The Paradox of Existence

[wuliheron]

The Paradox of Existence

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it does not make rational sense. Nature makes abundant sense but existence itself is patently irrational and, thus, possibly supernatural. So profound is this paradox that it may be forever beyond our ability to comprehend much less articulate clearly. Nonetheless, attempts to rationally explain existence have proliferated since the dawn of humanity, but all of these have led back to paradox rather than resolving the paradox of existence.

One commonly proposed explanation of existence is that it just is. The reality of our existence is self-evident, so the rationale goes, and to think otherwise is pointless and often destructive solipsism. As Aart Van Der Leeuw put it succinctly, “The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.” Whether true or not, this decidedly pessimistic and anti-intellectual attitude fails to resolve the paradox in any intelligible manner. Rather than supplying an explanation for the origin, disposition, and authenticity of existence, it perfunctorily dismiss the wisdom of exploring the mystery while asserting the validity of existence and experience without providing the slightest evidence.

Along similar lines, many have proposed that paradoxes and the mystery of existence are not real but, instead, are entirely the result of the natural limitations of language, abstract thought, and perception. It could well be then that humanity is simply incapable of rationally conceptualizing its own existence. However, this remains unsubstantiated and summarily denies the manifest empirical evidence of the paradox of existence.

Infinity is one of the more popular accounts of the paradox of existence. Uncounted multitudes have argued that if existence is infinite some respects this somehow makes it rational. Unfortunately for such arguments the concept of infinity itself is paradoxical. Lao Tzu expressed this conundrum of infinity and the paradox of existence with elegant classic flare some twenty-five hundred years ago:

The mother of nature.
It has no name,
But I call it "the Way";
It has no limit,
but I call it "limitless".

To declare something is infinite is to assert that it has no limits. However, this presents a paradox because the statement contradicts itself. Specifically, it imposes the limit on itself that there are no limits. Because of this irrational self-contradictory and self-referential statement we can interpret infinity any way we so desire and none can prove us wrong. All they can do is point out the inherent paradox and its irrational nature.

This inability to rationally express much less prove or disprove the reality of infinity, has not prevented people around the globe from using the term for everything from casual everyday use to elaborate engineering designs and obscure theological debates. Infinity, for example, is central to the Calculus, which has revolutionized modern science. Thus, paradoxes and infinities are not so easily ignored as meaningless, trivial, or useless. Nor for that matter, can they be casually dismissed as manifestly wrong, misleading, or vague.

Now there is little doubt that when people normally use the word infinity they are referring to something so vast it may be impossible to measure. Even so, like countless reflections in a house of mirrors, with infinity you can never be quite certain if what you are looking at is real or just a reflection. Whichever way you turn looks the same and where exactly we are within the maze of reflections, much less if there is a way out of the maze, cannot be determined by just looking around. William Blake expressed this somehow flowing yet timeless, comprehensible yet incomprehensible quality of infinity in his popular poem, “Auguries of Innocence”:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour

Over the millennia these often confusing paradoxical images of infinity have been logically and mathematically manipulated to prove an incredible number of absurdities including, for example, that one plus one equals three. Eventually now famous mathematicians and philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel, finally established that mathematics and logic could not be used to prove the validity of infinity without producing paradoxes. In other words, if the concept of infinity is not irrational or just so much illusory smoke and mirrors no one apparently can ever prove it logically or mathematically.

In an actual house of mirrors we can walk right up to the nearest image and touch it to see if it is the real McCoy or just another reflection and, using this hands on method, we can find our way out of the maze. Unfortunately this direct approach is evidently impossible in the case of infinity. No one has ever scientifically proven any kind of infinity exists in the real world much less that the concept is logical.

Everything science has investigated to date has eventually turned out to be, by the standards of science itself, rational and finite or presumably irrational or paradoxical. This continuing failure to prove anything in nature is infinite leads, once again, inexorably back to paradox. If existence is finite, then how can it have any reasonable causal origins? If it is infinite, then how can it be rational? As a result, classical science seems has been just as helpless to clarify the situation as everyone else.

For all these reasons and more, existence presents the astonishing likelihood that at least one paradox is real and not merely the result of ignorance on our part. Whether invoking eternity, oneness, or the supernatural each new explanation proposed for existence has inevitably lead back to paradox. For something to be eternal, God-like, or all encompassing invokes logically impenetrable paradox. If God or eternity really can explain and validate existence, then where did they come from? If everything is profoundly unified, than logic is the illogical. Coherent explanations to this puzzle of existence are impossible by the very definition of logic if, indeed, existence truly is a paradox, as it certainly appears to be.

Among the many ramifications of this enduring base ignorance is that the very foundations of logic, philosophy, and science have remained dubious. Despite innumerable attempts by extremely sincere, capable, and dedicated people throughout history the paradox of existence has consistently defied all rational and objective investigations for obvious and self-evident reasons. The humbling and mounting realization accompanying this failure is that, in addition to existence, everything else may ultimately be paradoxical.

Once we have accepted and acknowledged this simple fact of life, we can then move on to more easily and objectively explore how best to approach, conceptualize, and use paradoxes and the irrational like any other handy and ubiquitous tools. By further extending this pragmatic approach we can adopt the position that we do indeed exist in some sense, but that the precise nature of our existence is fundamentally impenetrable to reason until proven otherwise. In fact, whether or not we ever solve the mystery of life, the universe, and everything may be irrelevant. Obviously there is still a great deal more we can learn about life and, in the process, about ourselves.

In fact, although the paradox may be illusory and ultimately beyond reconciliation in light of these historical failures, dramatic progress has been made in this century. Superficially from these tired old arguments it may appear unapproachable, but this is simply not the case and I expect progress in this area to accelerate in the near future. Quantum Mechanics, for example, also deals with another enigma that may even be closely related.

The Quanta and mass-energy of modern physics are every bit as mysterious as the paradox of existence. Exactly what these “things” are that particle physicists study is a matter of debate, but their behavior is decidedly irrational. Despite this ignorance of what their equations describe, using statistics, multidimensional mathematics, and experimental data physicists have managed to narrow the field of reasonably likely possibilities considerably and, in the process, helped to narrow the likely possibilities for explaining the paradox of existence. However, before discussing such abstruse modern developments further, it is helpful to first understand more pedestrian paradoxes.

[Iacchus32]

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."

Sounds like he's talking about the "experience" of God to me. If he is, then I think what he's saying is pretty darn close. If so, then it begs another question, "Why aren't we willing to go through the experience?" Why must we insist on the "cold hard facts?" Is life supposed to be sanitized (hey, that's where the word sanity comes form) and only observed through a beaker?

From the post (below), Whaddya know?

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
If God is Eternal, then where are we going to find Him but in the "present moment" which, exists beyond the future and the past and always is? ... Thus the moment must be Eternal too. And it's through our understanding -- in the moment -- that we are filled with insight from God. So, "Be still [in the moment] and know ..."

[CJames]

I see nothing wrong with the idea that existence just exists. By trying to explain why it exists you may be addressing something as fundamental as why 1 + 1 = 2. Does that make me lazy? Perhaps. I suppose I do find the origins of the universe interesting. But I do think that some things are just fundamental. It has to be that way.

[wuliheron]

If memory serves me right, he was not talking about God, but was an Atheist. Amazing how powerful context is.

As for our willingness and unwillingness to accept existence or God or whatever fully its just habits. Everyone learns to play make believe as a child, but eventually we start to call our make believe truth and enshrine it in habit.

[wuliheron]

Exactly James, I am addressing something as fundamental as 2=2. That's what philosophy is about, metaphysics. The foundations of mathematics that say 2=2 cannot be proven by the way, as I mentioned in the original post.

