Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

[Mentat]

Please give the reason for your choices.

[Mentat]

I suppose I'll set the example, in showing the reason for our choices:

I picked "no", because I have always seen the universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the possibility of a T.O.E.). If it is governed by a set of laws, then the propositions that make up those laws, could not contradict each other (IMO) or else we'd be able to break the so-called "laws". A conclusion that is based on contradictory propositions is a paradox.

[Mentat]

Alright, it appears that someone has already broken the rule[:((] .

Please, include the reason for voting as you do.

[Fliption]

I voted 'no'. Obviously I cannot know this with 100% certainty but so far no one has shown an existing paradox outside of word games. And whenever one is found, it turns out to only be paradoxical because of a lack of information. Once more information is obtained, the paradox disappears.

[FZ+]

paradox

A paradox is a statement or concept that contains conflicting ideas. In logic, a paradox is a statement that contradicts itself; for example, the statement "I never tell the truth" is a paradox because if the statement is true (T), it must be false (F) and if it is false (F), it must be true (T). In everyday language, a paradox is a concept that seems absurd or contradictory, yet is true. In a Windows environment, for instance, it is a paradox that when a user wants to shut down their computer, it is necessary to click "start".
from whatis.com.
From the second definition, it is pretty clear that paradoxes do exist. Indeed, this definition is that used by much of science - see eg. the twins paradox.
The first definition is more interesting. We may never know, as this is a question that extends beyond evidence. However, it is likely that our sense of logic, evolved as it has to describe the immediately observable world, may place as paradoxes things that are actually true. Eg. Schrodinger's cat.
If a paradox exists only as long as it cannot be solved, does it still exist is another question Flipton's post raises. Since we will never know everything, there will always be an apparent paradox just over the horizon.
Of course, there may well be other universes with laws that directly contradict ours... does that count?
How about a maybe option?

[RuroumiKenshin]

I chose yes. For FZ+'s very reason. Also because there will always be something that is wierd, so to speak. I'm thinking of the grandfather paradox. Anyone could make a paradoxical scenario, that could very well be possible by combining multiple histories.

[Ishop]

I said no because I asumed you are talking about a physical manifestation of paradox in which real laws of physics are completely parrallel to one another and defy the laws.

However I reconize that paradox's can live in concept (imagination). But again I believe "paradox" is a lame excuse for not knowing or trying to know.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Sensei
an infinite number of nothings, makes up something. that to me reeks slightly of paradox.
[:))] [/B]

No an infinite number of nothings does not equal 1. An infinite number of 1/infinity = 1. 1/infinity does NOT = zero.

[RuroumiKenshin]

So what does it equal? Is it undefined?

[CJames]

1/0 and 1/[oo] are undefined. There is no mathematical definition for them because, well, of the paradoxes you speek of. As you said, infinity is a concept not a number, which is why you can't perform these operations on it. In other words, this sounds like a paradox of the mind. The mind or any rules created by it just may not be capable of completely understanding concepts like infinity.

[Loren Booda]

Whenever observers observe themselves or the universe which contains them, or their very observations influence an object, such situations involve subjective paradox.

Paradox often associates with insight, paradoxically.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Sensei
[B]Disagreement is encouraged, but with the hope that it can be supported, and not conclusory.


Sorry, I didn't think it needed any explanation. It's just simple math to me. But you have said something in this latest post that you didn't really say in the first one....



infinity is an infinite number of 0's, then since 1/0 is 0, 1 divided by an infinite number of 0's should not be any different thus resulting again, in a 0.


You're saying here that infinity = an infinite number of zero's. Thats not how I interpret the word "infinity" when used in a mathematical sense. Infinity is the ever increasing number series.
1/1 = 1 and 1/2 = .5 The denominator can continue on to infinity and the answer will continue to decrease getting closer and closer to zero for infinity. It will never reach zero. "Infinity" is a concept and is not really a number so the phrase 1/infinity doesn't really mean anything except to go through the exercise I did above.

And by the way...1 divided by 0 is not 0. It is "undefined" Put it in your calculator and see [:)]

[CJames]

I've never seen a calculator that said positive infinity when I divided by 0.

1/0=infinity
multiply both sides by 0:
infinity(0)=1
divide both sides by infinity:
0=1/infinity

OK, that's all welll and good, but:

2/0=(1/0)+(1/0)
=infinity+infinity
=infinity
2/0=infinity
infinity(0)=2

infinity(0)=2
infinity(0)=1
1=2

Uh, no. The concept of infinity just can't be used like that.

What was all that stuff you wrote at the bottom of your last post. It's completely contradictory. Where are you getting that 1/0 is 0?

[GlamGein]

its all so "eery", its nonsensical. Maybe that Microsoft calculator you used was built so that whenever you divided anything by 0, it came out to 0 in order to screw the other, less powerful calculator manufacturers in the country.

[steppenwolf]

the last time i read anything about this topic the theory was that 1/infinity was equal to an infinitesimal, the 'opposite' of infinity.

as fliption rightly pointed out infinity is a concept not a number therefore you cannot really hope to get a number when manipulating it, the infinitesimal is just another concept so fits right in.

that is some crazy math sensei, but i like the idea that infinity might be the key to understanding paradox

[wuliheron]

Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

This question is its own answer and, thus, a paradox in its own rite. If the universe did not allow for paradoxes you could not ask the question. It is a bit along the lines of asking, "Can I ask a question?" Without supplying a context it is logically meaningless.

There is an old riddle in physics:

"What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?"

The answer is supposidly that an irresistable force can never meet an immovable object because the two cannot exist in the same universe without creating a paradox. Our's is observably a universe of unceasing change and irresistable forces like black holes rather than a static unchanging universe with immovable objects. However, Relativity implies that our universe is static and unchanging.

A naked singularity is both the irresistable force and the immovable object. A magical thing that is no-thing. It may well be that a naked singularity is also just another way to describe the paradox of existence.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Sensei
Peace be with you. [/B]

My XP machine calculator says "undefined". My NT calculator say "Cannot divide by zero". All of this math that you are presenting is based on some loose assumption that "undefined" means infinity. The words of a microsoft calculator are insufficient to prove this point. Undefined does not mean 0 or infinity. It means that it is a meaningless exercise.

Also, infinity does not equal an infinity of zeros. Not if we're going to talk math.

And lastly, there are all sorts of theories that can be supported by a mathematical model( which we don't even have here). That doesn't make them true. Paradoxes exists due to lack of knowledge and understanding. Paradoxes exists in the mind.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

This question is its own answer and, thus, a paradox in its own rite. If the universe did not allow for paradoxes you could not ask the question. It is a bit along the lines of asking, "Can I ask a question?" Without supplying a context it is logically meaningless.


Hmmm I don't see the paradox in either of these questions.


