Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date

Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
  • #26
1,944
0
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)
 
  • #27
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #29
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
1,944
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
3,762
2
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).
 
  • #33
3,762
2
It appears that a lot of people have voted, without giving the reasons for there votes . I don't like this. There must be some reason why you voted the way you did. Please, share it with us.
 
  • #34
1,944
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
1,944
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
1,944
0
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."
 
  • #40
1,029
1
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,

"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.
 
  • #41
1,944
0
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."
 
  • #42
1,029
1
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
 
Last edited:
  • #43
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #44
3,762
2
Watch the personal attacks!

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.
 
  • #45
3,762
2
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?".
 
  • #46
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #47
3,762
2
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 . 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.
 
  • #48
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #49
2,225
0
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!
 
  • #50
1,944
0
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.
 

Related Threads on Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
6K
Replies
22
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
20
Views
14K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
21K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top