In a mathematical paradox, there is no double meaning behind the statements.  It is a paradox because it implies that the barber shave himself if and only if he does not shave himself.

There is no double meaning behind this paradox.

Where does it say that?

there is no math involved

Not directly. But it does have implications for set theory, which is part of mathematics.

If you believe in evolution, obviously the egg came first.

It doesn't have to say that.  Within a mathematical context such as this, what is said is all that is allowed to be worked with.  In other words, there can be no one else that shaves the barber, for example.

Source?

So something that was not a chicken laid an egg that had a chicken inside it - and what hatched out was the first true chicken?

Actually you are right - in evolutionary terms, the egg has to come first.

Mathematics is my source.  Mathematical language is much more specific meaning than everyday, ordinary language.  When something is stated or implied, there are no double meanings at all involved.

But your statement is not mathematical in nature. As soon as your language becomes removed from mathematics in any way, there are multiple ways it can be interpreted. In this case, the question does not exclude the possibility of the barber shaving himself and being shaved by the barber.

Nicely said and this is why it is autistic in nature.

But my statement is mathematical in nature.  That is because Mathematics is in some sense essentially logic.  Just because it does not contain numbers, does not mean it is not mathematical.  Using mathematical language, this paradox involves the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves.  Many sets R are not members of themselves-for example, the set of cubes is not a cube.  Examples of sets T that do contain themselves as members are the set of all sets, or the set of all things except cubes.  Every set would seem to be either of Type R or of Type T, and no set can be both.  However, when Russel was forming this paradox, he wondered about the set S of all sets that aren't members of themselves.  Somehow, S is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself.

I know this seems mind boggling, but in the words of mathematician Ronald Graham, "Our brains have evolved to get us out of the rain, find where the berries are, and keep us from getting killed.  Our brains did not evolve to help us grasp really large numbers or to look at things in a hundred thousand dimensions."

So, in other words, this barber paradox has nothing to do with reality in any way.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but ambiguity and double meanings do exist in mathematics. Example: the square root of 4 is both 2 and -2.

The square root of 4 is 2. Even though, by logic, it can be both 2 and -2, the convention is that it is 2.

If X^2 = 4, then X = 2 or -2.

This is one of those technicalities that some high school teachers try to catch their students out on.

Oh, no.  You are completely right.  What I meant when I said 'mind-boggling' was the part when I talked about how for example, not all sets are sets of themselves.  This kind of language can be hard for people to understand at first, including myself.

It actually has everything to do with reality.  Mathematics is reality.

But in this case it is an either/or setting.  It is true that you cannot always encapsulate reality and logic with either/or statements, but for this one that principle holds true.

Or is mathematics just a really useful way of representing reality?

Our mathematical notation is a really useful way of representing reality, which is mathematical truths.  According to some, Mathematics could run reality just like software runs a computer.  According to Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) Our physical reality is not just described by mathematics, it is Mathematics.  We don't invent Mathematical truths, we discover them and we only invent the notation for describing them.

I'm going with that one.

haha, i guess i will never be able to convert you to mathematics, huh?

I never said I wasn't a fan of mathematics. Just that it doesn't work for everything. Either that or you're using the wrong set of rules for the specific example that was given. As 142857 pointed out, you're using 'either/or' rules for a situation that is not 'either/or' in nature.

I know, i was kidding  

I do think that mathematics works for everything though.  I think that it not only works for everything, but it is everything.

The paradox is either/or though in nature.

Every day the male barber shaves every man who does not shave himself, and no one else.  Does the barber shave himself?

That is an either/or expression.

That part in bold is a key detail that you left out of the original version. Now it's a paradox.

I did make that mistake and I apologize for it. I forgot about those words and somehow I skipped past them.

The funny thing is that I assumed the bold text when I read the opening post, even though it is not clearly implied. I read the statement expecting it to be a paradox, and it is not a paradox unless it is assumed that the barber shaves every man who does not shave himself and no one else. So I guess I filled in the gaps to make it a paradox.

I see the original statement as implying an either/or situation because it implies that every man in the town either shaves himself or is shaved by the barber. But the barber himself does not fit on either side of that either/or statement. The paradox lies in the expectation that an either/or statement can always cover every possibility. The clear implication for set theory is that it cannot.

he has to shave it completely.

Yep. I'm satisfied with it as a paradox now.