"What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?"


In this one I do. But does it really exists? Thats the question of the thread and I have speculated it does not. Point to an instance of it and I'll point you to something that you most likely lack information on.

[GlamGein]

[/QUOTE]
And lastly, there are all sorts of theories that can be supported by a mathematical model( which we don't even have here). That doesn't make them true. Paradoxes exists due to lack of knowledge and understanding. Paradoxes exists in the mind. [/B][/QUOTE]

I concurr.

[chosenone]

The universe may have it in it to think of all types of possible paradoxes that could acure under the right circumstances,but have you ever seen one can you prove they can happen,does logic say they must not exist to be dont or anyone could destroy the universe if they so chosed.would'nt the universe in it design be created perfect as we see it,never to allow such a thing to happen ,unless the universe what create by design to be destroy by its own creations if they so chosed.I think not,but paradoxes are fun to think about,thats all they ever will be,unless you would like to prove one could happen by youself,like proving relativity.but if you dont do it because what would happen and not one else trys because there not stupid either,no one will ever know if they can happen ever,so you will never prove they can,I think that ends this cvonversation!

[wuliheron]

And lastly, there are all sorts of theories that can be supported by a mathematical model( which we don't even have here). That doesn't make them true. Paradoxes exists due to lack of knowledge and understanding. Paradoxes exists in the mind.

If paradox only exists within the mind then we cannot trust our minds and this presents another paradox with no logical resolution. If we cannot trust our mind then we cannot trust the assumption that paradox does not exist ad infinitum. A rather negative and self-contradicting, if humorous, view of existence and ourselves.

In this one I do. But does it really exists? Thats the question of the thread and I have speculated it does not. Point to an instance of it and I'll point you to something that you most likely lack information on.

Sorry, but that is not the question of the thread. The original question was "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?" Nowhere does it ask anything about "reality". Personally though, I don't believe in naked singularities or paradoxes either, but then, I don't disbelieve in them either for that matter. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people understand, but it just doesn't matter either way. You might as well argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

This question is its own answer and, thus, a paradox in its own rite. If the universe did not allow for paradoxes you could not ask the question. It is a bit along the lines of asking, "Can I ask a question?" Without supplying a context it is logically meaningless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm I don't see the paradox in either of these questions.

The "question" of "Can I ask a question?" answers itself because it IS a question. Thus it is self-referential and self-contradictory like the liar's paradox, "Everything I say is a lie."

Likewise, the same holds true for "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?"

Ya'll just don't get it do you? Paradox is slippery, the ultimate logical sandpit. Try to deny it and you create it. Try to ignore it and you find yourself creating it again. All you can do is accept it and move on.

[chosenone]

well if we put paradoxes in different type,other than putting them all into one concept maybe it would help.no win situations where you trapped,ever option you tried failed and you can get out of it,happens all the time.math problems that blow up with infinite answers,your logic you used to deduce the factors you used may be in error more that the answer you get can really happen but you would'nt question the results.time travel,where you went back and killed you father before you were ever born,such that you could'nt have went back to kill your father if your father was'nt alive for you to go back in the first place,are usually the type of paradoxes I'd refer to as the ones to look at,to know if they can happen or not,because the universe and our existance depends on them not being allowed by the laws of physics.anything else really does matter,other than there fun to create and think about.

[wuliheron]

The big drawback to this idea is that infinity is a patently paradoxical concept dude. Check out my thread on the Paradox of existence for more details.

I don't know how many people I've seen here promoting infinity and "nothing" (of all things!) as the answer to life, the universe, and everything. If I were to believe them all I'd be worshipping countless Gods and studying countless contradictory philosophies. Infinity is just a cheap cop out that allows people to believe whatever they want to believe, but it doesn't make arguments against such ideas futile.

[russ_watters]

I was going to vote yes, but then I read this: It seems the limited mind in attempting to define the unlimited, sees paradoxes. In a mind state where one could see all, it may be that no paradoxes would exist because each paradox would be a compartment of truth for a larger truth. Clearly the diffraction of light APPEARS to be a paradox: How can something discrete be in two places at once? But maybe we only THINK its a paradox because we don't yet know enough about quantum mechanics.

So my vote is: uuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

[Mentat]

First off, thanks for all of the responses, I enjoy hearing everyone's opinion.

Now, I should clear up that I was talking about physical paradoxes. Yes, conceptual paradoxes abound. But, do physical ones really exist?

[wuliheron]

Sorry about that, I just get sick of the usual irrational stuff some people constantly push on this forum and then deny it is irrational against all logical and scientific arguments to the contrary. I have enough trouble communicating ideas about paradoxical concepts without that kind of nonsense.

I think its great to play with infinity and paradox, it stretches the mind to say the least. It's just the unjustified and unsupportable claims that remind me of the old patent medicine men claiming their booze could cure everything from cancer to all the world's problems. A few drinks now and then loosen things up, but too much and people tend to get violent and ill. :0)

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron ]If paradox only exists within the mind then we cannot trust our minds and this presents another paradox with no logical resolution. If we cannot trust our mind then we cannot trust the assumption that paradox does not exist ad infinitum. A rather negative and self-contradicting, if humorous, view of existence and ourselves.


This is stretching it a bit I believe. Paradoxes exists in the mind when there is a lack of knowledge of reality. Once more information is obtained paradoxes dissappear. Again....they aren't REALLY paradoxes. So they cannot play a part in some "self contradictory paradox of ourselves" So boiling all this down, all you're saying is that a lack of knowledge(mind paradoxes) keeps us from saying that paradoxes don't really exists. While this is true, it can also be said for god and magical elves on Mars. It's pretty meaningless.


Sorry, but that is not the question of the thread. The original question was "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?" Nowhere does it ask anything about "reality".

These 2 are exactly the same thing to me. The question of whether the universe allows for paradoxes can be restated as "does the universe allow for paradoxes to exist in reality?" If I've misunderstood the original posters intentions I apologize.



The "question" of "Can I ask a question?" answers itself because it IS a question. Thus it is self-referential and self-contradictory like the liar's paradox, "Everything I say is a lie."

Likewise, the same holds true for "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?"

I don't see it this way at all. The statement "Everything I say is a lie" is self contradictory because it is both true and false. If it's true then it must also be false and vice versa. This is not the case with the question "Can I ask a question?" This question simply answers itself and the answer is "yes". It does not contradict itself. To me, a paradoxical question would not only answer itself but it would give 2 opposing answers (no, yes).


Ya'll just don't get it do you? Paradox is slippery, the ultimate logical sandpit. Try to deny it and you create it. Try to ignore it and you find yourself creating it again. All you can do is accept it and move on. [/B]

I don't get it I admit. It should not be any more slippery than anything else if it is properly defined and understood. The question above that you think is a paradox and that I do not is a clear example of a lack of common understanding.

