Yeah, I guess I have to broadly if only reluctantly agree with that, as long as you don't redefine our vocabulary all the time. The expressions "Real paradox" and "theoretical paradox" are not quite the thing but I grant you that it's the idea. If you can think of a better way to put it, I'd be interested.
Congratulation, it's not often that Speakpigeon grants a point!
EB
Ya, I don't like the terms "real paradox" and "theoretical paradox" either, but I couldn't think of better terms to sum up the distinction I was making. The main point was that if you come to a conclusion which points to something fundamentally contradictory about actual properties of the universe, that's either a WOW moment or an indication that one of your premises are wrong. If all you can do is assert contradictory premises and show that this leads to contradictory conclusions, that's a word game which may get you a quick chuckle as a party trick if there's a group of philosophy students at that party, but really has no additional value.
I 100% sign to this but I have to warn you that this is effectively disagreeing with nearly all mathematicians, nearly all computer scientists, and a good chunk of philosophers interested in logic as well as our in-house local expert in mathematical logic here, Angra Mainyu. Do you have a good life insurance?
EB
I don't know what they'd disagree with because it's pretty straightforward.
P1) X is true
P2) X is false
C) X is both true and false
Umm ... ok?
It's logically valid but doesn't tell you anything about anything and has absolutely zero applications towards anything, so it's just a complete waste of time. I guess the people who like it can hang out with the guys arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and have some fun talking in circles, but other than providing a cute word game there's not really any utility to it.