## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Ratings:

172 pages2 hours

Preface sets scope of work. 40 paradoxes in order in two chapters. Chapter 1 covers Zeno's paradoxes, after laying out 8 prefatory statements and 3 Math assertions: ONE: Paradox of Denseness. TWO: Paradox of Finite Size. THREE: Paradox of Complete Divisibility. FOUR: Paradox of Dichotomy of Motion and Change in Position. FIVE: Achilles and the Tortoise. SIX: Paradox of the Arrow. SEVEN: Paradox of the Stadium. EIGHT: Paradox of Place. NINE: Paradox of the Grain of Millet. Chapter 2 offers 31 other paradoxes. TEN: Paradox of Even/Odd Rational Numbers. Show how rational numbers can be both even and odd. ELEVEN: Paradox of Prime Numbers. Show that all prime factors must come out to an even count. TWELVE: Paradox of Classes. Show that A and B for one thing need not be identical as a class. THIRTEEN: Paradox of Conventions. Show that conventions are sometimes necessary. FOURTEEN: Paradox of Continuums. Continuums are a problem. FIFTEEN: Paradox of Curves. We show that curves are really polygonal progression. SIXTEEN: Paradox of Algebra and Number. We show infinite series are invalid. SEVENTEEN: Paradox of Dot Lines. We speculate all lines may be dotted lines. EIGHTEEN: Paradox of Determinism. We show that Determinism is impossible. NINETEEN: Paradox of Intent and Lies. We show that intention and reality can create paradoxes. TWENTY: Paradox of Universals. We demonstrate that ideas are real. TWENTYONE: Paradox of Ordinals. We explain why ordinals can be infinite while cardinal numbers cannot. TWENTYTWO: Paradox of Blink. We suppose all motion and time come from a blinking universe. TWENTYTHREE: Paradox of Monads. We discuss monads. TWENTYFOUR: Paradox of Linguistic Monads. We discuss why language should be composed of basic terms. TWENTYFIVE: Paradox of Space. We surmise two types of space: infinite space and finite space. TWENTYSIX: Paradox of Causation. We note that particular causation cannot be proven, while the general assertion is an axiom. TWENTYSEVEN: Paradox of Life and Death. Here we show that life is not a part of death. TWENTYEIGHT: Paradox of Chance. We maintain chance is not possible. TWENTYNINE: Paradox of False Attributes. We discuss false attributes and events lead to paradoxes. THIRTY: Paradox of Perception. We discuss confusion about perception. THIRTYONE: Paradox of Opposites. We break opposites into two: positional and antagonistic. THIRTYTWO: Paradox of Time. We discuss time and its nature. THIRTYTHREE: Paradox of Gravitation. We discuss the absurdities of Newton's gravitation at a distance. THIRTYFOUR: Paradox of Dipolar Force. We speak of magnetism in terms of mechanical forces. THIRTYFIVE: Paradox of Reciprocal Progressions. We show that since all fractional proportions of the root of 2 are incremental, all fractional parts are commensurable. THIRTYSIX: Paradox of Even Numbers. We show that even numbers are always half of any set of all whole numbers. THIRTYSEVEN: Paradox of Limits and Asymptotes. The infinitesimal of Leibniz is absurd. The idea that limits get around this is nonsense. THIRTYEIGHT: Paradox of One or Many. Zeno supposed that since parts are unlike the whole, the whole cannot be composed of parts. THIRTYNINE: Paradox of Ghosts. We surmise ghosts have telepathic powers that create eidetic imagery in perceivers. FORTY: Paradox of Gossip. What is the difference between gossip and news? BONUS PARADOX: FORTYONE: Paradox of Einstein's Proof. We note Einstein is full of it.

Publisher: Edward E. RochonReleased: Nov 29, 2017ISBN: 1370408927Format: book

PARADOXES

By

Edward E. Rochon

SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

Edward E. Rochon on Smashwords

Paradoxes

Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon

Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.

Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.

