A solution to Russell’s Paradox

The paradox:
Consider the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.
Is that set a member of itself?

Here is a well made video explaining the paradox:

The answer:

itself‘ and a ‘set of itself‘ are not concrete finite types, they are infinity concepts that can be represented by infinity notations.

And just like any infinity concept, to reach to a concrete finite conclusion, you have to collapse its timeless state by specifying a moment / dimension.

A ‘set of itself‘ is always different than ‘itself‘ when you collapse its timeless infinite state.

Collapsing it is done by specifying a finite time / dimension unit.

Let’s represent a moment / dimension with the letter n, so that ‘itself in moment/dimension n‘ is represented by the function itself(n)

itself(n) = set of itself(n-1)

Removing time / dimension from the above is like asking for the answer to what’s the number for division by zero.

Division by zero number can only be witnessed if we can exist outside time. Hence it’s just a concept in our time bound dimension and not a number.

So a ‘set of itself at this moment‘ does not have a member of type ‘set of itself at this moment‘, it has a member of type ‘set of itself a moment ago‘.

Hence, a set of all sets that are not members of themselves would comfortably contain finite sets (e.g. ‘set of apples‘, ‘set of oranges‘) and infinite sets represented by infinity notations (e.g. a set of itself(n-1))


A world without patents & copyrights

Our civilization evolved through cycles where old ideas and technologies are the building blocks on which new ones are formed.

E=mc^2 didn’t come out of the vacuum with no prior knowledge of mathematics and physics layed out generations ahead of it.

Our individual lifespan is too short to accomodate the civilization we enjoy today had we insisted not to copy the work and ideas of our ancestors.

It’s who we are as a species, through copying, refining, & building on top of ideas by others, is one of the reasons where we are today.

Yet today, we’re hindering our innate nature for advancement just to cater for this one argument : “why should I put the hard work & resources just to see someone else using my ideas without me benefiting”.

The root of all Evil

Some might say money, others, with tongue-in-cheek, might say women. But in the pursuit of such root, if one does exist, we might find the root of all what drives our actions, good or evil.

Give it a minute before continue reading. Think about what could be the root of all Evil.

If you dig deep, you’d reach to the root of all that drives our actions. It’s a root of constant struggle through free-will to achieve a state, by means of not in gaining or obtaining something but rather the absence of something deeply rooted in our conciousness.

Such state can only be the absence of emotional (not physical) pain.

All our actions are just means to achieve such emotionally pain-free state. Everything we do revolve around the avoidance of emotional pain.

If we close examine our actions, we’d realize they are merely reflections of our decisions. Such decisions are formed by our capacity for independent choice (free will).

Strip our independent choice (free-will) and dissect its mechanism, you’d find it always tries to lead you down the path of least resistance to this emotionally pain-free state.

This resistance is controlled by non-other than our conscience.

This conscience in each of us is the one responsible for carving the flow of our choice mechanism by raising and lowering the resistance down the many routes leading us to the choices that lands us on our emotional pain-free state.

It is this conscience that is the root of our good and evil actions.

Give this theory a try, have as much examples as you’d like thrown at this abstract human independent choice mechanism. And trace it down to which road it will lead you.

You’ll find it, remarkably without fail, taking you down the path towards this one particular emotionally pain-free state, through the route of least resistance according to your conscious.

Here is a very basic and simple example to test this theory; someone offering you a tasty ice cream. You could choose to accept or reject such offer.

You’d accept, possibly, to avoid having the discomfort feeling (emotional pain) associated with the thought of unattainable desire.

You’d reject, possibly, to avoid having to deal with the emotional distress of gaining weight and its possible consequence on your social status and/or well-being.

Both choices are laid out on paths with your self-conscience controlling the resistance leading you to the choice that lands you at your emotional pain-free state.

If your conscience is more resistant to the idea of losing social status / well-being, then the path would lead you to the rejection choice.

And if unattainable desire is your conscience’s least resistive path, then accepting the offer is the path of which your choice will take

Apply other examples, but introduce moral judgement, and you’ll find the mechanism is always the same.

Every action seeks the goal of reaching an emotionally pain-free state through a choice path dictated by the conscience.