Such may seem senseless, meaningless, nonsense and a complete waste of time to you, but it is essentially the same kind of logic used in Quantum Mechanics. As Lao Tzu said


When the great man learns the Way,
He follows it with diligence;
When the common man learns the Way,
He follows it on occasion;
When the mean man learns the Way,
He laughs out loud;
Those who do not laugh, do not learn at all.
Therefore it is said:
Who understands the Way
Can seem foolish;

Einstein ranted and raved that Quantum Mechanics must have an explanation, Max Planck begged his colleges to disprove his nonsensical results, etc. Logic such as this is incredibly complex, but also incredibly useful even if it makes one look foolish sometimes. :0)

[CJames]

I just don't believe that something being fundamental qualifies it as a paradox. And yes, I did say believe. But it seems to me that for something to work without breaking down, there simply must be fundamentals from which that system is created. Can I prove that? I suppose not, since proofs are based on fundamentals as well. To me, a paradox is a logical contradiction, not something which can't be explained logically. I don't think that just because 2=2 cannot be proven, that it qualifies as a paradox.

[wuliheron]

I don't believe it either, that's the whole point.

The point is to not take a stand on the issue. If Physicists had insisted out of belief that nature, existence, and reality must make sense before they could invent Quantum Mechanics from the nonsensical experimental results it would have never happened.

Being open minded is more powerful than believing.

Existence is paradoxical because every attempt to explain it and, in fact, every way you can conceptualize an explanation for it leads to paradox. Not simply because it is a mystery.

[CJames]

When you put it that way I find myself agreeing with you. I guess I more or less think the same way, I just didn't know we were saying the same thing. Not to make too much of it. Not to take a stand on it. Alright. I get it now. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

So what do you know? ... If it isn't by virtue of the experience itself? ...

[wuliheron]

So what do you know? ... If it isn't by virtue of the experience itself? ...

I don't know, but that could be a form of knowledge itself.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]The Paradox of Existence



What is your essential paradox about existence?

Does it drop down to the issue of why there is something rather than nothing?

Or are you referring to another paradox?

The problem in explaining existence is that it needs to explain why something (anything at all) exists, and it must do so without any reference to anything existing.
So, any logic in the scheme of ... A is the case, because of B ... is doomed to fail in this case, cause there isn't any B.

Existence just is, it cannot be explained.

[wuliheron]

If you would please read the thread you'll find the answer there already along with perhaps a few others.

Any attempt people make to rationally explain existence leads to paradox, hence, the paradox of existence.

[bogdan]

Just because we obtain a result that "apparently" is a paradox doesn't mean that existence is something peculiar...Maybe our logic is self-contradictory...or there's a "small" mistake in our way of thinking...
Don't forget...logic is a representation of the "reality"...a crude representation...like a scientific theory...it has many lacks...

[wuliheron]

Once again, I implore you to read the thread carefully. Just as oratory is an art, so is listening well. You are just making a fool of yourself and acting contentious in my opinion.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron


Existence is paradoxical because every attempt to explain it and, in fact, every way you can conceptualize an explanation for it leads to paradox. Not simply because it is a mystery.

Of course if you try to explain existence, you're going to find it paradoxical. That's because you would be trying to explain that which has no cause, was not created, and has ultimately no reason for being. Asking the "why" of something, implies some kind of prior being responsible for the existence of that something. So of course it sounds like nonsense to ask about the why of existence.

Likewise, the question "why does the universe exist" is the same, and any attempt at an answer will yeild nonsensical paradoxes. But the idea of something just existing without an external reason is unsatisfying to most people. Hence the ultimate question of "why" will probably never go away.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The Paradox of Existence

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it does not make rational sense. Nature makes abundant sense but existence itself is patently irrational and, thus, possibly supernatural. So profound is this paradox that it may be forever beyond our ability to comprehend much less articulate clearly. Nonetheless, attempts to rationally explain existence have proliferated since the dawn of humanity, but all of these have led back to paradox rather than resolving the paradox of existence.

One commonly proposed explanation of existence is that it just is. The reality of our existence is self-evident, so the rationale goes, and to think otherwise is pointless and often destructive solipsism. As Aart Van Der Leeuw put it succinctly, “The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.” Whether true or not, this decidedly pessimistic and anti-intellectual attitude fails to resolve the paradox in any intelligible manner. Rather than supplying an explanation for the origin, disposition, and authenticity of existence, it perfunctorily dismiss the wisdom of exploring the mystery while asserting the validity of existence and experience without providing the slightest evidence.

Along similar lines, many have proposed that paradoxes and the mystery of existence are not real but, instead, are entirely the result of the natural limitations of language, abstract thought, and perception. It could well be then that humanity is simply incapable of rationally conceptualizing its own existence. However, this remains unsubstantiated and summarily denies the manifest empirical evidence of the paradox of existence.

Infinity is one of the more popular accounts of the paradox of existence. Uncounted multitudes have argued that if existence is infinite some respects this somehow makes it rational. Unfortunately for such arguments the concept of infinity itself is paradoxical. Lao Tzu expressed this conundrum of infinity and the paradox of existence with elegant classic flare some twenty-five hundred years ago:

The mother of nature.
It has no name,
But I call it "the Way";
It has no limit,
but I call it "limitless".

To declare something is infinite is to assert that it has no limits. However, this presents a paradox because the statement contradicts itself. Specifically, it imposes the limit on itself that there are no limits. Because of this irrational self-contradictory and self-referential statement we can interpret infinity any way we so desire and none can prove us wrong. All they can do is point out the inherent paradox and its irrational nature.

This inability to rationally express much less prove or disprove the reality of infinity, has not prevented people around the globe from using the term for everything from casual everyday use to elaborate engineering designs and obscure theological debates. Infinity, for example, is central to the Calculus, which has revolutionized modern science. Thus, paradoxes and infinities are not so easily ignored as meaningless, trivial, or useless. Nor for that matter, can they be casually dismissed as manifestly wrong, misleading, or vague.

Now there is little doubt that when people normally use the word infinity they are referring to something so vast it may be impossible to measure. Even so, like countless reflections in a house of mirrors, with infinity you can never be quite certain if what you are looking at is real or just a reflection. Whichever way you turn looks the same and where exactly we are within the maze of reflections, much less if there is a way out of the maze, cannot be determined by just looking around. William Blake expressed this somehow flowing yet timeless, comprehensible yet incomprehensible quality of infinity in his popular poem, “Auguries of Innocence”:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour

Over the millennia these often confusing paradoxical images of infinity have been logically and mathematically manipulated to prove an incredible number of absurdities including, for example, that one plus one equals three. Eventually now famous mathematicians and philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel, finally established that mathematics and logic could not be used to prove the validity of infinity without producing paradoxes. In other words, if the concept of infinity is not irrational or just so much illusory smoke and mirrors no one apparently can ever prove it logically or mathematically.

In an actual house of mirrors we can walk right up to the nearest image and touch it to see if it is the real McCoy or just another reflection and, using this hands on method, we can find our way out of the maze. Unfortunately this direct approach is evidently impossible in the case of infinity. No one has ever scientifically proven any kind of infinity exists in the real world much less that the concept is logical.

Everything science has investigated to date has eventually turned out to be, by the standards of science itself, rational and finite or presumably irrational or paradoxical. This continuing failure to prove anything in nature is infinite leads, once again, inexorably back to paradox. If existence is finite, then how can it have any reasonable causal origins? If it is infinite, then how can it be rational? As a result, classical science seems has been just as helpless to clarify the situation as everyone else.

For all these reasons and more, existence presents the astonishing likelihood that at least one paradox is real and not merely the result of ignorance on our part. Whether invoking eternity, oneness, or the supernatural each new explanation proposed for existence has inevitably lead back to paradox. For something to be eternal, God-like, or all encompassing invokes logically impenetrable paradox. If God or eternity really can explain and validate existence, then where did they come from? If everything is profoundly unified, than logic is the illogical. Coherent explanations to this puzzle of existence are impossible by the very definition of logic if, indeed, existence truly is a paradox, as it certainly appears to be.