So after all the words that you have typed on this topic I still don't quite understand exactly what your point is. You start your topics off with words that claim paradox is everywhere and unavoidable then, once someone explains to you that you have mis-used concepts, you say it doesn't matter . Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you aren't intentionally typing self contradictory statements in order to prove your point in some strange way. If you are doing this please let me know.

[wuliheron]

This is stretching it a bit I believe. Paradoxes exists in the mind when there is a lack of knowledge of reality. Once more information is obtained paradoxes dissappear. Again....they aren't REALLY paradoxes. So they cannot play a part in some "self contradictory paradox of ourselves" So boiling all this down, all you're saying is that a lack of knowledge(mind paradoxes) keeps us from saying that paradoxes don't really exists. While this is true, it can also be said for god and magical elves on Mars. It's pretty meaningless.

This is, again, a self-referential logic. Although western science has largely progressed through the eons by disproving paradoxes and the irrational, it has also made huge strides by developing and accepting them. If we all still took Aristotle's position that paradoxes are not real and should not be used calculus would never have been invented.

Newtonian Mechanics was eventually replaced by irrational Quantum Mechanics. To say every paradox has a resolution and we should assume they are all false flies in the face of emperical evidence. It also biases science which is supposed to be objective.

As for magical events, Stephen Hawking once wrote that a black hole could theoretically emit a color tv or the complete works of Proust in leather bound volumes. I will take his word over yours that magical theories like Quantum Mechanics are useful.

I don't see it this way at all. The statement "Everything I say is a lie" is self contradictory because it is both true and false. If it's true then it must also be false and vice versa. This is not the case with the question "Can I ask a question?" This question simply answers itself and the answer is "yes". It does not contradict itself. To me, a paradoxical question would not only answer itself but it would give 2 opposing answers (no, yes).

"Can I ask a question?" is self-contradictory in that it obviously is a question. If you could not ask a question, then you could not ask this question.

I don't get it I admit. It should not be any more slippery than anything else if it is properly defined and understood. The question above that you think is a paradox and that I do not is a clear example of a lack of common understanding.

That you cannot understand such a simple paradox is perhaps due to your bias against them.

So after all the words that you have typed on this topic I still don't quite understand exactly what your point is. You start your topics off with words that claim paradox is everywhere and unavoidable then, once someone explains to you that you have mis-used concepts, you say it doesn't matter . Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you aren't intentionally typing self contradictory statements in order to prove your point in some strange way. If you are doing this please let me know.

Judge for yourself. People who deny paradox are often blind to them, including Asians. They are as slippery as it gets conceptually and there is no easy way around this problem. I can no more make someone acknowledge paradox than I can explain color to a blind man. The difference here is that blind men don't usually try to argue that colors don't exist.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
This is, again, a self-referential logic. Although western science has largely progressed through the eons by disproving paradoxes and the irrational, it has also made huge strides by developing and accepting them. If we all still took Aristotle's position that paradoxes are not real and should not be used calculus would never have been invented.


I haven't said anything about whether paradoxes were useful. All I'm saying is that IMO a paradox is a concept of the mind. It does not exists outside of that. There are no contradictions outside of the mind. However, many things of the mind are useful. Including calculus.


Newtonian Mechanics was eventually replaced by irrational Quantum Mechanics. To say every paradox has a resolution and we should assume they are all false flies in the face of emperical evidence. It also biases science which is supposed to be objective.

LOL. Quantum mechanists is irrational only because we lack information. It does not behave the way that we would have expected so therefore it is irrational. I'm sure lightning was mysterious to ancient man but there's no paradox.

And I don't think anyone is assuming that paradoxes don't exist. It's just that so far, no one has proved that they do. All so called "paradoxes" in the sciences are always found in the highest level, most obscure areas of science. Once the strange is understood, the paradoxes have always gone away. The question of the thread was asking for opinions. So based on the above my opinion is "no". I'm not proclaiming any truths.


As for magical events, Stephen Hawking once wrote that a black hole could theoretically emit a color tv or the complete works of Proust in leather bound volumes. I will take his word over yours that magical theories like Quantum Mechanics are useful.


Hawking is merely trying to reflect on a leading edge idea in such a way as to sell alot of books. I would be willing to bet that he does not believe there is anything "magical" going on.

And once again, I've said nothing about the word "useful".
Here's your logic.

1) You imply that I have said that paradoxes are not useful
2) You equate paradoxes to Quantum Mechanics
3) Therefore I don't think Quantum mechanics is useful

And then you proceed to stack me up against Hawking in regards to number 3. LOL

I'm sure Siv could find one of those fancy logical fallacies that would apply here.

Anyway, number 1 is not true so the rest is irrelevant.


"Can I ask a question?" is self-contradictory in that it obviously is a question. If you could not ask a question, then you could not ask this question.


I do understand the point here. But I don't see this as a paradox. There is no contradiction here. The answer to the questions is "yes". If the answer was "no", then it would be a paradox.

Anyway, even if you could convince me this sentence was a paradox, I don't see how it carries over to the question in the title of this thread.


That you cannot understand such a simple paradox is perhaps due to your bias against them.


Well it is simple. It a simple amusing question. Not a paradox.

And there's only 1 person participating in this thread that knows whether I'm biased or not. And thats me. Let me remind you that it is me that you in a discussion with so saying I'm biased, when I know I'm not, is not going to convince me of anything. Or could it be that you aren't saying what you're saying for me? Who are we trying to convince?


Judge for yourself. People who deny paradox are often blind to them, including Asians. They are as slippery as it gets conceptually and there is no easy way around this problem. I can no more make someone acknowledge paradox than I can explain color to a blind man. The difference here is that blind men don't usually try to argue that colors don't exist. [/B]

The difference is that "color" is an experience. Paradox is a logical concept. One must have eyes to experience color. But one only needs a brain to understand paradox. There is nothing magical about this.

[wuliheron]

Hawking is merely trying to reflect on a leading edge idea in such a way as to sell alot of books. I would be willing to bet that he does not believe there is anything "magical" going on.

I don't believe Hawking thinks of Quantum Mechanics as magical and neither do I. It is, however, as my quote of him points out, indistinguishable from magic in some respects because of its random nature.

And once again, I've said nothing about the word "useful".
Here's your logic.

1) You imply that I have said that paradoxes are not useful
2) You equate paradoxes to Quantum Mechanics
3) Therefore I don't think Quantum mechanics is useful


The Uncertainty Principle was developed not by someone with your biased attitude that paradoxes only exist in the mind, but by Heisenburg who happened to have a very paradoxical philosophy to begin with.

