Which objects reference my ViewController strongly?

Are all paradoxes caused by reference?

• Firstly I am asking for counter examples. If there isn't one, I  wish someone could at least give suggestions on why reference would cause paradox. What is the in-depth reason for it? What’s wrong with our  logic? What is happening when we are doing logic deduction or by referring to other objects and statements? Most paradoxes are caused by self-reference but there are paradoxes which are not self-referential which also caugth my past interest. see . and But I find that the example given all involves kind of iterating reference to other statements. They either go to infinite like →→→→→→→→→→→→… Example includes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox and 1 All the following statements are false 2 All the following statements are false 3 All the following statements are false ... or going to infinitesimals is kind of equivalent like famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes Or they go in loops (kind of extended version of liar’s paradox) A: C is false B: A is false C: B is false Or they simply degenerate like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem I think the trick here as exactly stated in common solution part, the ambiguity for the reference different envelopes same expectation A. Here is the same paradox as I found for P vs NP problem, see. https://yushiphilosophicalcritiqueseries.quora.com/Some-philosophical-critique-on-P-vs-NP-problem-that-million-dollar-question Or if we look at more linguistic paradoxes, most of them are caused by referring to some object which is not defined like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseusor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox. The trick here is the problem of "point to”， as language cannot referring to a thing without ambiguity.

• Answer:

  Define reference and define paradox. Language is funny and in the absence of precise definitions problems occur. Several linguistic paradoxes and problems are actually the result of applying two differing definitions or shades of definitions and arriving at odd conclusions because of this.  If I take paradox to mean simply a seeming contradiction that might actually be true then no, not all are caused by reference. Furthermore, Zeno's paradoxes are caused by division or iteration but not reference. The issues with most of these types of paradoxes and others like them is the idea that mathematical rules actually constrain physical processes. The domain of mathematical rules is in math not physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass is definitely not an example of a paradox of reference unless one defines reference in some very unusual ways. Further, I must note that, your question assumes there is something wrong with logic if a paradox occurs. However, this is faulty. Contradiction is not a problem of logic, it is a feature of reality. Many contradictory things do in fact exist, so coming up with a logical contradiction does not imply something wrong with our logic, other then the simple fact that truth is NOT bivalent. If you discard bivalence and do not embrace the fallacy of the excluded middle paradoxes present only a puzzle not  a wrong. The fact that paradox does not actually entail fault is found within the linguistic definition of the term and very definitely within examples of linguistic and cultural rather than logical paradox. http://markmanson.net/paradoxes