Or just a tangle of language.
A tangle of language, but I don’t know what’s with the condescension in the comments section, I was still struggling with many of those riddles, not that long ago.
Number 11 is due to a problem with the concept “all” not being able to include itself. If it did, then it would be both outside and inside itself, which is a contradiction. This is basically just Gödel.
Literally “every thing” is inconceivable, and can only bring to mind as many particular “things” as one can imagine, grouped together. “All” of these things is nice and finite, and thus conceivable. At this finite level, this set isn’t defined as having to include itself, so the contradiction is avoided.
The omnipotence spoken of in this paradox is of the contradictory, undefinable/infinite type. There is no such thing as it.
But when framed in terms of the consistent, definable/finite type, one can have “all” of a finite quantities and qualities of power(s), and be omnipotent within certain bounds, and it is no longer necessary to have both the power to limit your powers, and your original power. You simply retain “all” the powers that you have, which may still be a great deal, even tending towards the infinite, but (as by definition) never reaching there.
The paradox is eliminated upon more stringent analysis of the validity of the terms.
Number 10 is easy if you limit premise 2 to the bounds of premise 1, altered to “whatever number of grains looks like a heap”. Paradox avoided.
Number 9 is easy if you stop thinking of “interestingness” as a property of numbers, and only “interest” as something valuing beings can or cannot variably show in any given number at any given time. Paradox eliminated.
Number 8 simply mistakes the continuous for the discrete. Not a paradox.
Number 7 only considers a time period that can be exceeded. Not a paradox.
Number 6 mistakes valuing beings as primarily rational, and also things like degree of thirst being able to indefinitely match degree of hunger, perfect symmetry of senses on each side of the body, perfect, static positioning of a living, moving body etc. Not a paradox.
Number 5 isn’t a paradox because everything the judge said came true anyway, despite the deductive detour performed by the condemned prisoner.
Number 4 relies on a rule that they said only “seems reasonable”, but due to the paradox, turned out not to be. Change the seemingly reasonable rule to something more reasonable (like “he shaves all those men in town who do not shave themselves, and himself”) and avoid the paradox.
Number 3 recognises the source of the paradox: “what he ‘meant’ was all Cretens except himself”, so just change it to that to avoid the paradox.
Number 2 involves an unresolvable, logically contradictory sentencing for all outcomes, so each party is equally wrong. Necessarily a paradox.
Number 1 is necessarily a paradox by definition. The commentary merely shows it’s unrealistic in practice.
As for the Bonus one, I only did a little Cosmology. I think I remember something about the light from all stars not yet having reached us, meaning the night sky will become increasingly light over time. But the whole thing relies on a complete lack of interference and obstruction of light on its way to our eyes.
So in conclusion, only 2 of these are necessarily paradoxes - the others can either be avoided or they aren’t paradoxes anyway.