在之前的一篇文章中，我们讨论了《蒂迈欧篇》宇宙论中的一个悖论：即使整个宇宙完全充满了多面体，其中仍不存在虚空——这在数学上是不可能的（Brisson-Ofman 2025）。在本文中，我们将探讨另一个悖论。虽然第一个悖论已被广泛知晓，并且亚里士多德早已指出这一根本性的数学矛盾削弱了柏拉图的宇宙论，但这个新的悖论却几乎未被古代和现代的注释者注意到。考虑到关于《蒂迈欧篇》宇宙的大量研究成果，这一疏忽或许会让学者们感到惊讶，因为这些研究大多强调其与天文观测的差异或指出内部矛盾。与第一个悖论类似，这一悖论同样源于宇宙完全由多面体填充的前提。然而，在这种情况下，矛盾源于宇宙外部不存在虚空。在第一部分，我们证明宇宙的形状不可能是一个完美的数学球体：也就是说，其边界并非光滑，而是存在凸起和凹陷。接下来，我们从柏拉图文本中提出概念性论据，支持宇宙形状相对于完美数学球体的“缺陷”必要性。在第三部分，我们论证这样一个宇宙无法运动。最后，我们借鉴解决先前显而易见矛盾的方法，提出了对这一数学矛盾的解决方案：即蒂迈欧宇宙的独特特性，即它作为一个有生命的实体，其组成部分始终处于运动、变化、分解和重组的状态。尽管这个问题不依赖于《蒂迈欧篇》的各种解读流派，但它与柏拉图哲学中的一些重要问题相关。这些问题包括科学尤其是天文学中观察的重要性、可理解模型与其感官副本之间的关系、柏拉图宇宙论中神话与逻辑的结合方式，以及“隐喻”与“字面”解释之争。当然，所有这些问题超出了本文的范围，这里不予讨论。

In a previous article, we discussed a paradox in Timaeus' cosmology: that there is no void inside the universe, even though it is entirely filled with polyhedra-a mathematical impossibility (Brisson-Ofman 2025). In the present article, we examine another paradox. While the first paradox is well known and was already highlighted by Aristotle as a fundamental mathematical contradiction undermining Plato's cosmology, this new paradox has gone almost entirely unnoticed by commentators, both ancient and modern. This oversight may surprise scholars, given the extensive body of work on Timaeus' universe, much of which emphasizes discrepancies with astronomical observations or points out supposed internal contradictions. Like the first paradox, this one arises from the premise of a universe entirely filled with polyhedra. However, in this case, the contradiction stems from the absence of void outside it. In the first section, we demonstrate that the shape of the universe cannot be a perfect mathematical sphere: that is, its boundary is not smooth but exhibits bumps and hollows. Next, we present conceptual arguments from Plato's text that support the necessity of such 'defects' in the universe's shape compared to a perfect mathematical sphere. In the third section, we argue that such a universe cannot move at all. Finally, we propose a solution to this mathematical contradiction in Timaeus' construction, drawing on the same ideas used to address the earlier apparent contradiction: the unique feature of Timaeus' universe as a living being, whose parts are continuously moving, changing, decomposing, and reforming. While this problem does not depend on the various schools of interpretation of the Timaeus, it is related to some important issues concerning Plato's philosophy. These issues include the importance of observations in science-particularly in astronomy-the relationship between intelligible models and their sensible copies, the mythos/ logos approach of Plato's cosmology, and the debate over 'metaphorical' vs 'literal' interpretation. Of course, all these questions fall outside the scope of this article and will not be addressed here.