Among the many ramifications of this enduring base ignorance is that the very foundations of logic, philosophy, and science have remained dubious. Despite innumerable attempts by extremely sincere, capable, and dedicated people throughout history the paradox of existence has consistently defied all rational and objective investigations for obvious and self-evident reasons. The humbling and mounting realization accompanying this failure is that, in addition to existence, everything else may ultimately be paradoxical.

Once we have accepted and acknowledged this simple fact of life, we can then move on to more easily and objectively explore how best to approach, conceptualize, and use paradoxes and the irrational like any other handy and ubiquitous tools. By further extending this pragmatic approach we can adopt the position that we do indeed exist in some sense, but that the precise nature of our existence is fundamentally impenetrable to reason until proven otherwise. In fact, whether or not we ever solve the mystery of life, the universe, and everything may be irrelevant. Obviously there is still a great deal more we can learn about life and, in the process, about ourselves.

In fact, although the paradox may be illusory and ultimately beyond reconciliation in light of these historical failures, dramatic progress has been made in this century. Superficially from these tired old arguments it may appear unapproachable, but this is simply not the case and I expect progress in this area to accelerate in the near future. Quantum Mechanics, for example, also deals with another enigma that may even be closely related.

The Quanta and mass-energy of modern physics are every bit as mysterious as the paradox of existence. Exactly what these “things” are that particle physicists study is a matter of debate, but their behavior is decidedly irrational. Despite this ignorance of what their equations describe, using statistics, multidimensional mathematics, and experimental data physicists have managed to narrow the field of reasonably likely possibilities considerably and, in the process, helped to narrow the likely possibilities for explaining the paradox of existence. However, before discussing such abstruse modern developments further, it is helpful to first understand more pedestrian paradoxes.

And yet, I - as always - disagree with applying the paradox of limitlessness to infinity. (I also disagree with the paradox of existence, but I'll post my disagreement with that later). If you would like to know why I disagree with applying the "limitlessness paradox" to infinity, just read my post in the thread, "Infinity is NOT paradoxical".

[wuliheron]

And yet, I - as always - disagree with applying the paradox of limitlessness to infinity. (I also disagree with the paradox of existence, but I'll post my disagreement with that later). If you would like to know why I disagree with applying the "limitlessness paradox" to infinity, just read my post in the thread, "Infinity is NOT paradoxical".

Yes, of course you still disagree and are still using the same essential argument. As I have pointed out before, your arguments fly in the face of thousands of years of philosophical and mathematical work on the subject, but I look forward to your post. You help me to clarify my own arguments.

Once again, here is one of countless webpages on the long and detailed history of rational and mathematical arguments demonstrating infinity is paradoxical:

http://descmath.com/diag/history.html

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh,
Of course if you try to explain existence, you're going to find it paradoxical. That's because you would be trying to explain that which has no cause, was not created, and has ultimately no reason for being.

To say there is something that has no cause, reason, or creation is to utter a paradox so, yes it is very much like that. It's along the lines of liar's paradox:

"This statement has no cause, reason, or creation."

Asking the "why" of something, implies some kind of prior being responsible for the existence of that something. So of course it sounds like nonsense to ask about the why of existence.

Exactly, but that does not make the pursuit useless or counterproductive. Small children often ask "why".

Why is the sky blue? Why do I feel this way? Why do I exist?

Often they seem to understand and know something profound adults appear to often have forgotten. :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, of course you still disagree and are still using the same essential argument. As I have pointed out before, your arguments fly in the face of thousands of years of philosophical and mathematical work on the subject, but I look forward to your post. You help me to clarify my own arguments.

Once again, here is one of countless webpages on the long and detailed history of rational and mathematical arguments demonstrating infinity is paradoxical:

http://descmath.com/diag/history.html

Ok. I read the link. I found no proof of anything, except that people have struggled with infinities in the past - which I already knew.

I think it was Russel (but I'm not sure) who showed that infinity could never be proven. However, that does not mean that it is paradoxical, merely theoretical (as no theory can ever be proven).

You have also brought Godel's Incompleteness theorems (and the like), in past arguments. However, all that they proved was that if you try to prove infinity, you yeild paradoxes. But, then you are supposed to yeild paradoxes just by trying to prove mathematics (within it's own framework). So, this does not prove that infinity is paradoxical, merely that it is unprovable.

[wuliheron]

Exactly so. I don't claim infinity is definitely paradoxical, just that it is a paradoxical concept. Again, neither do I claim infinity definitely does not exist in the real world, just that it has never been proven to exist in the real world.

Science uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this catagory as a scientific concept. Nor does it fit into the catagory of a logical concept.

It remains, demonstrably irrational just as the paradox of existence does.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly so. I don't claim infinity is definitely paradoxical, just that it is a paradoxical concept. Again, neither do I claim infinity definitely does not exist in the real world, just that it has never been proven to exist in the real world.

Science uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this catagory as a scientific concept. Nor does it fit into the catagory of a logical concept.

It remains, demonstrably irrational just as the paradox of existence does.

Hmm. It appears that we mostly agree. In fact, I think you make a pretty good point, except for the part about science not accepting things that cannot be proven. A "theory", by definition, cannot be proven, and modern science is based on theory.

Don't get me wrong, theories are extremely useful (and are, in fact, the highest thing that an hypothesis can aspire to), however, they cannot be proven.

[wuliheron]

Hmm. It appears that we mostly agree. In fact, I think you make a pretty good point, except for the part about science not accepting things that cannot be proven. A "theory", by definition, cannot be proven, and modern science is based on theory.

Science is a method which neither accepts nor rejects anything. For that matter it doesn't eat, sleep, or die. What I said was:

Science uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this catagory as a scientific concept. Nor does it fit into the catagory of a logical concept.

Rewritten this can say "The method uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this catagory as one of this method's concepts."

Maybe you're drinking too much coffee or something. Mellow out dude.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Originally posted by Eh,

To say there is something that has no cause, reason, or creation is to utter a paradox so, yes it is very much like that. It's along the lines of liar's paradox:

I disagree. There is nothing illogical or paradoxal about something uncaused. Perhaps it is because we mistake contingent things with non-contingency that makes the idea seem absurd.

"This statement has no cause, reason, or creation."

Statements are contingent.

Exactly, but that does not make the pursuit useless or counterproductive. Small children often ask "why".

Why is the sky blue? Why do I feel this way? Why do I exist?

All of those questions are valid, and we can at least make an attempt to answer them. Even if we fail with an answer, at least the questions are valid from the start. I do not think a question like "why does existence exist" is properly defined in the first place.

Perhaps before seeking the answer to a question, we must actually understand what the question is.

[wuliheron]

I disagree. There is nothing illogical or paradoxal about something uncaused. Perhaps it is because we mistake contingent things with non-contingency that makes the idea seem absurd.

Once again, to say something has no cause is to utter a paradox by the rules of logic, it is the very definition of logical absurdity.

"Cause has no cause."

I don't believe for a moment you can make logical sense out this statement. In this case, it is an irrational statement contingent upon the context of logic and the definitions of words.

Perhaps before seeking the answer to a question, we must actually understand what the question is.

Questions can become answers and understanding can become ignorance, and vice versa depending upon the context. Thus the paradox of existence also becomes sensible within certain contexts, but within the context of logic it remains irrational. Contingency is contingent upon context.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Once again, to say something has no cause is to utter a paradox by the rules of logic, it is the very definition of logical absurdity.

What is logically inconsistant about it?

"Cause has no cause."

I don't believe for a moment you can make logical sense out this statement. In this case, it is an irrational statement contingent upon the context of logic and the definitions of words.

Much like a creator without being created, I don't see the logically inconsistancy here. Where is the contradiction?

[wuliheron]

Ok, I'll try this from a different tac.

A cause is something. Therefore you are logically saying:

"Something has no something."

In addition, a "something" is an undefined thing and a "thing" refers to an existent. Therefore you are logically saying:

"An undefined existent has no undefined existence."

[Eh]

Not quite.