Einstein rejected the reality of the paradox as well and later admitted he should have deduced uncertainty himself as Heisenburg did from his own discovery of the photo electric effect. Thus an open mind is even more powerful than the issue of whether or not paradoxes really exist. That is what I am implying.

Here is what you wrote:

This is stretching it a bit I believe. Paradoxes exists in the mind when there is a lack of knowledge of reality. Once more information is obtained paradoxes dissappear. Again....they aren't REALLY paradoxes. So they cannot play a part in some "self contradictory paradox of ourselves" So boiling all this down, all you're saying is that a lack of knowledge(mind paradoxes) keeps us from saying that paradoxes don't really exists. While this is true, it can also be said for god and magical elves on Mars. It's pretty meaningless.

This is about as biased as it gets, and as I wrote it contradicts the fact that paradoxes do not always "disappear" once more knowledge is obtained. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics was not due to a loss of knowledge, but an increase.


"Can I ask a question?" is self-contradictory in that it obviously is a question. If you could not ask a question, then you could not ask this question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do understand the point here. But I don't see this as a paradox. There is no contradiction here. The answer to the questions is "yes". If the answer was "no", then it would be a paradox.

Anyway, even if you could convince me this sentence was a paradox, I don't see how it carries over to the question in the title of this thread.


It was in answer to another post you made:

I don't get it I admit. It should not be any more slippery than anything else if it is properly defined and understood. The question above that you think is a paradox and that I do not is a clear example of a lack of common understanding.

If you cannot follow what you are saying, much less what I am saying and do not understand what paradox is, then that explains why you are having so much trouble. This topic is about paradox, so I brought one up. Sue me.

"Can I ask a question?" is not as strong a paradoxical statement as the liars paradox by the standards of logicians, but is one nonetheless. Its contradiction is implicite rather than explicit as in the case of the liars paradox.

[Fliption]

Thus an open mind is even more powerful than the issue of whether or not paradoxes really exist. That is what I am implying.


Wuli, if the question is asked "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?" and I then give my opinion, you're saying that I'm closed minded because I have an opinion? According to this theory, anyone who either develops an opinion or disagrees with your opinion is close minded. How convenient.

As I said in my previous post, I'm not proclaiming any truths here. I'll be the first to say I have no idea what the real answer is. I'm just as open to the truth as anyone here. Nothing would please me more than for us to find a true paradox. It would tickle me to death to see some of the science deacons who are members here try to explain their way out of it. I will say that Quantum Mechanics may actually be a paradox! Once we understand it more we may conclude that it is indeed a paradox. I would love it if that happened. This is one of the reasons that I am so interested in QM. Because it is a potential thorn in the side of all the science types who think everything is explained by some math formula or text book.

My position with you is that your arguments are not sufficent to convince me in your direction. No bias here.

Well I say that but then I think I still don't even know what your actual point is. Sometimes you say that paradoxes may not exists and it really doesn't matter. But then as soon as someone like me states an opinion that paradoxes probably don't exist, you engage in this sort of disagreeing banter that eventually ends with the 'bias' word. So I'm not even clear on what your position is.


This is about as biased as it gets, and as I wrote it contradicts the fact that paradoxes do not always "disappear" once more knowledge is obtained. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics was not due to a loss of knowledge, but an increase.


No it was just my opinion.

As you obtain information it only makes sense that you will find more paradoxes. And then these too, imo, will disappear once a full understanding is had. There is no process that we have a full understanding of which still contains a paradox.



If you cannot follow what you are saying, much less what I am saying and do not understand what paradox is, then that explains why you are having so much trouble. This topic is about paradox, so I brought one up. Sue me.


You lost me. I know exactly what I'm saying. I don't always understand what you're saying but thats why I push back. To see if you can clarify your position. I'm assuming you have a point that needs clarification. I'm not assumiung that you are wrong. That is generally my approach.

And I DO know what a paradox is. And you think you do too. My only observation is that we obviously don't define it the same way.


"Can I ask a question?" is not as strong a paradoxical statement as the liars paradox by the standards of logicians, but is one nonetheless. Its contradiction is implicite rather than explicit as in the case of the liars paradox.


Wuli, I actually really do understand your delimma with this question. This comment above does help me see how you view it and I can see what you mean. But it still does not fall under my definition of paradox. You cannot be 50% pregnant and you cannot have a "weak paradox". You either are or you're not. Thats my definition. That doesn't mean that anything you are saying is wrong. It just means we have to come to a common understanding about what we mean when we say the things we say. The usefulness of your concept of paradox can be better contributed to if we all understand what you mean when you say paradox.

[Mentat]

Thanks for all of the participation, it's made for excellent reading.

I'd like to interject now, that "Can I ask a question" is not a paradox. I say this because it answers itself, and thus doesn't leave it up to contradictory premises to answer it (which is what a paradoxical question does).

Anyway, even if it were a paradox, it would be a conceptual one. No one has shown an actual physical paradox, yet (on this thread).

[Mentat]

It appears that a lot of people have voted, without giving the reasons for there votes[s(] . I don't like this. There must be some reason why you voted the way you did. Please, share it with us.

[wuliheron]

Flip, the question is simply does the universe allow for paradoxes? Not Are Paradoxes Real?

Obviously the universe does allow for paradoxes, whether they are real or not.

you're saying that I'm closed minded because I have an opinion?

Opinions are like bung holes, everyone's got one. Opinion's don't make us closed minded, negative attitudes do and, if you are not aware of it, yours comes through.

You cannot be 50% pregnant and you cannot have a "weak paradox". You either are or you're not. Thats my definition. That doesn't mean that anything you are saying is wrong. It just means we have to come to a common understanding about what we mean when we say the things we say. The usefulness of your concept of paradox can be better contributed to if we all understand what you mean when you say paradox.

Not using classical logic you can't, but classical logic has its limitations as does classical physics. Modern physics and logic says it is quite possible for a cat to be both dead and alive at the same time. Likewise, you can be fifty percent pregnant according to modern logistics and science.

Again, having an opinion is like having a bung hole, but when we clutch such opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and argue them non-stop, our negative attitudes and closed mindedness become obvious for all to see.

Classical logic and physics are not being thrown out with the garbage by any stretch of the imagination, and modern physics does not definitively prove the universe is random, but it certainly highlights the value of an open mind.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Flip, the question is simply does the universe allow for paradoxes? Not Are Paradoxes Real?


OK I see this as one area where misunderstanding can arise. I didn't see the difference between these 2 questions. Perhaps Mentat can clear up whether he thinks they are the same since it was his question?


Obviously the universe does allow for paradoxes, whether they are real or not.

If it is so obvious then why is Mentat asking the question? Are you sure you have the question right?



Opinions are like bung holes, everyone's got one. Opinion's don't make us closed minded, negative attitudes do and, if you are not aware of it, yours comes through.


