Is the Russel Paradox Valid in Case of the Collection Called ‘Universe’?
Abstract:
These paper present similarities between the meaning of the natural languish words ‘Universe’ and ‘Set of all sets that are not members of themselves’. Similarities are collected across different cultures and during time in order to establish if today similarities represent sufficient arguments for sustain that for the meaning of the natural languish word ‘Universe’ the Russell's paradox is valid. Comparing the understanding of the meaning of the natural languish word ‘Universe’ with the understanding of the natural language word "Set of all sets that do not contain themselves as elements" we find very high similarity. Therefore, the natural language word ‘Universe’ meaning is a Russell set for which Russell's paradox is true. Because from the principle of explosion of classical logic, any proposition can be proved from a contradiction, the presence of contradictions like Russell's paradox in an axiomatic ‘Universe’ theory is disastrous; since if any formula can be proved true it destroys the conventional meaning of truth and falsity. Different relevant models (mental constructions) of ‘Universe ‘are presented in which the presence of Russell's type paradox is ignored.