A cause is not a thing in the sense of being an entity. To ask about the cause of an object, is to really ask about the cause of the creation of said entity. This creation is an event. It makes no sense to talk about causes without a notion of
casualty and events. As such, we can only talk about events being caused.

So to say something is uncased, is merely to say that such an entity was not created by some prior event. An event is the action of a thing or entity.

There is nothing contradictory about that.

[CJames]

To say something has no cause is not logically inconsistent. To say that a cause has no cause can be logically disproven given the correct premises. But to say that a fact has no cause, I am almost positive, can't possibly be disproven logically, unless you use the premise that all things must have causes. Why should that premise be true?

[wuliheron]

A cause is not a thing in the sense of being an entity.

If a cause is not an entity, what is it?

For example, I am both an entity and a cause at all times and which you call me just depends upon context of the conversation. There are simply no examples in nature and no-thing I can conceive of where some thing is not also a cause and a cause is not also some thing.

to say something is uncaused, is merely to say that such an entity was not created by some prior event. An event is the action of a thing or entity.

Again, to say some thing is the cause of existence but not a thing is a contradiction. Causes are either things, discrete entities, or they are nonsensical. To say some thing has no context is nonsensical and paradoxical.

[Iacchus32]

Are you the cause of your effectiveness?

And jeez, what a paradox the life of the butterfly must seem to the grub? ...

[wuliheron]

"Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, or am I really a butterfly dreaming I am a man?"

Chuang Tzu

Grubs and butterflies aren't the only ones experiencing the paradox.

[Iacchus32]

But if the grub understood there was an "afterlife" (its life as a grub) maybe it wouldn't be a paradox?

[wuliheron]

Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.
Yes, but how can we as "finite creatures" grasp the concept of eternity if our "approach to eternity" (transcendence) wasn't part of "the plan?"

[wuliheron]

Yes, but how can we as "finite creatures" grasp the concept of eternity if our "approach to eternity" (transcendence) wasn't part of "the plan?"

Again, the finite implies the infinite and vice versa ad infinitum. Thus it is both possible and impossible for us to grasp. However, I have no clue what you mean by "the plan". Paradox is paradox and whether or not it constitutes a "plan" of some sort is something you will have to decide for yourself.

[Iacchus32]

Again, the finite implies the infinite and vice versa ad infinitum. Thus it is both possible and impossible for us to grasp. However, I have no clue what you mean by "the plan". Paradox is paradox and whether or not it constitutes a "plan" of some sort is something you will have to decide for yourself.

There's that which is temporary and that which is ongoing, which doesn't necessarily imply a paradox. So here we live in a "temporal world" as finite creatures, and yet if we were to pass on, only to discover that indeed there is an afterlife (where we live on Eternally -- which is what I mean by "the plan"), then where's the paradox? Therefore all we're speaking about is the difference between one phase and another ... i.e., that which "seems temporary" and that which transcends it.

[wuliheron]

Temporary is just another word for finite. Einstein's Relativity implies the past, present, and future all co-exist and the passage of time is merely an illusion. Furthermore, it also implies the universe is infinite but bounded. As a result the Buddhists and Hindus tend to love inventing theological arguments around Relativity and the Navaho nation sainted Einstein.

Time is one of the bigger mysteries in physics today.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[quote]If a cause is not an entity, what is it?

A cause is an event, and a thing performing an action could be considered an event. For example if there is a smashed plate all over the floor of your house, we can likely guess that YOU are the cause of it. But that is not entirely accurate, because the exact cause was the event of you dropping the plate on the floor. An entity that does nothing, cannot cause anything, relatively speaking.

For example, I am both an entity and a cause at all times and which you call me just depends upon context of the conversation. There are simply no examples in nature and no-thing I can conceive of where some thing is not also a cause and a cause is not also some thing.

I think that is missing the point, since the argument is that an uncaused being is not logically inconsistent. To sum it up...

When we say an entity was caused, we really mean the creation of the entity was caused by something else. As such, an entity without being created suffers from no logical contradiction.

It seems that the whole meaning of a "caused being" is the issue here. The above explanation works without contradiction or paradox, but perhaps you had a different definition in mind?

Again, to say some thing is the cause of existence but not a thing is a contradiction.

Yes, and I would say that existence cannot be caused, since that whatever cause would necessarily exist as well. I'm just saying that a causeless existence (ie. universe, god, etc.) doe not suffer from contradictions.

Causes are either things, discrete entities, or they are nonsensical. To say some thing has no context is nonsensical and paradoxical.

I would agree that an entity in action is a cause, especially since you won't find anything at rest in this universe. It seems that "things" are forever in motion, causing all kinds of havoc. But the focus is on the meaning of an entity "causing" the existence of another entity.

[wuliheron]

A cause is an event, and a thing performing an action could be considered an event. For example if there is a smashed plate all over the floor of your house, we can likely guess that YOU are the cause of it. But that is not entirely accurate, because the exact cause was the event of you dropping the plate on the floor. An entity that does nothing, cannot cause anything, relatively speaking.

Ok, then what you are suggesting is that an event is not an existent and that existence is an event with no cause and no context? In other words, existence is nonexist?

This is just back to my original assertion that existence is demonstrably paradoxical. Whatever explanation you can put forward for existence, if logically followed through, leads to paradox.

I would agree that an entity in action is a cause, especially since you won't find anything at rest in this universe. It seems that "things" are forever in motion, causing all kinds of havoc. But the focus is on the meaning of an entity "causing" the existence of another entity.

As I have already pointed out, the theory of Relativity implies another scenario altogether of a static and unchanging universe. Thus the paradox is preserved. On the one hand things seem to change and on the other the way they change implies they don't really change.

Again, context makes more sense of these confusing facts. Specifically, the context of paradox. As I pointed out in another thread, ya'll just don't get it. Paradox is the slipperiest "thing" or whatever it is or isn't. Try to disprove the existence of paradox and you end up proving it. Try to ignore it and it comes right back to haunt you. All you can do is accept paradox.

This is something Asians tend to know so well, but the west has made a great deal of progress in the sciences by denying the validity of paradox so that has become the western tradition. With the advent of QM and Relativity, however, paradox is once again commanding more respect in the west.

[wuliheron]

Reviewing people's arguments on this subject I thought it might be helpful to place the subject in a historical context as well.

Zeno of elia was the first in the western philosophical tradition to point out that whatever explanation you could put forward for life, the universe, and everything could be demonstrated to ultimately be paradoxical. He himself argued the universe was unchanging, indivisible, indestructable, and eternal. In other words, strikingly similar to Einstein's spacetime continuum taken to the extreme.

As solid an argument as Zeno had, it was useless at the time. The Pythagoreans argued basically that the universe was organized symmetrically and harmoniously and, in the process, invented a great deal of the foundations of the mathematics still fundamental to physics today--much more useful. Plato took this theory and made a very pretty ethical philosophy of it that is possibly still the most popular in the world today, but his student

Aristotle took it and ran with it full tilt, organizing the sciences into a useful endevour. In the process of doing this, he outright banned the use of infinities and other paradoxical concepts and began the western tradition of treating paradoxes as axiomatically wrong.

Caught in the middle of all this was poor Democritus, the first Atomist. He argued that existence was random in much the same fashion as Quantum Mechanics proposes today. First Zeno pointed out the inherent paradox of Democritus' theory and when Plato became popular and powerful among the Romans, he summarilly had all of Democritus' books burned as "ugly and demeaning." When the early Christians then burned down the library of Alexandria all but a few of the seventy books Democritus had written were lost forever.

For the next millennia western philosophy largely ignored paradox and if it were not for the Arabs preserving much of the ancient Greek's works like Zeno's paradoxes we might not even know what these philosophies were about. With the advent of Newtonian Mechanics and calculus, the returning of the west's attention to paradox became inevitable.