I have no negative attitude about paradoxes. If I have a negative attitude about anything, it is aimed at people who are so closed minded that they will not listen to anything people are saying. Their only response is that they are somehow the only person who can see the light and everyone else is just biased or an idiot. All of these are cop-outs when used in a philosphy forum. As much as I have tried to keep you on track by explaining to you exactly why I disagree, you always seem to head for the tredges of name calling. So what is showing through (if anything) is frustration with ignorance.


Not using classical logic you can't, but classical logic has its limitations as does classical physics. Modern physics and logic says it is quite possible for a cat to be both dead and alive at the same time. Likewise, you can be fifty percent pregnant according to modern logistics and science.


So you're going to throw away all knowledge and lessons learned from less complex areas of science and base your entire philosophy on a relatively ill understood theory like QM? It's ok with me. It is your opinion. Yep you have a bunghole too. lol


Again, having an opinion is like having a bung hole, but when we clutch such opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and argue them non-stop, our negative attitudes and closed mindedness become obvious for all to see.

This paragraph describes what you are doing to a T!


Classical logic and physics are not being thrown out with the garbage by any stretch of the imagination, and modern physics does not definitively prove the universe is random, but it certainly highlights the value of an open mind. [/B]


Then by all means work on getting one.

[wuliheron]

If it is so obvious then why is Mentat asking the question? Are you sure you have the question right?

Nope, I just go with the literal interpretation. If it's wrong, whoever started the thread can clarify it.

I have no negative attitude about paradoxes. If I have a negative attitude about anything, it is aimed at people who are so closed minded that they will not listen to anything people are saying. Their only response is that they are somehow the only person who can see the light and everyone else is just biased or an idiot. All of these are cop-outs when used in a philosphy forum. As much as I have tried to keep you on track by explaining to you exactly why I disagree, you always seem to head for the tredges of name calling. So what is showing through (if anything) is frustration with ignorance.

Maybe your own ignorance.

So you're going to throw away all knowledge and lessons learned from less complex areas of science and base your entire philosophy on a relatively ill understood theory like QM? It's ok with me. It is your opinion. Yep you have a bunghole too. lol

Wrong, I do not base my philosophy Quantum Mechanics, its just one of the more dramatic examples. As usual, your bias is showing again in your attempting to put words in my mouth.

Real questions do not demand answers, make accusations, inflamatory statements, or personal attacks. Sarcastic questions based on negative attitudes do. And yours is becoming more obvious by the post. Please stop now.

You don't have to like me personally or agree with what I have to say, but dogging my posts and harassing me is out of line. You did it in the last forum and it looks like you are intent on it again here.

There is a great deal more evidence than just QM to support my views, which are based on a widely respected philosophy with a tremendous number of scientific and technological applications. It also happens to be the basis of how half the world thinks and to be angry and negative at how half the world thinks is a sad state of affairs.

Deny it all you want, it is older than civilization and has survived better critics than you. It will undoubtly survive longer than your outdated views as well.

[Fliption]

Ouch. I've been insulted yet again simply for disagreeing.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Maybe your own ignorance.

I will admit that I am ignorant of exactly what your view is. Since the topic is actually not very complex it is a bit frustrating that we have to pretend it is.




Wrong, I do not base my philosophy Quantum Mechanics, its just one of the more dramatic examples. As usual, your bias is showing again in your attempting to put words in my mouth.

Real questions do not demand answers, make accusations, inflamatory statements, or personal attacks. Sarcastic questions based on negative attitudes do. And yours is becoming more obvious by the post. Please stop now.

You don't have to like me personally or agree with what I have to say, but dogging my posts and harassing me is out of line. You did it in the last forum and it looks like you are intent on it again here.

There is a great deal more evidence than just QM to support my views, which are based on a widely respected philosophy with a tremendous number of scientific and technological applications. Deny it all you want, it is older than civilization and has survived better critics than you. It will undoubtly survive longer than your outdated mechanistic views as well. [/B]

All of this above is you doing the same thing you did in the last thread/forum that I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you. It results in you justifying the reason no one agrees with you by calling them biased and categorizing them into buckets like "mechanism" all with a disrespectful, arrogant tone. The whole time using ill disguised propaganda to try to turn it all around and make it look like it is the other person who is doing all of this disrespectful name calling! It is classic political BS and very obvious. No one with an open mind is going to read this crap and buy it guy. Why not just think about what I'm saying and then explain why you disagree. Continuing to sling the word "bias" around does nothing but make you look like you are dodging the tough issues. You use it because you think it gets to me and thats easier than actually have an intelligent on topic response. I know this personality type well. But I'm actually finding humorous all this dodging and name calling propaganda. Thank goodness for me it is so obvious so others can enjoy it too.

Now I fully expect you to totally avoid the paradox topic and once again try to make it seem as If I have insulted you totally unprovoked. Mentioning mentor action to police me would be no surprise at all. Even though any mentor can read this thread and see that you are extremely disrespectful and do not know how to use a philosophical discussion to your benefit.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Sensei

Like I said in a previous post, we are arguing whether physical paradoxes in this universe exist. I think the sane thing to do is


Yes sensei, this is how I interpreted the question that Mentat asked and I am certainly agreeing with your approach below to try to discuss this in a productive way. But if you read what has been posted above you will see that wuli doesn't even think thats what we're talking about. He thinks the question that Mentat asked means something else. I have no idea exactly what that question is but you can see that we can't even start where you have suggested below.

I agree with the overall tone of your post. I am curious myself where an open discussion on this might lead. I myself would love to have a clear concise argument in favor of paradoxes so that I can competently represent a minority view on this forum full of reductionist scientist. That is why I probe so throughly on wuli. I actually want him to succeed. But either my standards are higher than his or he just isn't very good at explaining his thoughts. Oh well.


Having said all of this, I'm going to leave it to you. I have learned not to "cast my pearls before swine" before. But sometimes my ambitious side forgets.




a) present what you believe to be a paradox and explain why

b) present what you believe we're trying to explain to help clarify the issues.

[wuliheron]

I will admit that I am ignorant of exactly what your view is. Since the topic is actually not very complex it is a bit frustrating that we have to pretend it is.

That's what the early Greek philosopher's thought about Zeno of Elias' paradoxes and philosophy. Simple.... right? Wrong! It took a millennia before anyone could mount a serious counter argument. As I keep saying, paradox is a slippery subject, obviously you have under-estimated it.

If you think it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with me, just stop. Easy, isn't it?

Ancient Chinese saying,

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

Come to think of it, why do you persist after all this time if I have proven myself so thoroughly incapable of having an intelligent conversation?

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

That goes for ourselves as much as other people.

