#logical paradox

[dumpableoffence]

Dumpable Offence

traps you in a logical paradox so you can never get up from the sofa again

[rjs-calligraphy]

Some old calligraphy, from the back of my Logic notebook.

[gynostar]

I'm trying to understand how only women can be equal. Whom would they be equal to? IT'S A LOGICAL PARADOX.

Also, this person altered my copyrighted work without permission. Should I say something?

[allofthemath]

Apropos

Washington University philosopher Roy Sorensen dedicated his 2003 book A Brief History of the Paradox “to those who never have a book dedicated to them.”

- http://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/09/17/apropos-3/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FutilityCloset+%28Futility+Closet%29

[ourbrokenmirrors-blog-blog]

Does the set of all those sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

Russell's Paradox 

[alimaghribi]

Are you bored with parties that frequently broke their promises?

Then vote for us, the Red Herring! If we're chosen, we promise we'll break all our promises, including this one! 

[kvasirav]

Photography After Photography.

Photography After Photography.Exhibition catalog.

Germany, 1995.

Topics covered By Lev Manovich in the document:

1. Digital Revolution?

2. Digital Photography Does Not Exist

3. Real, All Too Real: Socialist Realism of "Jurassic Park"

read more...

I  enjoyed reading this document, certain questions posed and theories presented by Manovich are just as relevant today as they were in 94'.

In fact, swapping movie titles and substituting references  would easily transfer the date of publication to 2011.

At the same time he seems to chase his tale. The paper as presented by Manovich employs various efforts to be mildly oppositional generating the required discourse to flesh out a range of theories and opinions.

In this essay I will refrain from taking an extreme

position of either fully accepting or fully denying the idea

of a digital imaging revolution. Rather, I will present the

logic of the digital image as paradoxical;  radically

breaking with older modes of visual representation while at

the same time reinforcing these modes. I will demonstrate

this paradoxical logic by examining two questions:  alleged

physical differences between digital and film-based

representation of photographs and the notion of realism in

computer generated synthetic photography.   

Manovich discusses modes of visual representation, historical continuity and discontinuity, semiotic codes, modes of display, existence of digital photography, realism of digital imaging  and patterns of spectatorship in modern visual culture. Manovich has presented these cases as paradoxical logic and also logical paradoxes. I'm curious to know if the phraseology of this in any way pertains to separate definitions...

At the best of times the point is blatantly obvious and elsewhere more of a facetious rant.

Ultimately I found a number of points to be well illustrated if not exactly revolutionary, a fifteen year interval will surely account for this.

I agree with Manovich about the fetishized "film look",

fetishized "film look"

itself -- the soft, grainy, and somewhat blurry appearance of

a photographic image which is so different from the harsh and

flat image of a video camera or the too clean, too perfect

image of computer graphics. 

The role of a nostalgic look and feel to film and video is more widespread today than ever. It has seen development in the form of Instagram a free photo sharing application that allows users to take photos, apply a filter, and share it on the service or a variety of other social networks.

Does this application of technology feed into Manovichs idea of a paradoxical logic? In a History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell points out that people often find a way to retain characteristics of past civilization in an atavistic response to advances in cultural, religious, political and technological advances, refusing to conform to the more controlled, policed future of civilisation, looking backwards with rose tinted glasses instead of toward the future. McLuhan also points out that despair at segregation of society caused by the rate of change of technology indicates reasoning for this.

In contrast Hyper real, synthetic computer graphics, Manovich points out:

Whose vision is it? It is the vision of a cyborg or a

computer; a vision of Robocop and of an automatic missile. It

is a realistic representation of human vision in the future

when it will be augmented by computer graphics and cleansed

from noise. It is the vision of a digital grid. Synthetic

computer-generated image is not an inferior representation of

our reality, but a realistic representation of a different reality.

                                                   In other words, if a traditional photograph always points to the

past event, a synthetic photograph points to the future event.

Manovich is keen to point out the intentional degradation of “too real” digital imaging to fit seamlessly into a comfortably assimilated state for the audience,

At this point it would appear that the race is on to take the comfort zone a further step backwards, to a future-retro image. This is at a point where the obvious state is not the “too real” state but the ‘too aged’.

This is then, the final paradox of digital photography.

Its images are not inferior to the visual realism of

traditional photography. They are perfectly real -- all too

real. 

And now, all too vintage. I’m sure Manovich would enjoy this further logical paradox. 

[mathionalist]

Achilles and the Tortoise: A Logical Paradox

Achilles and the Tortoise is one of Zeno’s paradoxes. It appears to demonstrate that even the fastest of runners, Achilles, could not catch the slowest of creatures, the tortoise, if the tortoise were given a head start.

To get from one place to another takes time. If the distance between the two is very small, or the speed of travel is very fast, then it may take a very short amount of time, but it will take some time nevertheless. It is impossible to move from one point to another instantaneously.

To catch someone, you need to cross the distance between you and them, you need to move from where you are to where they are. If there is any distance between you at all, then this will take time.

Suppose that the person that you are trying to catch is moving away from you, then in the time that it takes you to get from where you are to where they are, they will have moved on. If you begin at point A, and they begin at point B, then by the time you reach point B they will be at point C. The person that you are trying to catch will no longer be at the point that you have reached.

To catch them, then, you will need to reach the point that they are now at, you will have to get from point B to point C. Doing so, though, will again take time. Point C is at a distance from point B, and so by the time you have reached point C, your target will have reached point D. This process can be repeated ad infinitum, without you ever catching your target.

Zeno illustrated this with the example of Achilles and the tortoise. If, in a race, the tortoise, who moves slowly, is given a head-start on Achilles, then no matter how quickly Achilles runs he will never catch the tortoise.