Newton had succeeded in doing what was thought to be impossible. He had incorporated paradoxical infinities into his mathematics despite Aristotle's banishment of them, incorporated an etherial vision of space and time that defied mechanistic interpretation, and incorporated the dreded magical action-at-a-distance. If his theory were not so accurate and useful and he had not lived in England after Henry the Eigth had kicked out the Catholic church, he would have been killed.

The first serious challange put forward that demonstrated this changing trend was Spinoza's formalization of Pantheism. Leibnitz was so enraged by Spinoza's philosophy that he basically helped to drive the, literally, poor man to his death just as Plato had hounded poor Democritus. Spinoza's Pantheism was compatable with Newtonian Mechanics, but did not fit within the western scientific, philosophical, and religious traditions. Newton and Leibnitz were primarilly focused on creating a new and powerful scientific tradition that the church simply could not stamp out and Pantheistic theories threatened a huge fight with the Church. Thus Pantheism languished until Einstein expanded upon Newtonian Mechanics and the Catholic churches' strangle hold on western civilization was broken.

However, while western philosophers and scientists attempted to make sense of this turn of events the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics kept throwing monkey wrenches into every attempt to make sense of the situation. Einstein, of course, argued that QM was simply too irrational. Indeed, the irrational and paradoxical is exactly what QM is all about and, so, it is often referred to as an "incomplete" theory while this is seldom said about Relativity.

After a hundred years of QM many physicists and philosophers today are resigned to paradox once again. Whatever paradox is or isn't (if anything!) it has certainly turned out to be useful and impossible to deny forever.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Science is a method which neither accepts nor rejects anything. For that matter it doesn't eat, sleep, or die. What I said was:



Rewritten this can say "The method uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this catagory as one of this method's concepts."

Maybe you're drinking too much coffee or something. Mellow out dude.

This is still a flawed view of theoretical science (which is all science, nowadays).

I tried hard, but I didn't see any hostility - or any strong emotions - in my previous post, so I think you need to mellow out.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.

Infinity does not mean "no limits". I will continue to repeat this, as long as you continue to post that infinity is paradoxical. I have already shown - through rational/reasoning argument that, while it cannot be proven to exist, infinity is not a paradoxical concept.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ok, then what you are suggesting is that an event is not an existent and that existence is an event with no cause and no context? In other words, existence is nonexist?

Uhh, no. The universe is a thing without a cause. As I have already explained, this merely means the universe was not created from some prior event. I don't know where you get the idea that such a concept means existence is nonexistent.

Seriously, when someone says something was caused, do you interpret that to mean "the thing is a thing"? No, the creation of the thing is what is caused.

This is just back to my original assertion that existence is demonstrably paradoxical. Whatever explanation you can put forward for existence, if logically followed through, leads to paradox.

Be that as it may, the topic question of an uncaused being has not been shown to be paradoxical.

As I have already pointed out, the theory of Relativity implies another scenario altogether of a static and unchanging universe. Thus the paradox is preserved. On the one hand things seem to change and on the other the way they change implies they don't really change.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking the concept of a 4 dimensional space-time universe? Such a universe would be static and unchanging, and time would be an illusion. The 4th spatial dimension is what humans would interpret as time, but we would merely be incorrect in our assumption. Still, there does not seem to be a paradox here either.

Again, context makes more sense of these confusing facts. Specifically, the context of paradox. As I pointed out in another thread, ya'll just don't get it. Paradox is the slipperiest "thing" or whatever it is or isn't. Try to disprove the existence of paradox and you end up proving it. Try to ignore it and it comes right back to haunt you. All you can do is accept paradox.

That remains to be seen. Let's just make sure we're at least on the same page regarding an uncaused being.

Do you agree that when we say something is caused, we are talking about the creation of said entity? If not, what do you define it as?

[wuliheron]

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of two thousand years of history, and is brazenly irrational. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

The universe is a thing without a cause. As I have already explained, this merely means the universe was not created from some prior event. I don't know where you get the idea that such a concept means existence is nonexistent.

I'll give this one more try using as straightforward and untechnical a wording as I can.

If you are saying existence just is, without a cause, then your logic is not logic but mere rhetorical nonsense. You might as well say the meaning of life the universe and everything is pickles (I like dill myself and the number 42 just isn't appealing.) As such it does not constitute an explanation or even a description of existence.

It may not be paradoxical, but it is irrational and cannot be shown to be related to topic at hand except possibly as humor. Again, what matters is the context and in this context of the absurd it is boardering on being off topic. However, I really do appreciate your challanges, they really do help me clarify my arguments in such a way that just about anyone can understand them.

[Eh]

Fair enough. But no one has yet shown any logical contradiction with an existence that just is. I think the question "why does existence exist" is nonsense to begin with. It's like asking why is a frog a frog?

[drag]

See my thread, please. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

This is something Asians tend to know so well, but the west has made a great deal of progress in the sciences by denying the validity of paradox so that has become the western tradition. With the advent of QM and Relativity, however, paradox is once again commanding more respect in the west.
This is the yin and yang of it all right? Which speaks of the duality of things, which are opposite and yet inseperable and hence, the foundation for everything ... Is this what you mean by paradox?

Therefore, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and also, 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

And from the "one mind" we have fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites" ... regarding the fall from the Garden of Eden.

Where before the fall, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and afterwards, 1 + 1 = 2 (where we don't embrace the opposites a whole, but rather as singular and "seperate").

While I also understand Chinese culture, unlike Western culture, is not based upon the fall from the Garden of Eden, in fact with them it's as if it had never occurred?

[wuliheron]

Fair enough. But no one has yet shown any logical contradiction with an existence that just is. I think the question "why does existence exist" is nonsense to begin with. It's like asking why is a frog a frog?

As I keep reminding people, I couldn't care less whether existence really is a paradox or not. It makes no difference in my life whatsoever, whatever the answer might be. However, exploring this question has proven incredibly valuable for thousands of years. It is the basis of most philosophy and science today whether people recognize it as such or not.

If you'd like more details, send me a pm.

This is the yin and yang of it all right? Which speaks of the duality of things, which are opposite and yet inseperable ... and hence, the foundation for everything. Is this what you mean by paradox?

The chinese do have a sort of garden of eden myth, but instead of knowledge being the culpret it is civilization and all its bad habits. However, unlike the Christian myth of Armagedeon, Taoists tend to have utopian dreams of a future where civilization kicks most of its bad habits. In addition, synergy is central to both eastern and western thought and in yin yang is a bit more complex than you portray it. It is both singularity and synergy in utter paradox.

Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. Yin and Yang is likewise a principle and natural observation, albeit a historically Asian one that acknowledges the paradox of existence. The complementary opposites of Yin and Yang extend beyond synergy unifying its disparate elements in singularity. In harmony, dissonance, and static equilibrium synergy and singularity comprise rudimentary complementary opposites of Yin and Yang.

If that isn't confusing enough, I've got more. :0)

[Mentat]

Wuliheron, how can existence be paradoxical, if we base it on a demonstrably non-paradoxical premise? Eh has already pointed out that it might just have no cause (which makes perfect, rational sense), and I have shown (in another thread, and in this one) that infinity is not paradoxical. These both work, as good premises, and resolve any possible "paradox of existence" (except, perhaps, Drag's version, which I deal with through different reasoning).

[wuliheron]

Wuliheron, how can existence be paradoxical, if we base it on a demonstrably non-paradoxical premise? Eh has already pointed out that it might just have no cause (which makes perfect, rational sense), and I have shown (in another thread, and in this one) that infinity is not paradoxical. These both work, as good premises, and resolve any possible "paradox of existence" (except, perhaps, Drag's version, which I deal with through different reasoning).

Newton's Mechanics assumed a perfectly non-paradoxical premise, but he was evidently wrong.

As I already showed with Eh's argument that existence just IS, this is not a rational argument. It is meaningless rhetorical nonsense that is equivalent to saying the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is dill pickles. Asians often use the analogy that life has Suchness and Isness, but they don't pretend to claim this is a rational argument or explanation.

And, again, if you keep insisting infinity is rational I shall just have to do the old cut and paste routine:

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

[Iacchus32]

If everything in the Universe has a cause and effect, meaning everything has a beginning and an end, then the Universe must be paradoxical, because Who was there to trip the "first domino?" Of course I believe in the big-bang theory myself, but that would imply God had a Mistress? ... And the whole idea was conceived in "the moment" ... Hey Zeus!

Yep, Good Ol' "Thunder Thighs" ...

By the way, did you know that Nyssa, Oregon was the Thunder Egg Capital of the world and, that Dionysus, the only begotten son of Zeus -- born of Zeus' thigh -- was brought up on Mount Nysa? How strange? ... Whereas Nyssa (with two n's) lies directly on the border between Oregon and Idaho. And guess what? Zeus was brought up on Mt Ida! ... Whoa dude!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#nyssa

[Iacchus32]

Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. Yin and Yang is likewise a principle and natural observation, albeit a historically Asian one that acknowledges the paradox of existence. The complementary opposites of Yin and Yang extend beyond synergy unifying its disparate elements in singularity. In harmony, dissonance, and static equilibrium synergy and singularity comprise rudimentary complementary opposites of Yin and Yang.

Actually it's not confusing at all, i.e., once you get pass the words. But after looking up one or two in the dictionary, I can see it all fits, and that it's correct. Whereas I think the one key word might be "equilibrium."

It also seems to imply a sense of cadence, by which everything is "set in motion."

[wuliheron]

The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.

It resembles the theory of inflation in that it refers back to singularity. Whether or not a singularity is a cadance is debatable. Some say there are three types of Taoist beliefs on this. Energetic Taoism as its called proposes change is the only constant, but they have the weakest arguments.

Personally, I try not to try and interpret the meaning of paradox or the origin of life, the universe, and everything, and just accept what is.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron:
The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.


Here the first three correspond to dimensions one, two and three, which then gives rise to form (i.e., an equilateral triangle), which then gives rise to a myriad of forms or, ten thousand forms. Hmm... this is the third time (hey!) the number 10,000 has come up today (and now this would be the fourth).

All of which brings up the numbers 432 and 479 which, correspond to the Dennis (my name, which comes from Dionysus by the way), and is what brought me to Physics Forums in the first place (on Feburary 17th, 2003). Whereas I went into more detail with this and posted the thread "Mystical number 479" under Mystics and Pseudo Science in PF 2.0. While you may also want to click on the link - http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html - which talks about how I discovered the relationship between the number 479 and my name.

And so from a previous thread on PF 2.0:

Originally posted by Iacchus32:

http://www.dionysus.org/479.gif (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html) ... If symbol doesn't show up, please click here. (http://www.dionysus.org/479.gif)

By the way, if you were to take 10 pennys (or coins of equal diameter) and arrange them to form a pyramid (equilateral triangle), you would get four tiers. The first or "base tier" would contain four pennys, the second tier would contain three pennys, the third tier would contain two pennys, and the fourth tier would contain one penny. Perhaps this is what gives rise to the decimal system? (i.e., it can only be done with an equilateral triangle and ten circles of the same diameter).

While it's also interesting that when adding the first three tiers: 4 + 3 + 2 -- and hence the number 432 -- you get the base tier (4), plus 3, the second tier (7), plus 2, the third tier (9); in other words, the numbers 4, 7 and 9 plotted between the numbers 1-10: 123(4)56(7)8(9)10. In this way you can see how the numbers 432 (quantity) and 479 (versus coordinates) are integral to an equilateral triangle and, to the decimal system.

As for the number 479, I don't know of any ancient references to it but, there is an obvious correlation to the number 432 and, to the number 10. Now as for the number 432, well that's another story. This was a favorite number of Joseph Campbell's, which he said went back a long ways and was used to describe the "rythm of the universe." In fact I'm sure if you were to look up Joseph Campbell and the number 432 on the Internet you could find numerous references. If not, there are plenty of references in his book: "The Masks of God - Oriental Mythology."

Oh, there's one thing about Joseph Campbell's name, "Joseph," which comes from Joseph, the patriarch and 11th son of Jacob (i.e., bible reference). And so brings up chapter 11 of the book of Revelation, which refers to the "Two Witnesses" and calls them the "Two Candelsticks." See how easily it is to construe the two candelsticks with the number 11? So it would seem somebody intentionally did this a long time ago? And, as everything in this universe has a left side and a right side (we all see and hear in stereo, and have a left brain and a right brain, and a left hand and a right hand, etc.), then the number eleven can really only suggest one thing, the coming together of the left and the right as "a whole" (completion).

Thus as I refer to in my page at http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html, the number 11 is the number of symmetry (balance) and, of validation (10 + 01 = 11). Hey, isn't it curious how well this fits in with the symbol above? which, I like to refer to as "The Winepress." And of course the number 11 appears twice within the configuration, suggesting to me the number 22 (20 + 02 = 22). Hmmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that there are 22 chapters in the book of Revelation? Who knows? ...

[wuliheron]

Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

[Iacchus32]

The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

Okay fine ... I was just wondering if you understood the relationship bewteen an equilateral triangle and the decimal system, and that if this is what was meant?

[wuliheron]

There are a number of different interpretations of the Taoist account of genesis, but I've never heard that proposed as one. Note that this account of genesis is not structurally different from the principle of yin yang itself except that it proposes a sequence of events. It comes from the Tao Te Ching, a highly paradoxical document, and could be interpreted any number of ways. I don't believe such vagueness was accidental. :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Newton's Mechanics assumed a perfectly non-paradoxical premise, but he was evidently wrong.

As I already showed with Eh's argument that existence just IS, this is not a rational argument. It is meaningless rhetorical nonsense that is equivalent to saying the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is dill pickles. Asians often use the analogy that life has Suchness and Isness, but they don't pretend to claim this is a rational argument or explanation.


It is a perfectly rational argument. If there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was no existence, "before" Big Bang. And thus, existence started, but was not necessarily caused by anything.


And, again, if you keep insisting infinity is rational I shall just have to do the old cut and paste routine:

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

You have just quoted somebody's opinion, not proof. Why should I accept somebody else's opinion any quicker than I accept your, I have a lot of respect for you - and your wisdom, I just don't agree with you on this topic.

[wuliheron]

It is a perfectly rational argument. If there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was no existence, "before" Big Bang. And thus, existence started, but was not necessarily caused by anything.

Eh is very much aware of the word "infinity" which he never used. You, however, keep making this same unsupported statement. Again I shall resort to cut and paste.

As long as you are determined to Keep restating over and over again that the universe is infinite I will keep using this cut and paste response. This is not my opinion, but a historical and scientific fact. Your continuing to post this nonsensical response is against the forum rules on harassment, unscholarly, and uncivil to say the least.

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board. [/B]

Mentat, Notice that he doesn't say "why" your comments are unsupported and absurd. They just are. And yet it is the one paragraph he chooses to "cut and paste" as if it contains any information to help you bridge the gap between your opinion and his.

Take my advice. Give it up and save yourself the frustration. He is not interested in what you think. The sooner we get these useless topics off the board the sooner we can perhaps have meaningful dialog on something else.

[wuliheron]

I am letting sensei take over on paradox discussions because I know they are futile with you. When I say I will not allow you to spout the crap I am referring to insulting me personally, not paradoxes. This message was clear in my last post. But I am repeating it here once again to correct the on-going attempt to "obscure" what I'm saying.

Obviously your words don't apply to every discussion I have about paradox.

Mentat has read my original post in this thread which goes into detail, even if you have not.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Mentat has read my original post in this thread which goes into detail, even if you have not. [/B]

Then why not cut and paste the relevant points? Why only cut and paste the insulting piece with no information content?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Mentat, Notice that he doesn't say "why" your comments are unsupported and absurd. They just are. And yet it is the one paragraph he chooses to "cut and paste" as if it contains any information to help you bridge the gap between your opinion and his.