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's what the early Greek philosopher's thought about Zeno of Elias' paradoxes and philosophy. Simple.... right? Wrong! It took a millennia before anyone could mount a serious counter argument. As I keep saying, paradox is a slippery subject, obviously you have under-estimated it.


It is simply a word that is being used several different ways because it is poorly defined. It doesn't have to be as complex as this.


If you think it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with me, just stop. Easy, isn't it?


I plan to. That's why I said to sensei that I'm leaving it to him to sort out. So my responses on paradoxes have stopped once I ,again, realised you are not capable of intellegent discussion.

Anything else I say will be to defend myself from obvious propganda meant to mislead. If you want to believe all the name calling 'bias' crap then tell it to yourself in the mirror. Because I'm not going to let you spout it off here without showing it for what it is.



Ancient Chinese saying,

[B]"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."


I have watched and seen your motivation for what it truely is. Thats's why I choose to let Sensei takle over.

[wuliheron]

Anything else I say will be to defend myself from obvious propganda meant to mislead. If you want to believe all the name calling 'bias' crap then tell it to yourself in the mirror. Because I'm not going to let you spout it off here without showing it for what it is.

Now you are declaring yourself the unofficial moderator of this forum.

I have watched and seen your motivation for what it truely is. Thats's why I choose to let Sensei takle over.

You are not making sense to me. First you declare you will not allow me to spout crap, then you say you are letting Sensei takle over. The only clear thing you have said here is that you think I am full of crap and have hidden motives.

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Now you are declaring yourself the unofficial moderator of this forum.


No, just defending myself.




You are not making sense to me. First you declare you will not allow me to spout crap, then you say you are letting Sensei takle over. The only clear thing you have said here is that you think I am full of crap and have hidden motives.

[/I]

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.

Carry on Sensei

[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.

Well then, that was easy enough.

[Mentat]

I must say that I am shocked at the amount of personal attacks that people are making here. Kerrie can't censor everything, it's our responsibility to keep out conversations civil. Wu Li, would you mind not trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look like an idiot, it's backfiring. Fliption, I'm learning that, if something is hopeless, you should just leave it alone.

[Mentat]

I'd like to clear up the issue of my original question's meaning. I meant, "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?". Please forgive the misunderstandings I may have caused, but I (like Fliption) had not recognized the subtle difference between the two questions - "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?" and "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?".

[wuliheron]

Wu Li, would you mind not trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look like an idiot, it's backfiring. Fliption, I'm learning that, if something is hopeless, you should just leave it alone.

I am not trying to make everyone who disagrees with me look like an idiot, nor for that matter do I care about people's perceptions of me. I am demonstrating quite effectively I believe that some people just won't leave well enough alone and simply cannot agree to disagree and leave it at that. As you admit yourself, you are learning if something is hopeless........

I'd like to clear up the issue of my original question's meaning. I meant, "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?".

Existence itself seems like a likely candidate for a genuine physical paradox that applies to everything en toto, wholly irrational and ineffable. It may even be infinite in every way conceivable as you might prefer to say it. However, I tend to think we can find rational as well as paradoxical explanations for just about everything else. That's why explanations are so useful.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron


Existence itself seems like a likely candidate for a genuine physical paradox that applies to everything en toto, wholly irrational and ineffable. It may even be infinite in every way conceivable as you might prefer to say it. However, I tend to think we can find rational as well as paradoxical explanations for just about everything else. That's why explanations are so useful.

You see? This is what you always do, and it really gets on my nerves [s(] . You talk about the paradox of existence as though it were proven, even in an argument about whether it exists or not. This is a perfect example of the kind of self-fulfilled reasoning that was the topic of my thread (in the old PFs), and that destroys all rational debate.

[wuliheron]

You see? This is what you always do, and it really gets on my nerves . You talk about the paradox of existence as though it were proven, even in an argument about whether it exists or not.

All I said was it seems like a likely candidate

Considering all the evidence, it does seem likely to me. The only evidence, I think, we are ever gonna have on the issue is statistical evidence like Quantum Mechanics which suggests the same possibility.

However, I will add that one interpretation of such "paradoxes" is that we are just staring at nature, and nature is staring back so to speak. Kind of like trying to use the "pickle" to define itself. Past a certain point you just find yourself going in circles.

This is a perfect example of the kind of self-fulfilled reasoning that was the topic of my thread (in the old PFs), and that destroys all rational debate.

Sorry, but the topic is paradox and nothing less than the entire universe. There is no other reasoning possible that I am aware of. If you can come up with a better way to talk about the subject be my guest.

[Iacchus32]

Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

I think it does in the sense that it provides a means by which to contrast those things which appear contradictory in nature (which is really all I think wuliheron is getting at), other than that I don't believe so. Does it sound like I'm tyring to agree with everyone here? Oh my!

[wuliheron]

I think it does in the sense that it provides a means by which to contrast those things which appear contradictory in nature (which is really all I think wuliheron is getting at)

No, that's not all I'm trying to get at. Paradox can also be compared to what doesn't appear contradictory. One example is the concept of infinity in mathematics. Calculus does not actually address infinity itself, which is not a number, but merely approaches infinity and in the process of getting closer to the paradox puts it to useful work for us.

We can also approach other paradoxes as well both using logic and mathematics without actually touching upon the paradoxes themselves. Often what we are ignorant of proves even more useful than what we know.

One way to do this is to keep an open mind about what we think we know, such as the earth is flat, and look for paradoxical ways to view nature which can then be applied logically.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
All I said was it seems like a likely candidate

Considering all the evidence, it does seem likely to me. The only evidence, I think, we are ever gonna have on the issue is statistical evidence like Quantum Mechanics which suggests the same possibility.

However, I will add that one interpretation of such "paradoxes" is that we are just staring at nature, and nature is staring back so to speak. Kind of like trying to use the "pickle" to define itself. Past a certain point you just find yourself going in circles.



Sorry, but the topic is paradox and nothing less than the entire universe. There is no other reasoning possible that I am aware of. If you can come up with a better way to talk about the subject be my guest.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by, a better way of talking about paradox? Do you mean the way that doesn't insist that there is in fact a paradox, without proof?

[wuliheron]

I don't understand this. What do you mean by, a better way of talking about paradox? Do you mean the way that doesn't insist that there is in fact a paradox, without proof?

Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the inexplicable, apparently contradictory but true, or self-referential and self-contradictory. There is no way to prove something is inexplicable. The best you can do is demonstrate something is apparently inexplicable. However, that does not mean we cannot use the words like inexplicable, unfathomable, and ineffable. If you can think of a better way to use such words, more power to you.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the Asians on this one. They've spent thousands of years perfecting ways to talk about the inexplicable, unfathomable, and ineffable.

[RuroumiKenshin]

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I am repeating something someone already said.

Aren't paradoxes anisotropic in most occasions? Does a paradox specify something that defies human knowledge?