Some Other Works by the Author

*Axioms & Theorems: An Essay *

*Cubics: A Numbers Essay *

*EMF Banding Model *

*Ethereal Mea Culpa *

*Global Warming: An Essay *

*God & Square Roots *

*God & Square Roots II *

*Holographic TV: An Essay *

*Liar Enigma and Others: An Essay *

*Pest Control: An Essay *

*Pollution Solution: An Essay *

*Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay *

*Polygon Calculus *

*Super Intelligence: An Essay *

*The JU Engine *

*Zenodoxes *

Reading Material

* * * * *

**Title Page **

**Preface **

**Foreword Index of Paradoxes **

**Chapter 1: Zeno Paradoxes **

**Chapter 2: 31 or Bust **

**About the Author **

*Zeno of Elea was said to have created 40 paradoxes. We have 9 of these referenced in Aristotle's Physics and on a commentary by Simplicius on said Physics. There is some doubt as to the authenticity of most of these. Some that are commented upon seem garbled in transmission. *

*Without any foreknowledge of 31 paradoxes that I might add here, I will attempt to make up some so called paradoxes up to a count of 40. I have commented on paradoxes in the past in some essays. Some rules come first, followed by the 9 purported paradoxes of Zeno, followed by the attempt to make another 31 on this and that. *

*Some ideas expressed in various essays concerning physics, metaphysics and mathematical precepts make the basis for this essay. You may have heard of Zeno of Elea and his paradoxes, passed down to us in incomplete form and commented upon by others. These pointedly attack the ideas of a continuum of motion, continuum of transformation or metamorphosis of matter, and the existence of a continuum other than as a macroatom. I have borrowed some of these points and employed them for my own purposes that do accept motion as reality, and the validity of mathematical analysis based upon parts to the whole (the very foundation of arithmetic) and the corollary of that for time and with some qualification for space. Space is a difficult problem. *

*All referenced works are secondhand and not corroborated as to translation (not qualified for that, and all paraphrased to boot by me anyway) or to referenced citation (not trusting but impatient. They are probably accurate.) ***Back to Table of Content **

I place here an index of the paradoxes across the chapters to minimize excessive hyperlinks. There are no hyperlinks here either. You should remind yourself here of what paradox you wish to go to, and use your word find option on your reader, or type in ONE, TWO etc. with match case.

**ONE: Paradox of Denseness **

**TWO: Paradox of Finite Size **

**THREE: Paradox of Complete Divisibility **

**FOUR: Paradox of Dichotomy of Motion and Change in Position **

**FIVE: Achilles and the Tortoise **

**SIX: Paradox of the Arrow **

**SEVEN: Paradox of the Stadium **

**EIGHT: Paradox of Place **

**NINE: Paradox of the Grain of Millet **

**TEN: Paradox of Even/Odd Rational Numbers **

**ELEVEN: Paradox of Prime Numbers **

**TWELVE: Paradox of Classes **

**THIRTEEN: Paradox of Conventions **

**FOURTEEN: Paradox of Continuums **

**FIFTEEN: Paradox of Curves **

**SIXTEEN: Paradox of Algebra and Number **

**SEVENTEEN: Paradox of Dot Lines **

**EIGHTEEN: Paradox of Determinism **

**NINETEEN: Paradox of Intent and Lies **

**TWENTY: Paradox of Universals **

**TWENTYONE: Paradox of Ordinals **

**TWENTYTWO: Paradox of Blink **

**TWENTYTHREE: Paradox of Monads **

**TWENTYFOUR: Paradox of Linguistic Monads **

**TWENTYFIVE: Paradox of Space **

**TWENTYSIX: Paradox of Causation **

**TWENTYSEVEN: Paradox of Life and Death **

**TWENTYEIGHT: Paradox of Chance **

**TWENTYNINE: Paradox of False Attributes **

**THIRTY: Paradox of Perception **

**THIRTYONE: Paradox of Opposites **

**THIRTYTWO: Paradox of Time **

**THIRTYTHREE: Paradox of Gravitation **

**THIRTYFOUR: Paradox of Dipolar Force **

**THIRTYFIVE: Paradox of Reciprocal Progressions **

**THIRTYSIX: Paradox of Even Numbers **

**THIRTYSEVEN: Paradox of Limits and Asymptotes **

**THIRTYEIGHT: Paradox of One or Many **

**THIRTYNINE: Paradox of Ghosts **

**FORTY: Paradox of Gossip **

**FORTYONE: Paradox of Einstein's Proof Back to Table of Content **

We note some statements prior to discussing paradoxes:

**One: Infinite Math Operations Excluded**: An infinite series is not possible, either in extension or in subdivision. This leads to contradiction. The parts have extension or not. If not, nothing is divided as nothing is nothing no matter how many times added up. This is also true of a supposed infinite line or sum. To divide, the parts are either finite or not. If finite, two finites cannot add to the infinite: twice finite values are simply two times that finite value, another finite value. If both parts are infinite, they are not inclusive within the all encompassing infinite. Infinity has no boundaries to exceed. Moreover, each subsequent subdivision would be infinite by the same process.

**Two: Infinite One to One Correspondence Excluded**: A one to one correspondence between two infinite series is not possible, infinite series not existing to correspond to.

**Three: Infinite Proven by Logical Exclusion**: Infinity must exist by logical exclusion. Any boundary has two sides, and that side also exists, so there is no limit to the universe in the absolute, though certainly the material universe must be finite, made up of finite parts, an infinite series of parts excluded.

**Four: Coexistence of Infinite and Finite**: Given the first three statements, the infinite coexists with the finite. They are one only in the absolute sense of existence. That is, the infinite has no finite parts, the finite is not made up of an infinite series of anything.

**Five: Additive Property Disproves Infinite Series**: The additive property of arithmetic does not prove the infinite series. On the contrary, it disproves it. For a limit to be exceeded there must be a limit. No number is infinite other than in the metaphysical sense of: the One. So all added values are also limited and the two add to a finite sum. We see that a distinction must be made between the indefinite and the infinite. We modify the language in whatever sense is required. Or we call the indefinite something else. My sense is that the indefinite usually has something to do with the additive property, while the infinite is the absolute, indivisible oneness that cannot be defined but known to exist by logical exclusion.

**Six: Absolute Theory Proof**: That which is logically coherent with respect to place, proportions, event flow and time is theoretically possible, though not necessarily so. It is the contrary state, consisting of possibly so or possibly not. And it is absolutely true with respect to the hypothesis. For the hypothesis is a general possibility, a universal reality of potentiality.

**Seven: All General Theories or Indefinable States True**: That which is logically coherent in the general sense, is true as a matter of statement. If love or some such indefinable state is theoretically true, then it is true, for the state cannot exist to be posited unless that state exists, and a state must exist somewhere. Empiricists whine about this, but it is true, and empiricists tend to lie quite a bit, empiricism well suited to lying, and hence the regenerative affinity of the two: empiricism and lying.

**Eight: All Absolute Contradiction False**: From the previous two statements, we categorically deny that paradoxes are anything other than appearances. We mean appearances in the sense of not what is really there, rather than the appearance of things as they really are. That is to say: if A exists and B exists, if A is logically coherent and B coherent, they cannot contradict each other. No particular thing, state or sequence contradicts any other thing, state or sequence. To state otherwise leads to contradiction and nonsense.

**Specific Mathematical Proofs and Disproofs: **

**Math 1: Fundamental Proof of Arithmetic **

Proof: Any arithmetic operation can be reversed. If 5 + 3 = 8, the sum of 8 can have either term of 5 or 3 subtracted leaving the remaining term. This confirms the answer and the validity of the operation. In like manner all other arithmetic operations are reversible.

With respect to the exclusion of the finite and the infinite: Let a line L = 1. Assume infinite division of L. The derived quotient either has a value or no value. In either case the division will not prove out. A zero value when reversed will produce zero. Any other value multiplied a boundless number of times would produce an infinite value. Additionally, the paradox that an infinite number of inches could in no way be different from an infinite number of miles confirms this conclusion. Since infinite inches of necessity is boundless and in the same manner for infinite miles, there can be no limit to which infinite miles could exceed infinite inches. Now miles are much longer than inches so this is a paradox in the absolute sense of the word (logical contradiction). The only answer is that infinite operations on finite terms are undefined and so impossible. The conclusion is that an infinite series of definite terms or values is impossible.

