Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

[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 textbook.

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 that's 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 . 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 that's 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 that's 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, realized 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 truly 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 truly 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]

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.

 

[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 . 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 going to 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 going to 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]

What a paradox really is.

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]

What a paradox really is.

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.