A Yabloesque paradox in epistemic game theory
... after numerals, holding beliefs about each player behind them, but not about themselves. In this case, each player i believes that each player k > i behind them has an assumption about each other player l > k behind them, and i believes that each k’s assumption is false. This statement is perfectly ...
... after numerals, holding beliefs about each player behind them, but not about themselves. In this case, each player i believes that each player k > i behind them has an assumption about each other player l > k behind them, and i believes that each k’s assumption is false. This statement is perfectly ...
HERMENEUTICAL PARADOXES IN THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES A. Ladikos
... questions of justice and injustice (or, more generally, right and wrong) arise, and it appears to deny the fact of prudential weakness. This version of the paradox is not far removed trom ordinary thought, tor we naturally assume th at most people will on most occasions do what they take to be in th ...
... questions of justice and injustice (or, more generally, right and wrong) arise, and it appears to deny the fact of prudential weakness. This version of the paradox is not far removed trom ordinary thought, tor we naturally assume th at most people will on most occasions do what they take to be in th ...
Gresham Ideas - Gresham College
... One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. A more recent example of this came when the confidence trickster and later FBI informant Mel Weinberg (the inspiration for the film American Hustle) was testifying under oath. He admitted ...
... One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. A more recent example of this came when the confidence trickster and later FBI informant Mel Weinberg (the inspiration for the film American Hustle) was testifying under oath. He admitted ...
(pdf)
... the Axiom of Choice to duplicate it. S 2 \ D can be split into two sets, each of which is equidecomposable with S 2 /D. To do this we note that distinct rotations send points of S 2 /D to distinct images. First, let us define an orbit. We will call F x = {f x|f ∈ F } the orbit of such a point x ∈ S ...
... the Axiom of Choice to duplicate it. S 2 \ D can be split into two sets, each of which is equidecomposable with S 2 /D. To do this we note that distinct rotations send points of S 2 /D to distinct images. First, let us define an orbit. We will call F x = {f x|f ∈ F } the orbit of such a point x ∈ S ...
Yablo`s paradox
... finite information that grounds the conclusion ∀xα(x). Still, it might be suggested, at least for an infinite being, God, say, who really can apply the ω-rule, there is a paradox here that does not involve circularity. Even this is false, however. I chose to demonstrate that Yablo’s paradox involves ...
... finite information that grounds the conclusion ∀xα(x). Still, it might be suggested, at least for an infinite being, God, say, who really can apply the ω-rule, there is a paradox here that does not involve circularity. Even this is false, however. I chose to demonstrate that Yablo’s paradox involves ...
The Method – Analysis and Criticisms
... doubt but my doubts are misguided. Second, who is to say that when I find that I cannot doubt something that I am right? Suppose I am someone who simply cannot make sense of the idea that the Earth is a sphere and not flat. Of course, one obvious way to check whether I’m right is to ask someone else ...
... doubt but my doubts are misguided. Second, who is to say that when I find that I cannot doubt something that I am right? Suppose I am someone who simply cannot make sense of the idea that the Earth is a sphere and not flat. Of course, one obvious way to check whether I’m right is to ask someone else ...
Chapter 5 Mathematics
... If this god cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then there is one thing it cannot do; namely create such a large stone Therefore there is at least one task this god cannot perform Omnipotent means that this being can do anything Subsequently, this god is not omnipotent ...
... If this god cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then there is one thing it cannot do; namely create such a large stone Therefore there is at least one task this god cannot perform Omnipotent means that this being can do anything Subsequently, this god is not omnipotent ...
Section 5.4: Russell`s Paradox
... are many examples of sentences which can at first seem paradoxical (and hence not statements) but are indeed statements (since they are either true or false), and likewise, there can be other statements which are paradoxes like Russell’s paradox. To illustrate, we consider some examples. Example 2.1 ...
... are many examples of sentences which can at first seem paradoxical (and hence not statements) but are indeed statements (since they are either true or false), and likewise, there can be other statements which are paradoxes like Russell’s paradox. To illustrate, we consider some examples. Example 2.1 ...
Omnipotence paradox
The omnipotence paradox is a family of semantic paradoxes that address two general issues and three specific issues: Is an omnipotent entity logically possible? What do we mean by ""omnipotence""? What do we mean by ""power""? What do we mean by ""logic""? What is the relation between power and logic?The omnipotence paradox states that: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task that it is unable to perform. Hence, this being cannot perform all actions. On the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there is something it cannot do.One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: ""Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?"" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being would not have been omnipotent to begin with in that he would have been incapable of creating a heavy enough stone; if he could not lift the stone, then it seems that the being either would never have been omnipotent to begin with or would have ceased to be omnipotent upon his creation of the stone.The argument is medieval, dating at least to the 12th century, addressed by Averroës (1126–1198) and later by Thomas Aquinas. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) has a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to ""deny himself"". Several answers to the paradox have been proposed.