2 ms·
How is it a paradox? Isn't this just a proof that there are many unnamed things, but no unnameable ones?
by curtisblaine 2mo ago
How is it a paradox? Isn't this just a proof that there are many unnamed things, but no unnameable ones?
- WillAdams 2mo agoAgreed. This is the stuff of magic and folklore, and neatly resolved by Ursula K. LeGuin in _A Wizard of Earthsea_.
- bwfan123 2mo 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 2mo 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 2mo 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 2mo agoSee the original paper linked to here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478566