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?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.