Take my advice. Give it up and save yourself the frustration. He is not interested in what you think. The sooner we get these useless topics off the board the sooner we can perhaps have meaningful dialog on something else.

I rarely leave an argument undecided, just because of someone else's closed-mindedness, but I may have to this time.

Wu Li, I mean no disrespect to you, but I don't think that posting someone else's unsupported opinion (unsupported by facts, that is) strengthens your case in the slightest - if anything, it weakens it. I tell you my opinion, and I show you why "limitlessness" and "infinity" are not the same thing [i](on numerous threads)[/b], I'd have to conclude that my arguments are much more sound.

[wuliheron]

Then why not cut and paste the relevant points? Why only cut and paste the insulting piece with no information content?

I have been over this countless times with Mentat, just as you know perfectly well I have gone over it with you countless times. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. Mentat knows this very well and, like you, presents no proof to the contrary whatsoever.

All he does is argue the point, as you seem intent on doing. He invents one argument after another after another with no proof, no references, no nothing. And, again like you, he then insinuates I am not being reasonable.

Stop it people or I shall have to get the moderators involved. This is a serious discussion, not a podium for you to push your private agendas.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I have been over this countless times with Mentat, just as you know perfectly well I have gone over it with you countless times. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. Mentat knows this very well and, like you, presents no proof to the contrary whatsoever.

All he does is argue the point, as you seem intent on doing. He invents one argument after another after another with no proof, no references, no nothing. And, again like you, he then insinuates I am not being reasonable.

Stop it people or I shall have to get the moderators involved. This is a serious discussion, not a podium for you to push your private agendas.

Is there, or is there not, a thread that addresses the difference between "infinity" and "limitlessness"? Who started this thread? Have you been able to present any proof against my arguments?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

Actually this thing I've done with the numbers does portray the "clash of opposites" (Yin and Yang) and the two being joined in "synergy." You can't interpret it from this one post, but if you refer to the PF 2.0 Archive which, I just got in the mail today, you can look it up in the Mystics and Pseudo Science section. You will also need to know that the numbers 4 and 9 correspond to the colors white and black, which I could explain to you later.

Thanks.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Stop it people or I shall have to get the moderators involved. This is a serious discussion, not a podium for you to push your private agendas. [/B]

LOL. Man you need help. Seriously.

I have not told you that you were wrong. Most of the time we have semantic problems. I'm sorry but no website on mathematical absurdities is going to pull you out of the fact that if we aren't speaking the same language then we will never understand one another. But the last post was the most hilarious and insane yet. Keep them coming lol.

[wuliheron]

Actually this thing I've done with the numbers does portay the "clash of opposites" (Ying and Yang) and the two being joined in "synergy." You can't interpret it from this one post, but if you refer to the PF 2.0 Archive which, I just got in the mail today, you can look it up in the Mystics and Pseudo Science section. You will also need to know that the numbers 4 and 9 correspond to the colors white and black, which I could explain to you later.


That's interesting, but I still want to stick primarilly to the subject at hand. Please don't get too side tracked with analogies that may confuse the issues. :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
Is there, or is there not, a thread that addresses the difference between "infinity" and "limitlessness"? Who started this thread? Have you been able to present any proof against my arguments?

Well?

[Mentat]

As I've told lifegazer, many times before, if I don't get a response I assume that means that you don't have one, and that I was right. I don't mean to irritate you in any way, but I will "declare victory" if my argument (presented in this thread) is not proven wrong.

[Loren Booda]

What of paradox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of paradox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be nonparadox?

If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
What of paradox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of paradox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be nonparadox?

If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?

As I have said numerous times, in response to your posts... say WHAT? [g)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
What of paradox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of paradox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?

What of nonparadox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be nonparadox?

If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?

I'll be reasonable, and try my best to answer the parts that I understand (btw, I will answer your questions in the order of your having asked them, but will indicate when I have skipped one):

1) Paradox applied to paradox doesn't make a paradox, it makes two of them.

2) Together, they are one paradox (the paradox of explaining an otherwise nonparadoxical concept, in a paradoxical manner).

3) No. If you apply non-paradoxical reasoning to a paradox, you still get non-paradoxical reasoning (it makes no difference what the topic is that you apply non-paradoxical reasoning to, you yeild non-paradoxical reasoning).

4) Yes, for the aforementioned reason.

5) Why is an omniscient being paradoxical?

6) No, something is self-contradictory, or it is not.

Hey, I guess it wasn't that incomprehensible! I just needed to try harder to understand what you were asking.

[wuliheron]

If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?

Broadly paradox refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true.

Some paradoxes have been shown to be relativistic, the theory of Relativity provides a pointed example. The constancy of the speed of light was considered a paradox until a rational explanation was discovered. In fact, even with a rational explanation of the phenomenon it is still a paradox by definition because it defies everyday observation. In other words, it is somehow true even if contrary to what we experience in our everyday lives. Of course, all paradoxes and indeed everything could ultimately be relativistic, but this remains an unproven assumption.

Paradox applied to paradox doesn't make a paradox, it makes two of them.


I'm sorry but this defies the principle of synergy and, thus, provides yet another paradox. Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. If you can name two things that together do not display unique properties from when they are seperate you will win a nobel prize.

Because any two things together display unique properties, we give them names. A box has six sides, each can be indistinguishable from the others, but when seperated they do not constitute a box. Essentially then, the argument leads directly back to the central problem here of word play which you seem to enjoy so much Mentat.

People can define words however they want, but the need for such useful words as paradox remains. Unless you can address the need for the word paradox, redefining it will not change the fact that we still need a word to describe this thing.

[Loren Booda]

LorenIf the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all [humanly] observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox?

Mentat5) Why is an omniscient being paradoxical?If infinity is paradoxical, then a being that is all-knowing would seem paradoxical (to a limited, paradoxical being).

I had merely tried to develop a simple logic governing paradox. Synergy (see wuli) is one such example.

[wuliheron]

If infinity is paradoxical, then a being that is all-knowing would seem paradoxical (to a limited, paradoxical being).

I had merely tried to develop a simple logic governing paradox. Synergy (see wuli) is one such example.

Synergy and paradox are root metaphors which describe each other. The concept of paradox is a refutation of synergy and vice versa. Each is a useful metaphor for describing life, but the map is not the territory. :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Broadly paradox refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true.

Some paradoxes have been shown to be relativistic, the theory of Relativity provides a pointed example. The constancy of the speed of light was considered a paradox until a rational explanation was discovered. In fact, even with a rational explanation of the phenomenon it is still a paradox by definition because it defies everyday observation. In other words, it is somehow true even if contrary to what we experience in our everyday lives. Of course, all paradoxes and indeed everything could ultimately be relativistic, but this remains an unproven assumption.



I'm sorry but this defies the principle of synergy and, thus, provides yet another paradox. Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. If you can name two things that together do not display unique properties from when they are seperate you will win a nobel prize.

Because any two things together display unique properties, we give them names. A box has six sides, each can be indistinguishable from the others, but when seperated they do not constitute a box. Essentially then, the argument leads directly back to the central problem here of word play which you seem to enjoy so much Mentat.

People can define words however they want, but the need for such useful words as paradox remains. Unless you can address the need for the word paradox, redefining it will not change the fact that we still need a word to describe this thing.

Wu Li, I still think I'm right about the two paradoxes being two paradoxes. However, to honor the principle of Synergy, we'll say that paradox applied to paradox actually equals a metaparadox. Is that better?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Synergy and paradox are root metaphors which describe each other. The concept of paradox is a refutation of synergy and vice versa. Each is a useful metaphor for describing life, but the map is not the territory. :0)

Whoah, this has to be wrong. Synergy does not describe paradox, and paradox doesn't describe synergy. Also, paradox doesn't refute synergy, because a paradox is (according to logicians) a logical conclusion drawn from two [contradictory] propositions. Thus, paradoxes do make something new, out of two different things (and isn't that what you said Synergy was?).