**Math 2: Infinite Series Disproof by Algebraic Exhaustion **

Proper fractions have absolute limits of less than 1 and greater than (-1). Zero or origin when taken as a number is also an absolute limit separating positive and negative numbers. Since infinity is impossible as a fraction, and the extension on either side of zero is equal for the limits, there is *n *terms for fractions on either side, that sums to *2n *terms. Any finite series has endpoints. The first term is *1/n *and the last term is *-1/n *or in reverse, if you prefer.

But what about the division of the terms themselves, their bisection and so on? There are none since algebraically we have exhausted all terms by stipulation. Now algebraically, I need no specific absolute value, no specific number value for *n*.

The answer is that infinity has no endpoint by its very nature, its definition, no boundaries and so not finite. There is no at infinity. On the other hand, all finite values have endpoints such as first term less than 1 and last term greater than (-1). I have algebraically exhausted all divisions and there cannot be any infinite series to refute this. But see **Math 3 **

NOTE: Bertrand Russell would have us believe that infinite series are possible and, in fact, exist, because modern mathematicians say so. And did not Isaac Newton prove infinite series in the calculus? He did not and could not and can not. Modern mathematicians are wrong. If the reader studies the matter under his own mental powers, he can come to no other conclusion than such infinite series are not possible. Nor for that matter is there any such thing as mathematical induction. All math is deductive. Induction comes from sensory input and imagination within the mind, the sensory input of the brain from inner cognition. To categorize animals using the axiom of: like things have like attributes, being like to that degree, is the use of deduction not induction. The sets of the elements are subsets and are also a product of deductive reasoning. We hunt out the animals but not the logic. It is already present to the reason. There is no such thing as inductive reasoning. The artist creates by induction, but the rules he uses are deductive, even when intuitive. For nothing in intuition excludes reason from that realm. As for emotions, convictions and such, these are indefinable states of being that are understood immanently, immediately without *a priori *or *a posteriori *knowledge. Such knowledge exists as eternal states and not subject to time, though operating in the mind in time. They are neither remembered nor forgotten. Oh, according to Russell the integer (-1) proves infinite series. Well, well, well, what do you expect from the land of *Alice in Wonderland *and Lewis Carroll.

**Math 3: Validation of Quantifiable Object **

We see the problem laid out in **Math 2 **above with respect to why the exhausted incremental indivisible parts of the line cannot be geometrically further subdivided. We state that by definition of *n*, that is the case. But might there not be something left uncovered and unsaid? We go to the very core of perception and perceiving things as continuums (whole apple) and parts (core, seeds, stem, skin, pulp, colors.)

Let us suppose we have a line segment of unit value. The unit value of the line is the whole value and the line treated as a whole without analysis is a continuum from endpoint to endpoint. And this is what we see empirically at cursory glance, a line of unit value with no distinct discontinuities. Let us call this *Line A*. Now let us look at the unit line with a bisector hash mark. This is strictly speaking a different line of perception. It looks different too. We see the hash mark. So we call this *Line B*. A trisected Line would be *Line C*. A quartered line is *Line D*. Things seen as a whole are indivisible, the same as atoms, whether macroatoms or the micro-atom of Democritus and common notions of today.

Let us say, and quite logically said, that *Line A *is not *Line B*, nor *C*, nor *D*. Therefore, to divide is not to divide *Line A *but to replace it in congruent space by *Line B*, *C *or *D*, *etc*. Even if we speak of ideal lines and leave out hash marks, dots for endpoints, midpoints, we are still perceiving a real object of perception. Ideal states are still viewed in the mind as distinct, and so the *Line A*, *B*, *C*, *D*, *etc*. distinction is still valid.

In effect, all is indivisible to perception, all whole, until we replace the whole with a congruent other whole, generally with numerous similarities to the previous whole, yet all is indivisible, all atomic. We live in a pan-atomic world. Now, if all the atoms of the apple are indivisible not only in substance as Democritus supposed but also in place, as must be the case upon analysis to avoid contradiction, we see that the atoms form an indivisible collection that makes the apple indivisible by that fact as a matter of logic, and this builds up to the whole cosmic macroatom. The logic of this argument is quite solid.

We must consider the validity of quantifiable objects as a backdrop to

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading