Contradictory item is the only one that surely exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter eighth man
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of a contradictory item, positing that such an entity exists outside the bounds of logic and reasoning, making it the only certain existence in the universe. This item can embody contradictory values, such as being both true and false simultaneously, which allows it to evade logical constraints. The argument suggests that rational entities depend on reasoning for their existence, while only contradictory entities truly exist, challenging the notion of rational thought and the principles of science. Critics argue that this perspective lacks clarity and evidence, emphasizing that existence does not necessarily depend on reasoning. The idea of a contradictory item serves as a metaphor for the unknown and highlights the limitations of human understanding, prompting a reevaluation of how we perceive existence and the nature of reality.
eighth man
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
A contradictory item (or concept, or object ) is the only one that exists in the universe because it can deceive all logic and reasoning and as such does not depend on any reasoning to exist.

If contradictory item A is such that A=3 and also A=17, and A exists and A also does not exist, then A is the most sure thing to exist because it can always escape any logic regarding its existence. Its existence does not depend on any logic any rule or any constraint, not even the one of being true or false. It is hard to reason with this item because all reasoning breaks down, but this proves that it is the most sure thing possible, since nothing can contradict it, as it actually accepts and thrives on contradiction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eighth man said:
A contradictory item (or concept, or object ) is the only one that exists in the universe because it can deceive all logic and reasoning and as such does not depend on any reasoning to exist.

You imply here that "Rational entities depend on reasoning in order to exist," and you assert that "Only contradictory (irrational) entities exist." Taken together, these statements imply that no rational things exist and (perhaps) that there is no rational thought. Obviously rational thought exists, however, and science wouldn't be possible if nature didn't behave in a rational way.

Besides making apparently false claims, you make a rather counterintuitive claim about how it is that things exist. It's not at all clear why it would (or could) be that anything depends on reasoning in order to exist, in the sense you seem to be implying here. Perhaps you could maintain that sort of position with some kind of convoluted idealism. However, strong claims require strong evidence, and there is none here (and I really don't see how there could be any, even in principle, given what we know about nature). Ultimately, this thread doesn't meet the philosophy forum guidelines on a number of counts.
 
Last edited:


This statement presents an interesting perspective on the concept of existence. While it may be difficult to wrap our minds around the idea of a contradictory item being the only sure thing to exist, there is some truth to this notion.

The idea that a contradictory item can deceive all logic and reasoning means that it exists outside of the limitations of our understanding and perception. It is not bound by any rules or constraints, making it an enigma that cannot be fully comprehended.

In a way, this contradictory item could be seen as a symbol of the unknown and mysterious aspects of the universe. We may never fully understand it, but its existence serves as a reminder that there are things beyond our understanding and that our logic and reasoning can only take us so far.

Ultimately, whether or not we believe in the existence of a contradictory item, this perspective challenges us to expand our thinking and consider the possibility of something existing beyond our current understanding.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top