[wuliheron]

Aren't paradoxes anisotropic in most occasions? Does a paradox specify something that defies human knowledge?

Exactly so, except I wouldn't describe them as defying human knowledge so much as logic and reason when taken out of context. For example, the liar's paradox makes perfect sense when spoken by a compusive liar:

"Everything I say is a lie."

But, logically analyzed without assuming such a context it is meaningless.

[RuroumiKenshin]

I see, so do you mean that the liar paradox is a paradox, because it defies logic? Is that all a paradox does?

[wuliheron]

Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the inexplicable, apparently contradictory but true, or self-referential and self-contradictory. There is no way to prove something is inexplicable. The best you can do is demonstrate something is apparently inexplicable.

The inexplicable can also include the ineffable, that which cannot be expressed. Whether the ineffable defies logic or not then is by definition impossible to say. This is a major source of confusion for westerners encountering Asian philosophy.

[Mentat]

A paradox does not have different meanings, just because people happen to misunderstand what it means. Something is only paradoxical when it can be explained, but the explanation requires the use of contradictory propositions.

[Mentat]

A paradox does not have different meanings, just because people happen to misunderstand what it means. A paradox is an explanation. What differentiates paradoxes from other explanations, is that it requires contradictory propositions.

[wuliheron]

par·a·dox

A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
A statement contrary to received opinion.


I have been over this countless times with you Mentat, just as you know perfectly well. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. You can argue that pigs have wings all you want, and you do seem to like to do it a great deal.

If words are to have meaning, we must find aggrement on them. The dictionary is a great place to start.

[RageSk8]

Yes and no. Paradoxes are features of vocabularies.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I have been over this countless times with you Mentat, just as you know perfectly well. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. You can argue that pigs have wings all you want, and you do seem to like to do it a great deal.

If words are to have meaning, we must find aggrement on them. The dictionary is a great place to start.

While this dictionary's definition is not perfectly compatible with what you will find in books about logic, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said.

BTW, a dictionary is not always a good place to start. Think of how many dictionaries there are that will have someone believing that a theory is synonymous with an hypothesis. Sometimes it's better to see what those, who make use of the certain concept, define it as. However, a dictionary definition is valuable, and I don't see any contradiction (in the quoted definition) with what I said about paradox.

[wuliheron]

While this dictionary's definition is not perfectly compatible with what you will find in books about logic, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said. BTW, a dictionary is not always a good place to start.

If the dictionary fails us, then we can move on to splitting semantic hairs if we feel so inclined. This particular dictionary definition contradicts what you said by including the inexplicable instead of restricting the use of the word paradox to the contradictory.

As for Rage's idea that paradox is merely a feature of vocabularies, such a stance summarilly denies the emperical evidence of the paradox of existence without providing evidence. I suppose next Rage will claim objectivity is merely a feature of vocabularies. For all I know he may be correct, but I see no evidence to support such a position much less any practical purpose that can be served by adopting such a position.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If the dictionary fails us, then we can move on to splitting semantic hairs if we feel so inclined. This particular dictionary definition contradicts what you said by including the inexplicable instead of restricting the use of the word paradox to the contradictory.

As for Rage's idea that paradox is merely a feature of vocabularies, such a stance summarilly denies the emperical evidence of the paradox of existence without providing evidence. I suppose next Rage will claim objectivity is merely a feature of vocabularies. For all I know he may be correct, but I see no evidence to support such a position much less any practical purpose that can be served by adopting such a position.

Well, logician's seem to restrict the word, "paradox", to the contradictory, and this is the kind of paradox that the thread is about.

Don't you realize that YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE. So why does it matter that Rage ignores the "paradox of existence", it probably doesn't exist.

[wuliheron]

Well, logician's seem to restrict the word, "paradox", to the contradictory, and this is the kind of paradox that the thread is about.

Well, if you want to use specialized definitions of words then you might do well to say so ahead of time.

Don't you realize that YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE. So why does it matter that Rage ignores the "paradox of existence", it probably doesn't exist.

Reductio ad absurdum is a strong argument as Rage is well aware, while making noises about "vocabularies" is not. If context is paramount, than the context of existence is the ultimate contextualizer and once again Rage's logic leads back to the paradox.

[quantumcarl]

Mentat... of course the universe allows for paradoxes. How else could we have come up with them?

One must remember that our brains are definitely a product of the universe and so... any product a brain produces is part of the universe, as well.

[RuroumiKenshin]

of course the universe allows for paradoxes. How else could we have come up with them?

Because we, in our perspective, see paradoxes when something doesn't comply with our[human] logic. I believe the whole concept is anisotropic.


One must remember that our brains are definitely a product of the universe and so... any product a brain produces is part of the universe, as well.


And our brain is known for its ability to ellude us.

i.e, temporal lobe esp.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
And our brain is known for its ability to ellude us.

i.e, temporal lobe esp. [/B]

If "known" is a function of the brain then the "ability to ellude" you speak of is, no doubt,also an illusion.

This is the paradox of thinking.
You may only think you're thinking!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
If "known" is a function of the brain then the "ability to ellude" you speak of is, no doubt,also an illusion.

This is the paradox of thinking.
You may only think you're thinking!

Don't be foolish, carl, if she "thinks that she's thinking, then she is thinking (about thinking)".

Anyway, I already said that I was not talking about conceptual paradox. I was talking about physical paradox. Our brain is physical, but our mind is not, and it is the mind that conceives of paradox.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Our brain is physical, but our mind is not, and it is the mind that conceives of paradox.


true. The brain is the organ of the mind. So how are you going to speak of the physical brain, without refering to the mind?

[drag]

Greetings !

A great thread Mantat !
Originally posted by Mentat
I suppose I'll set the example, in showing the reason for our choices:

I picked "no", because I have always seen the universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the possibility of a T.O.E.). If it is governed by a set of laws, then the propositions that make up those laws, could not contradict each other (IMO) or else we'd be able to break the so-called "laws". A conclusion that is based on contradictory propositions is a paradox.
[:D]
I picked "yes", because I have always seen the
Universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the
possibility of a T.O.E.).
However, there is no possibility of a law that will
explain the existence of all the other laws.
Further more, since the existence of the laws lacks
an explanation, there is no advantage or reason
to the claim that they must "fit" nicely together.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

A great thread Mentat !


Thanks, drag.



[:D]
I picked "yes", because I have always seen the
Universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the
possibility of a T.O.E.).
However, there is no possibility of a law that will
explain the existence of all the other laws.
Further more, since the existence of the laws lacks
an explanation, there is no advantage or reason
to the claim that they must "fit" nicely together.


That's a reasonable answer. Basically, you think that the universe is ultimately unexplainable? I suppose that - while that is a slightly different kind of "paradox" then I was thinking of (one in which the laws are self-contradictory) - I agree with you to some extent.

[Thomo]

I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will dissapear with enough knowlege of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Thomo
I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will dissapear with enough knowlege of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws

Thanks for your participation, Thomo. I agree with you (at least to some extent), in that the universe would (IMO) not be at all stable of it's laws were self-contradictory.

[wuliheron]

The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws

There's the rub. Do protons live forever? Is the speed of light utterly invariable? For that matter, is fourteen billion years long enough to make an accurate assessment considering the uncounted layers of complexity the physical universe displays? Certainly the physical laws appear invariable, but nothing else does. Because the evidence is so strong for both points of view we may have to wait for a theory of everything and, even then, it could make the situation appear even less clear.

[DrChinese]

Yes, there are paradoxes. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. I think there are plenty of paradoxes in existence. For example, the mind-body paradox.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Thomo
I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will dissapear with enough knowlege of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws
No offense, but that is a clear example of
closed-mindedness. Wuliheron's argument is
just a part of the infinite possibilities.

Infinite complexity in infinite combinations (IDIC).

Live long and prosper.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by drag
No offense, but that is a clear example of
closed-mindedness. Wuliheron's argument is
just a part of the infinite possibilities.

Infinite complexity in infinite combinations (IDIC).


I think it is a difference of opinion. Not close mindedness.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Yes, there are paradoxes. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. I think there are plenty of paradoxes in existence. For example, the mind-body paradox.

"Mind-body paradox"?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
There's the rub. Do protons live forever? Is the speed of light utterly invariable? For that matter, is fourteen billion years long enough to make an accurate assessment considering the uncounted layers of complexity the physical universe displays? Certainly the physical laws appear invariable, but nothing else does. Because the evidence is so strong for both points of view we may have to wait for a theory of everything and, even then, it could make the situation appear even less clear.

You are making Thomos' point, IMO. He was saying how the "apparent paradoxes" are actually just the result of our not having enough knowledge on the subject (I wont agree or disagree with this, at the present time), and you are saying that there are so many things that we don't understand.

[wuliheron]

You are making Thomos' point, IMO. He was saying how the "apparent paradoxes" are actually just the result of our not having enough knowledge on the subject (I wont agree or disagree with this, at the present time), and you are saying that there are so many things that we don't understand.

Quite the opposite, I'm saying that the more we learn the deeper the enigma becomes. At the rate this mystery has deepened it may never be resolved.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Quite the opposite, I'm saying that the more we learn the deeper the enigma becomes. At the rate this mystery has deepened it may never be resolved.

Yes, but the fact that these (as yet not-understood phenomena) is what comprises the so-called "paradoxes" is Thomos' point, is it not?

[wuliheron]

Yes, but the fact that these (as yet not-understood phenomena) is what comprises the so-called "paradoxes" is Thomos' point, is it not?

No, I think his point is that if existence were ultimately founded upon paradox, the irrational, chaotic, or whatever you care to call it, we wouldn't observe the stability we see in the laws of the nature today. This, however, is the same as the anthropic principle which people use as an argument for the existence of God. The standard counter argument is that if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, I think his point is that if existence were ultimately founded upon paradox, the irrational, chaotic, or whatever you care to call it, we wouldn't observe the stability we see in the laws of the nature today. This, however, is the same as the anthropic principle which people use as an argument for the existence of God. The standard counter argument is that if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue.

Not to get off-topic, but isn't that what one of the anthropic principles states - that "if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue"?

[wuliheron]

I might have it backwards. Anthropic reasoning attempts to detect, define, and correct improper reasoning. It's a confusing term that's been picked up by a number of people to prove God exists or doesn't exist or that no serious evidence exists to prove God exists.

Still, you understand what I'm saying. Essentially, just as scientists have used the Anthropic Principle to disprove any evidence of God exists, you can apply the Anthropic principle to the paradox of existence to show all of science may be founded on a house of cards and God may well exist. Brings a slight smile to my face just thinking about all those serious over-educated people arguing over such nonesense for all they are worth. :0)

[Thomo]

I dont see my self as a closed minded person but then what closed minded person would? As for paradoxs I cant imagine a stable universe if its physical laws were paradoxial(sp?) Maybe that indicates a limit to my imagination.Humans by nature I suspect try to find order,pattern and reason to the world around them so that may cloud their willingness to accept paradoxs I have been in the last couple of weeks trying to get my head (to no avail!)around A-causality, an event with no cause seems almost a paradox when veiwed in the context of the order we observe around us.

Thomo

[wuliheron]

I dont see my self as a closed minded person but then what closed minded person would? As for paradoxs I cant imagine a stable universe if its physical laws were paradoxial(sp?) Maybe that indicates a limit to my imagination.

I think it could be limit to human imagination in general. I can't begin to imagine a rational cause and effect origin of existence, for example, and I can't even begin to imagine how anyone else could either. Still, it could just be a lack of imagination on my part. :0)

Humans by nature I suspect try to find order,pattern and reason to the world around them so that may cloud their willingness to accept paradoxs I have been in the last couple of weeks trying to get my head (to no avail!)around A-causality, an event with no cause seems almost a paradox when veiwed in the context of the order we observe around us.


Exactly, it is paradoxical. Virtual particles appearing and disappearing out of nothing, electrons teleporting, etc. are just impossible to imagine as Feignman pointed out when he said, "If you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM." However, I think I can say in all confidence that what Feignman did understand about QM was that he didn't understand QM. :0)

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Thomo
I dont see my self as a closed minded person...
Thomo
I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong
way Thomo, I was only talking about your idea
and your example in that particular message.
Again, no offense. [:)]

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking
up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting
world I find myself in-an interesting hole I find
myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact
it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to
have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as
the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as,
gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's
still frantically hanging on to the notion that
everything is going to be alright, because this
world was meant to have him in it, was built to
have him in it; so the moment he disappears
catches him rather by surprise."
Douglas Adams

Live long and prosper.

[Thomo]

>>>I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong
way Thomo, I was only talking about your idea
and your example in that particular message.
Again, no offense. <<<<

Didnt even occur to me to take offence mate.

If all of the current recognised paradoxs were resolved with future knowlege I'm sure as pointed out there would be others discovered. The fact that the previous paradoxs were resolved in its self does not mean that certain paradoxs exist.
I cannot entertain the idea that we will ever know all there is to know about everything. With that in mind the existance of paradoxs may well end up in the file along with questions like what happened before the Big Bang and if there are multi or parrallel univeres do the same physical laws apply ...ie we have no way of knowing.
I still suspect though paradoxs are indicators of holes in our understanding of "life the universe and everything"

I am only a new poster to your forum thankyou for treating my posts respect and courtesy