3 ms·
How is it a paradox? Isn't this just a proof that there are many unnamed things, but no unnameable ones?
by curtisblaine 29d ago
How is it a paradox? Isn't this just a proof that there are many unnamed things, but no unnameable ones?
- WillAdams 29d agoAgreed. This is the stuff of magic and folklore, and neatly resolved by Ursula K. LeGuin in _A Wizard of Earthsea_.
- bwfan123 29d ago> Isn't this just a proof that there are many unnamed things, but no unnameable ones? Where is it a proof that there are many unnamed things ? I could only see it as an argument that there are no "unnameable" things.
- curtisblaine 29d agoIt depends how you define "named", but for example, not all the grain of sands you see on a beach are named (yes, they are named collectively, but not individually. If "collectively" is valid, then that's further proof that "unnameable" things can't exist, because they already have a collective name).
- arjie 29d agoMany ancient paradoxes are not really paradoxes. Zeno's ones are resolved today with infinite series. But this is a real one. Is it possible to describe an arbitrary real number? Almost all reals are not describable. But you cannot find a single such number. The 'paradox' is that the search itself is self-failing - a broken strategy. Of course, now we have the language of sets and functions between them and cardinalities and we resolve this for us in a way that is meaningful. But still now you know the 'existence' of this thing? Can't be described. It's interesting because of the property of creating with finite words universes of infiniteness.
- rramadass 28d agoSee the original paper linked to here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478566