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
  • #76
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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.
 
  • #77
1,029
1
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.
 
  • #78
3,762
2
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"?
 
  • #79
3,762
2
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.
 
  • #80
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #81
3,762
2
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?
 
  • #82
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #83
3,762
2
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"?
 
  • #84
1,944
0
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)
 
  • #85
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
 
  • #86
1,944
0
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)
 
  • #87
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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. :smile:

"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.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
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
 

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