Hi guys, the first thing we should know is that a paradox is a strange idea opposed to what is considered true to the general opinion or said in other terms, to the union of two opposing ideas that are contradictory, but that nevertheless may be enclosing a hidden truth.
The Sorites Paradox ("sorites" means pile, set, heap) was enunciated by Eubulides of Mileto, contemporary Greek philosopher of Aristotle, who criticized.
Take a grain of sand ... is it a pile of sand? ...
Then another grain and put it next to the first ... do you have a lot of sand now? ...
Then a third ... do not you either?
How many grains of sand do you need to have a lot of sand? Can not you say it?
Let's do it the other way around, then:
Place a pile of sand on the floor ... it's a lot.
Take a grain ... it's still a lot.
Take two ... three ... ten ... it's still a lot ...
How many grains should you take away so that it is no longer a pile?
The Sorites Paradox puts into question everything we normally consider "common sense" to define things, until we are forced to define exactly a term that we use loosely.
Basically, it teaches us to be cautious when defining things with the usual human pride, and understand that any limit we put to divide things will be arbitrary.
When does it stop being a river to be a stream?
When does it stop being orange to turn brown?
When a person stops being high?
When do you stop being a child?
When does it stop being a hill to become a mountain?
Any "definition" as lax as these will inevitably lead to false and wrong conclusions.
the reality is that nature does not concern itself with limits ... it is we, the human beings, who insist on putting them, on defining them, on making them dogmas; You are white or black. You are fat or skinny. You are low or tall You are good or bad.
Now, let's associate this that we just said previously with the terminology of the planets. One of the many definitions that we arbitrarily have in our lexicon is that of the concept of "planet".
That definition has already presented controversies, as in the case of Pluto that arbitrarily "ceased to be" as of one day in 2006 . But at the other end of the definition, we have those planets that are so big, hot, giants and gaseous, that they are almost at the limit of being stars.
That definition is not simple, and obviously because of its arbitrariness it will be full of controversies.
To answer it, astrophysicist Kevin Schlaufman proposes to define that limit by 10 times the mass of Jupiter (about 317 land masses).
Once that limit is reached, you will become a "brown dwarf" or "failed star", a nickname that will fill your existence with ignominy for the rest of your days.
I do not know what is worse ... that they treat you as "failed" or that they call it "brown", just the color that does not exist for astronomy, since the true colors of these objects range from orange to the magenta, even the violet ...
Kevin says that he can, and to do it with certainty, it is based on the origins of that object:
The origins of brown dwarfs are somewhat mysterious, but scientists think that when stars are in their earliest stages, they expel the materials that later form brown dwarfs into space. Unlike planets, brown dwarfs do not need a star to keep them spinning.
The origins of the planets are radically different from those of a brown dwarf. Planets like Jupiter form "from the inside out," building first a rocky core that eventually becomes enveloped in a gaseous cloud.
"While we believe we know how planets are formed in a broad sense of the concept, there are still many details that we must complete." Defining an upper limit on the masses of planets is one of the most important details that was missing.
With an upper limit defined for the size of a planet, astrophysicists can better prioritize the search through the solar system for interesting bodies, including those that may have life.
Be as it may (however reasonable your arguments may seem), never forget that every time you define something you will be arbitrary, and therefore contradictory.
A limit, a barrier, a definition, makes sense when it is the same nature that is self-imposed.
But when we humans "invent" those conventional limits for our benefit, we are always on the verge of a paradox. All our legislation, our ethical principles, our moral "truths" are riddled with "lots of sand".
The strange thing is that we walk through life without realizing how arbitrary our harsh preconceptions can be and accepting them naturally as if they made sense.
Acronyms.
NASA: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
ESA: European Space Agency
@jlmol7The images used in this article can be reused according to your copyright.