[wuliheron]

Whoah, this has to be wrong. Synergy does not describe paradox, and paradox doesn't describe synergy. Also, paradox doesn't refute synergy, because a paradox is (according to logicians) a logical conclusion drawn from two [contradictory] propositions. Thus, paradoxes do make something new, out of two different things (and isn't that what you said Synergy was?).

Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. Paradox, as I have also aready explained, includes the irrational and unpredictable which violate this principle. Quantum Indetermancy is an example of the irrational and unpredictable.

Both principles then are complimentary opposites which define each other and contradict each other in the same breath, just as the concepts of "up" and "down" do. Without a recognition and definition of synergy the term rational has no meaning and without the irrational the rational and synergistic has no meaning or context. In other words, they form yet another paradox. Something that appears to be true and, yet, contradictory and irrational at the same time.

Wu Li, I still think I'm right about the two paradoxes being two paradoxes. However, to honor the principle of Synergy, we'll say that paradox applied to paradox actually equals a metaparadox. Is that better?

Add one quantum indetermancy to another and what do you get? Indeterminate. Sometimes the results are synergistic and at other times you get nothing more than what you put into it. Thus paradox contradicts the principle of synergy just as the existence of synergy contradicts paradox. All you can say is its a paradox. You could call it a metaparadox, but other than being the result of two paradoxes combined it displays no unique properties to distinguish it. Therefore giving it a nother name is redundant and possibly misleading.

[Mentat]

What do you mean by "add one Quantum Indeterminate to another"?

Also, I still don't see how, just because synergy and paradox may be opposite sides of the coin, they are necessarily paradoxical, or how they in any way make reference to each other.

Again, I have to ask, is this thread about applying logistic paradox (conclusions based on self-contradictory propositions) to existence, or about the unexplainable nature of existence?

[wuliheron]

What do you mean by "add one Quantum Indeterminate to another"?[QUOTE]

The essential statement of QM is that nature is fundamentally random and unpredictable. This is not the ordinary kind of randomness you get when bouncing a few ping pong balls around the room, it is much more profoundly random than that. So random that particles appear and disappear out of nowhere, jump through walls, and otherwise become incredibly and almost magically unpredictable.

[QUOTE]Also, I still don't see how, just because synergy and paradox may be opposite sides of the coin, they are necessarily paradoxical, or how they in any way make reference to each other.

Both synergy and paradox are root metaphors, fundamental principles, and natural observations. Everything can either be described as synergistic or paradoxical. In fact, nothing has ever been proven to be just synergistic or just paradoxical. Even Quanta display both properties. Is it a particle or a wave, mass or energy, etc.? Well, it is evidently both.

Like the paradox of existence then, quanta appear to be somehow both rational and irrational. Obviously we do exist and existence is to a great extent very rational and orderly, but by that same token it makes no sense whatsoever. Every possible attempted explanation of existence leads to paradox and, as with quanta again, a great deal of existence appears to be paradoxical. To say that nature and existence both make sense and do not make sense is a paradox.

Again, I have to ask, is this thread about applying logistic paradox (conclusions based on self-contradictory propositions) to existence, or about the unexplainable nature of existence?

How many times do I have to say it, paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true. I'm discussing all of these definitions which all more or less fall under the catagory of the irrational. You could also say they all fall under the catagory of the indeterminate or inexplicable, but perhaps irrational is best for this discussion. It covers all the bases including that of logicians definition of paradox as self-referential and self-contradictory.

[Mentat]

But existence is not necessarily irrational, just because the attempts to explain it have resulted in irrationalities (in your opinion).

[wuliheron]

Exactly, the failure to explain something is not proof that an explanation does not exist.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, the failure to explain something is not proof that an explanation does not exist.

So why do you conclude that existence is paradoxical, just on the basis that it has not been understood yet.

[wuliheron]

I don't know how many times I have repeat myself before you listen to what I'm saying instead of interpreting what I say.

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it appears to be paradoxical. There is no evidence that it really is paradoxical not to mention that whether or not it really is paradoxical:

I couldn't care less!

It makes no difference in my life whatsoever. For the sake of argument lets say scientists prove tomorrow that existence is infinite. So what, who cares! I'm still gonna do what I do. Let's say instead they prove everything is utterly random and meaningless. Again, so what! Who cares! What possible difference can it make unless you are attached to some particular vision of life or biased against the irrational.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I couldn't care less!

Calm ! Calm Wu Li ! Calm boy !
We're all on the same side here... [:D]

[wuliheron]

LOL, I am calm. I'm just running in circles screaming and shouting, but not because I'm in trouble or doubt. Some people just demand you shout sometimes or they don't take you seriously, as you have just demonstrated so well.

My first job as a kid was washing dishes in a Greek resturant. It took a while getting used to owners screaming and shouting all the time, but after awhile it became clear where they were coming from. They were real sweathearts who treated their employees like family, but in their family screaming and shouting was how you got the message across that something was important.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I don't know how many times I have repeat myself before you listen to what I'm saying instead of interpreting what I say.

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it appears to be paradoxical. There is no evidence that it really is paradoxical not to mention that whether or not it really is paradoxical:

I couldn't care less!

It makes no difference in my life whatsoever. For the sake of argument lets say scientists prove tomorrow that existence is infinite. So what, who cares! I'm still gonna do what I do. Let's say instead they prove everything is utterly random and meaningless. Again, so what! Who cares! What possible difference can it make unless you are attached to some particular vision of life or biased against the irrational.

And I couldn't care less about whether you believe in the paradox of existence or not. This thread is not about your belief. I'm disproving the supposed paradox itself.

And btw, "demonstrably" paradoxical doesn't meant that it "appears to be paradoxical". It means that it can be demonstrated (= verified) that it is paradoxical. And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.
There are no real - absolute facts
except for existence. All else is either
likely or unlikely for you at some time.
Read my final conclusion in my PoE thread.
The many ways in which we can "reach" the
PoE do not yet make it absolute like I
assumed earlier, because we can not
cancel out absolutely the option that a
solution to all these ways can be found, but
they certainly make the PoE the most certain
probabalistic "fact" that we know.

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

And btw, "demonstrably" paradoxical doesn't meant that it "appears to be paradoxical". It means that it can be demonstrated (= verified) that it is paradoxical. And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.

Sorry, but looking out my window the earth looks flat. That doesn't mean it is a fact that the earth is flat. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, but at the same time it shows signs of being rational as well. Without a way to prove or disprove it either way all we can do is accept the evidence of our eyes until proven otherwise, but that doesn't mean we have to assume it is a "fact".

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but looking out my window the earth looks flat. That doesn't mean it is a fact that the earth is flat. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, but at the same time it shows signs of being rational as well. Without a way to prove or disprove it either way all we can do is accept the evidence of our eyes until proven otherwise, but that doesn't mean we have to assume it is a "fact".

And the Earth is not demonstrably flat, it merely appears to be so.

Anyway, if all you are saying is that people have yet to figure out what to make of existence, then I have misjudged the thread.

[wuliheron]

And the Earth is not demonstrably flat, it merely appears to be so.


The earth is demonstrably flat to a certain extent. Enough of an extent that people widely assumed it was flat for eons. Today we can demonstrate that this is merely an effect of scale, but you can still demonstrate that it appears flat as well.


Anyway, if all you are saying is that people have yet to figure out what to make of existence, then I have misjudged the thread.

I'm saying it may not even have a rational explanation, at least not one we can understand. Unlike the flat earth, perceiving any meaning or order or origin of existence may just be beyond our ability to comprehend much less perceive. This also means that ultimately everything science investigates may prove incomprehensible. Eventually each science in turn may find itself doing a bit of navel gazing without making any further progress in certain areas.

In the case of Quantum Mechanics and other areas the most useful thing to do in the meantime has turned out to be revising Aristotlian logic and studying the subject of paradox on its own more qualitative, contextual, and allegorical level. None of these have proven to be easy tasks by any stretch of the imagination, but they have proven to be exceptionally fruitful.