The logic B+ is Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic. We define the logics BK+ and BK'+ by adding to B+ the K rule and to BK+ the characteristic S4 axiom, respectively. These logics are endowed with a relatively strong non-constructive negation. We prove that all the logics defined lack the K axiom and the standard paradoxes of consistency.

The author considers following question: is a consistent semantically closed language possible? The negative answer is the orthodox answer in the logic of the 20th century. It was presented in Russell's theory of types and Tarski's semantic theory of metalanguages. Nevertheless, contemporary logicians and philosophers of language return to this problem time and again, pointing to its relevance in various aspects. In particular, it is asserted that semantically closed language is a very important tool for expressing logical and philosophical (...) ideas. In logic of the 20th century, the problem of semantically closed language was discussed in connection with the problem of logical paradoxes. Russell and Tarski saw a fundamental cause of paradoxes in the phenomenon of self-reference that arises in semantically closed language. Accordingly, a solution for paradoxes was seen in eliminating the cause, that is, in prohibiting semantically closed language by means of a hierarchy of logical types of classes (Russell) or a hierarchy of metalanguages (Tarski). However, some contemporary logicians criticize the hierarchical approach, whose main argument consists in asserting that the approach was wrong in its diagnosis of the cause of paradoxes. This author does not try to correct the diagnostics of the hierarchical approach by identifying another cause of paradoxes. Instead, the author recognizes that a general solution of the problem of paradoxes cannot be given, a priori, by eliminating what fundamentally generates them. In this article, a new “ad hoc solution" of the problem is offered that rests upon an empirical method of identifying and eliminating paradoxes. A specific characteristic of the method is admitting the existence of consistent semantically closed language. (shrink)

The logic B+ is Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic. Wedefine the logics BK+ and BK′+ by adding to B+ the K rule and to BK+the characteristic S4 axiom, respectively. These logics are endowed witha relatively strong non-constructive negation. We prove that all the logicsdefined lack the K axiom and the standard paradoxes of consistency.

A paradox is generally a puzzling conclusion we seem to be driven towards by our reasoning, but which is highly counterintuitive, nevertheless. There are, amongst these, a large variety of paradoxes of a logical nature which have teased even professional logicians, in some cases for several millennia. But what are now sometimes isolated as 'the logical paradoxes' are a much less heterogeneous collection: they are a group of antinomies centered on the notion of self-reference, some of which (...) were known in Classical times, but most of which became particularly prominent in the early decades of last century. Quine distinguished amongst paradoxes such antinomies. He did so by first isolating the 'veridical' and 'falsidical' paradoxes, which, although puzzling riddles, turned out to be plainly true, or plainly false, after some inspection. In addition, however, there were paradoxes which 'produce a self-contradiction by accepted ways of reasoning', and which, Quine thought, established 'that some tacit and trusted pattern of reasoning must be made explicit, and henceforward be avoided or revised' (Quine 1966, p7). We will first look, more broadly, and historically, at several of the main conundrums of a logical nature which have proved difficult, some since antiquity, before concentrating later on the more recent troubles with paradoxes of self-reference. They will all be called 'logical paradoxes'. (shrink)

According to Hume’s classical definition of causal relations, a cause must fulfill two distinct conditions: a) be a sufficient condition for the occurrence of its effect; b) be temporally prior to it. However, a careful logical analysis shows that the combination of sufficiency and temporality is impossible. This is because if a complete cause is a sufficient condition for its effect to occur-then the effect is a necessary condition for the occurrence of its own complete cause! Thus, there can (...) be no complete cause for anything to occur, which means that causal determination is logically impossible.The paper goes on to examine some possible responses to this argument, and then concludes with a nontemporal version of the paradox that shows that even the first of Hume’s above conditions cannot be fulfilled on its own. This is because if something (e.g., the cause) is a sufficient condition of something else (e.g., the effect), then it cannot be a sufficient condition of itself. (shrink)

According to Hume’s classical definition of causal relations, a cause must fulfill two distinct conditions: a) be a sufficient condition for the occurrence of its effect; b) be temporally prior to it. However, a careful logical analysis shows that the combination of sufficiency and temporality is impossible. This is because if a complete cause is a sufficient condition for its effect to occur-then the effect is a necessary condition for the occurrence of its own complete cause! Thus, there can (...) be no complete cause for anything to occur, which means that causal determination is logically impossible. The paper goes on to examine some possible responses to this argument, and then concludes with a nontemporal version of the paradox that shows that even the first of Hume’s above conditions cannot be fulfilled on its own. This is because if something is a sufficient condition of something else, then it cannot be a sufficient condition of itself. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Paradoxes Stimulate Theory Development An Analogy with Perceptual Illusions Do Logical Paradoxes Exist? Imagination Overflows Logical Possibility Paradoxes Evoke Logical Analogies An Implication about the Nature of Paradox.

Wonder Woman wields a number of magical Amazonian devices: her bulletproof bracelets, her invisible plane, and most importantly for this chapter, her golden lasso of truth. The first thing to notice about the golden lasso is that evildoers bound by it are not only compelled to tell the truth if and when they answer questions, but also compelled to answer Wonder Woman's questions in the first place. The second thing to notice is that answering truthfully does not, in this context, (...) necessarily mean uttering a true sentence. Rather, if a person is tied up with the golden lasso, then they are compelled to answer questions with what they believe is the truth. The chapter shows the examples that contemplating Wonder Woman's golden lasso, and Bizarra's golden lasso, can provide us with a wealth of interesting and entertaining paradoxes and puzzles. (shrink)

In this contribution I will examine Cotnoir’s (2013) solution to the problems that alethic pluralism faces when it comes to logical paradoxes. I will argue that his proposal fails to be a viable option and I will put forward an alternative approach, more Tarskian in spirit, but with the same “pluralist” trait of Cotnoir’s solution. Such an alternative approach is based on the idea that each truth predicate can be associated with an index that fully describes its relation with (...) other truth predicates.I will show how such indexes must be constrained in order to avoid logical paradoxes. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Semantic Paradoxes: Some Proposals Sets and Extensions Three Paradoxes A Contextual Approach A Singularity Proposal Universality.

We argued [Since this argument appeared in other journals, I am reprising it here, almost verbatim.] (Fulda in J Law Info Sci 2:230–232, 1991/AI & Soc 8(4):357–359, 1994) that the paradox of the preface suggests a reason why machines cannot, will not, and should not be allowed to judge criminal cases. The argument merely shows that they cannot now and will not soon or easily be so allowed. The author, in fact, now believes that when—and only when—they are ready (...) they actually should be so allowed, in the interests of justice. Both the original argument applied and this detailed reconsideration applies exclusively to trial courts, and both specifically exclude(d) sentencing. The argument highlights some key relevant differences between minds and machines and attempts, also, to explain why automation is of far greater import for the first-level justice system (trial courts) than for higher courts. A final section discusses why sentencing was, is, and should be excluded. (shrink)

Alexius Meinong developed a notion of defective objects in order to account for various logical and psychological paradoxes. The notion is of historical interest, since it presages recent work on the logical paradoxes by Herzberger and Kripke. But it fails to do the job it was designed for. However, a technique implicit in Meinong's investigation is more successful and can be adapted to resolve a similar paradox discovered by Romane Clark in a revised version of Meinong's Theory (...) of Objects due to Rapaport. One family of paradoxes remains, but it is argued that they are unavoidable and relatively harmless. (shrink)

Alexius Meinong developed a notion of defective objects in order to account for various logical and psychological paradoxes. The notion is of historical interest, since it presages recent work on the logical paradoxes by Herzberger and Kripke. But it fails to do the job it was designed for. However, a technique implicit in Meinong's investigation is more successful and can be adapted to resolve a similar paradox discovered by Romane Clark in a revised version of Meinong's Theory (...) of Objects due to Rapaport. One family of paradoxes remains, but it is argued that they are unavoidable and relatively harmless. (shrink)

Graham Priest 2002 argues that all logical paradoxes that include set-theoretic paradoxes and semantic paradoxes share a common structure, the Inclosure Schema, so they should be treated as one family. Through a discussion of Berry's Paradox and the semantic notion ?definable?, I argue that (i) the Inclosure Schema is not fine-grained enough to capture the essential features of semantic paradoxes, and (ii) the traditional separation of the two groups of logical paradoxes should be retained.

This work is, in large part, a series of refutations; it is also the author's Ph.D. thesis. First to be refuted is Russell's vicious circle principle as a general remedy for the solution of the paradoxes. The author rejects the classification of paradoxes into syntactic and semantic, since in his view there are no purely syntactic paradoxes. The distinction in logic between the uninterpreted syntactical aspect of a system and the system when given a determinate interpretation is held to be (...) untenable. Tarski's distinction between object-language and meta-language and his concept of semantically closed language are considered irrelevant for the solution of the Liar paradox. The author claims that the usual versions of the Liar paradox have the same structure as the Barber paradox, viz., [S ↔ ~S]. The author solves the Liar paradox by pointing out that it does not have a proper reference. Cantor's diagonal argument for the indenumerability [[sic]] of the real numbers is labeled as unsatisfactory. Since the diagonal number is dependent upon the real numbers in the constructed list, the author claims that this makes the diagonal number to be of a different nature and status than the real numbers in the list; thus we have what the author calls the dependence fallacy. The author also refuses to accept Cantor's nested interval proof of the indenumerability [[sic]] of the real numbers. Within the proof, two infinite sequences are constructed, each of which converges to a limit. Because the proof does not give a "definite rule of convergence," the author is not satisfied that the infinite sequences converge. Also rejected is Cantor's theorem. Other paradoxes analyzed are the Berry, Richard, heterological, "Richardian", Russell, Cantor, and Burali-Forti paradoxes.--T. G. N. (shrink)

Quantum physics exhibits various non-classical and paradoxical features. Among them are non-locality and contextuality (e.g. Bell’s theorem or the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox). Since they are expected to constitute a key resource in quantum computation, several approaches have been proposed to provide high-level expressions for them. In one of these approaches, Abramsky and others use the mathematics of algebraic topology and characterize non-locality and contextuality as the same type of phenomena as M. C. Escher’s impossible figures. This article expands this topological (...) insight and demonstrates that logical paradoxes arising from circular references (of the sort formalized by Gödel’s fixed-point or diagonalization lemma) share the same topological structure as the quantum paradoxes, by reformatting the topological model of contextuality into a semantics of logical paradoxes. This topological semantics indeed provides a unifying perspective from which previous approaches of philosophers and logicians to logical paradoxes can be understood as diverse ways of fine-tuning topologies to model paradoxes. (shrink)

Russell’s paradox is purely logical in the following sense: a contradiction can be formally deduced from the proposition that there is a set of all non-self-membered sets, in pure first-order logic—the first-order logical form of this proposition is inconsistent. This explains why Russell’s paradox is portable—why versions of the paradox arise in contexts unrelated to set theory, from propositions with the same logical form as the claim that there is a set of all non-self-membered (...) sets. Burali-Forti’s paradox, like Russell’s paradox, is portable. I offer the following explanation for this fact: Burali-Forti’s paradox, like Russell’s, is purely logical. Concretely, I show that if we enrich the language \ of first-order logic with a well-foundedness quantifier W and adopt certain minimal inference rules for this quantifier, then a contradiction can be formally deduced from the proposition that there is a greatest ordinal. Moreover, a proposition with the same logical form as the claim that there is a greatest ordinal can be found at the heart of several other paradoxes that resemble Burali-Forti’s. The reductio of Burali-Forti can be repeated verbatim to establish the inconsistency of these other propositions. Hence, the portability of the Burali-Forti’s paradox is explained in the same way as the portability of Russell’s: both paradoxes involve an inconsistent logical form—Russell’s involves an inconsistent form expressible in \ and Burali-Forti’s involves an inconsistent form expressible in \. (shrink)