Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

  1. May 22, 2003 #1
    [SOLVED] Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    By paradox I mean as the paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics. Whatever drives the nature of things, the physical laws has to be an "ultimate" force. That is it cannot fail. Nothing "owns" this force and it can exist within itself, it does not "need" anything. A paradox is inherent within itself. All logical conclusions are interdependent on others and ultimately to a paradox. A paradox is a representation of an ultimate logical conclusion; no further derivation will be required simply because no further derivation can be achieved, it is the ultimate end, the ultimate reality because it has to be. I short, I can say that a paradox is a concept that our minds can use to concieve of the characteritic nature of what the ultimate explanation or source of reality is.

    I apologize if my english is difficult to understand.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2003 #2
    Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    Well, "paradox" actually means a proposition or statement that is logically inconsistent, or self-contradictory.
  4. May 22, 2003 #3
    Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    I have to agree with Mentat on this one. Quantum Mechanics is acausal, that is, it implies there is no decernable cause for existence and as far as we can tell literally everything is ultimately random. Particles just appear and disappear magically or randomly and a cat can somehow be both alive and dead at the same time.

    Paradox has different meanings depending upon the context in which we use the word and who you ask. Unfortunately people also have different ideas about exactly what reason and truth are which makes defining paradox all that much more difficult. Broadly paradox refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true. It may be that, despite numerous definitions and widespread use of the term, paradox is ultimately ineffable.

    Thousands of years ago in ancient Greece formal logic and mathematics were first developed and, when this occurred, it began a heated conflict over paradox that is still going on to this day. Mentat, of course, is one of those people who insist on a specific definition of paradox without providing serious evidence as to why the rest of the world should adopt his definition. Perhaps the two of you would like to argue over definitions....
  5. May 22, 2003 #4
    Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    I only insist on that definition for the same reason that one would insist on defining anything else in one way: If something has more than one definition, there can be no rational discussion of it, without first discerning which definition will be being used.
  6. May 22, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    My definition is the natural language definition that can be found in the dictionary and is used for rational debate all the time. Rational debate revolves around relationships and observations rather than any particular kind of logistics. For example, I can rationally say I know a bald man, but this has no clear definition according to logicians.

    Your definition is the one developed by logicians specifically to avoid the vague natural language definition of paradox rather than to simply create another rational definition. Until proven otherwise it is only useful for describing situations in which already have clear logical parameters which is simply not the case for existence. Hence, to insist on its use to the exclusion of the natural language definition is in its own rite irrational. Self-limiting and to insist against the evidence that some specific logic rules existence.
    Last edited: May 22, 2003
  7. May 22, 2003 #6
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    The "natural language" use of the word "theory" is synonymous to "speculation" or "idea". However, this should not be used in a Forum dedicated to studying actual theory.

    For much the same reason, "paradox" should be used in the manner that logicians have chosen, in logical debate, unless one makes it clear that they are using some other definition.
  8. May 22, 2003 #7
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    This forum is dedicated to rational and scientific discussion of philosophy, not to logistics alone or few of us would be here. Often I conscientiously try to give Tom space to discuss formal logic without serious interuption precisely because that is what the topic is. To insist that any thread you decide should only be discussed using the definitions of logicians is absurd.
  9. May 22, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    I didn't mean it like that. I'm merely saying that the use of many definitions for "paradox" (or any other word) leads to misunderstandings, and can easily be avoided by using a different word that conveys the same desired meaning. In the case of "paradox", often it is better for one to use the term "mystery" (or some other such term), and thus avoid any misunderstanding.
  10. May 22, 2003 #9
    wuliheron - What mentat met was you overlooked a prime rule of stating a claim.

    You did not define terms, and thus left them open to subjective definitions, which serves NO purpose, as no end conclusion would ever be reached.
  11. May 22, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Mentat: what I believe to be a "paradox"

    Mystery is another vague term that leads to misinterpretations as well. Like the term "infinity" it presupposes specific parameters that may or may not be applicable and detract from the discussion. For example, a religious person might say existence isn't a mystery because God created existence and, if anything, God is the mystery. Someone else might claim infinity explains existence for similar reasons and there is no mystery again.

    By labeling existence as demonstrably paradoxical and, therefore, evidently irrational it focuses the discussion on all the issues on the table rather than just a select few. Some supposidly enlightened people claim existence isn't paradoxical, irrational, or mysterious but if so they haven't been able to express why in non-vague logistical terms. Hence, the natural language definition remains useful until proven otherwise.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook