Skip to main content

Russell’s Paradox as Ecological Proxy

  • 171 Accesses

Abstract

In treating briefly of Russell’s Paradox, we come upon the anthropic breakdown into logical types. Their mathematical notations initiate suggestion that Homo sapiens, certainly in recent generations, have become so irrationally destructive as to render a most fitting paradoxical category in which we, alone, are the inhabitants of that unique logical type—without any ameliorative endpoint.

Keywords

  • Thomas Bayes
  • Russell’s Paradox
  • Georg Cantor
  • Parmenides
  • EPR paradox
  • Einstein

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_14
  • Chapter length: 6 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-64526-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 14.1
Fig. 14.2
Fig. 14.3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Statistical Science 2004, Vol. 19, No. 1, 3–43 DOI 10.1214/088342304000000189 © Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2004 “The Reverend Thomas Bayes, FRS: A Biography to Celebrate the Tercentenary of His Birth,” by D. R. Bellhouse, http://biostat.jhsph.edu/courses/bio621/misc/bayesbiog.pdf, Accessed March 16, 2019.

  2. 2.

    See “Historical Ecology,” Carole L. Crumley, in Regional Dynamics – Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, Edited by Carole L. Crumley and William H. Marquardt, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego and London, 1987, p. 241.

  3. 3.

    https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/sustainable-development-environment/french-policy-on-biodiversity/Accessed March 16, 2019

  4. 4.

    See http://brianrabern.net/onewebmedia/FregeRussellCorr.pdf, March 16, 2019; See also “The Russell Paradox,” in Gottlob Frege, The Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964, 127–143; abridged and repr. in A.D. Irvine, Bertrand Russell: Critical Assessments, vol. 2, New York and London: Routledge, 1999, 1–3; and “Paradoxes, Self-Reference and Truth in the 20th Century,” in Dov M. Gabbay and John Woods (eds) (2009) Handbook of the History of Logic: Volume 5 – Logic From Russell to Church, Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 875–1013. See also, “A Guide to the Jean Van Heijenoort Papers, 1946-1988,” Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin, https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00245/cah-00245.html, and most importantly, his edited translations in, From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967

  5. 5.

    See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/Copyright 2016 by Andrew David Irvine and Harry Deutsch.

  6. 6.

    “What Is Russell’s Paradox?” by John T. Baldwin and Olivier Lessmann, Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-russells-paradox/. Accessed, July 25, 2020.

  7. 7.

    See “The Nature of Infinity — and Beyond, An introduction to Georg Cantor and his transfinite paradise,” by Jørgen Veisdal, https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the-nature-of-infinity-and-beyond-a05c146df02c, December 17, 2018; Ann., 65 (1908), pp. 261–281.

  8. 8.

    See “Stepping Into the Same River Every Week: Parmenides, Heraclitus, Chaos Theory, and the Nature of Change in Group Psychotherapy,” Michael P. Frank, Group, Vol. 36, No. 2, Philosophy and Group Psychotherapy (SUMMER 2012), pp. 121–134.

  9. 9.

    See “How Bertrand Russell discovered his paradox,”Grattan-Guinness, Historia Mathematica, Volume 5, Issue 2, May 1978, Pages 127–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/0315-0860(78)90046-0, Science Direct, Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0315086078900460, Accessed March 16, 2019.

  10. 10.

    See Hladký, V. & Havlíček, J. (2013). Was Tinbergen an Aristotelian? Comparison of Tinbergen’s Four Whys and Aristotle’s Four Causes. Human Ethology Bulletin, 28(4), 3–11.

  11. 11.

    See “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780, Bibcode: 1935PhRv…47..777E; doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777. See also John S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradeox,” Physics, 1 (3): 195–200, doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195, November 4, 1964. See also, Bohm, D. (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. I”. Physical Review. 85 (2): 166. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166

  12. 12.

    ibid. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, 1935.

  13. 13.

    For an excellent description of the EPR paradox as a thought experiment (gedankenexperiment) and its relation to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, see“EPR Paradox in Physics,” by Andrew Zimmerman Jones, ThoughtCo., July 3, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/epr-paradox-in-physics-2699186, Accessed July 27, 2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tobias, M.C., Morrison, J.G. (2021). Russell’s Paradox as Ecological Proxy. In: On the Nature of Ecological Paradox. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_14

Download citation