete mistake. He confused right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

The second is a paradox that can be broken by science, such as Achilles' paradox of chasing turtles put forward by Zhi Nuo. First of all, quantum cannot be divided again and again. He has a smallest unit. In this unit, Achilles can catch up with the tortoise according to this unit. This paradox is based on the conclusion, suggesting that Achilles must chase the tortoise, which is obviously not in line with common sense.

The third is the paradox that the arrow is fixed, which means that the arrow is fixed at every moment and its mass is constant, so it looks like a fixed whole. The mistake of this paradox lies in the definition of observation. Observation here refers to taking the shape of this object for a certain period of time, and the arrow is constantly moving. If you take one of the shapes every time, he will definitely not move, which is obviously incorrect.

The root cause of paradox is that they absolutize logic, and their conclusions and quotations are also wrong. He always assumes that the conditions in the conclusion are true, but in fact the conditions in the conclusion are not.