Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • #26
249
0
I know it wasn't your statement, and it wasn't directed at you personally.

It meant that "The mind is false" statment is directly parallel to Solipsism. Since solipsism is defined as: "belief in self as only reality: the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible" -- You can relate that between the Russell Paradox sets to the solipsism logic.

That's why I said "The mind is false" is false because if you use the Russell paradox system to the Solipsism standpoint you can conclude that the belief in yourself is only reality is not really completely true using the Russell paradox.

You dig?
 
  • #27
If you were to discover a "previously unrecognized-self evident truth", something new and groundmaking/changing in physics, or some other area of science/politics/law/art/cinema/etc. you would be demonstrating that "the Universe, had kept hidden, from itself, something" such that only the one "true" 'Solipsis' could enjoy, what?? the Game??

God's Grace in my life I have discovered one of those, ("previously unrecognized-self evident truth") and I can assure you, from what little(?) I know of reality, I am not a (or 'the') solipsis, cause I have clearly seen that I still need be;
"A student, who teaches(?)"
 
  • #28
199
0
You see, if the Mind = the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?
Its an interesting thought but we could use the same argument to prove that the universe cannot exist. And then where would we b...
 
  • #29
3,762
2
Originally posted by Jeebus
I know it wasn't your statement, and it wasn't directed at you personally.

It meant that "The mind is false" statment is directly parallel to Solipsism. Since solipsism is defined as: "belief in self as only reality: the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible" -- You can relate that between the Russell Paradox sets to the solipsism logic.

That's why I said "The mind is false" is false because if you use the Russell paradox system to the Solipsism standpoint you can conclude that the belief in yourself is only reality is not really completely true using the Russell paradox.

You dig?
Glad to see we're on the same frequency now.
 
  • #30
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Its an interesting thought but we could use the same argument to prove that the universe cannot exist. And then where would we b...
Actually, I dealt with this before. The Universe really doesn't exist as a coherent entity. There are things that exist, and there is a limit to the amount of things that exist. The sum total of these things is called "the Universe", but the Universe itself doesn't exist.
 
  • #31
199
0
Wow. You've thought of everything haven't you?

The universe doesn't exist... have to remember that one.
 
  • #32
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Wow. You've thought of everything haven't you?

The universe doesn't exist... have to remember that one.
Ha ha...no, the Universe doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the Universe", since there both is no "outside the Universe" and no "Universe", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'Universe'".
 
  • #33
199
0
Oh I wasn't mocking - I genuinely like your argument. It makes a lot of sense. But still - it was a bit of a shock to hear that the universe does not exist...
 
  • #34
1,569
2
Begs the question of "why" would we, the entirety of the Universe, do this to ourselves?
which begs the questions (1) why ask why and (2) why did the chicken cross the road and (3) why does there have to be a reason?

So the allowance of these fuzzy (universal) sets allows for the Solipsistic approach, while the alternative doesn't?
it doesn't either allow it or not allow it. "it" can do whatever "it" "wants." it's not clear to me that the two have much to do with each other. but for how i'm percieving your take on solipsism, yeah, having a universal set that contains fuzzy subsets gels with solipsism.

the mind doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the mind", since there both is no "outside the mind" and no "mind", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'mind'".
 
Last edited:
  • #35
1,481
0
Okay, the universe does not exist as an entity in itself but is simply a term that we use to mean everything that does exist. Right so far? Then what about the idea, or hypothesis, that the universe is a singularity, all that exists, exists within the singularity that is the universe.
When you are speaking of all that exists, are you speaking materialisticly or all inclusively, assuming that there is that which is not material yet exists?
 
  • #36
1,029
1
Originally posted by Mentat
You see, if the Mind ≡ the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?
:smile:
The wording above is the reason you keep getting the response that this argument applies to the universe as well. Look at the comment above. It basically asks "how can the set of all things exists?" The universe is a word applied to the set of all things.
 
  • #37
1,569
2
it doesn't matter whether or not set theory allows solipsism. (it does if fuzzy logic is employed, btw, and does not if fuzzy logic is not employed.)

euclidean geometry does not allow for the curvature of space-time either. so what?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
(SNIP) which begs the questions (1) why ask why and (2) why did the chicken cross the road and (3) why does there have to be a reason? (SNoP)
Now there's a well reasoned and intelligent answer, somehere..............I suspect the the word would be "Logic", and the clarity is that the Universe DOES operate in a logical manner, (is Known to) respective of Physical Matter.

O.K.?
 
  • #39
1,569
2
i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic. either i can't take a compliment or i can't take a hint.

perhaps the universe operates in a logical manner, but what kind of logic?

just as a fairly specific for instance which happens to be related, how about the "logic" of the mind (which may be in the universe or the universe)? is it that there is no logic, some logic, or just an utterly mystifying yet impeccable logic? especially in regards to seemingly "illogical" things as being afraid for no good reasons, being "madly" in love, creativity, genius, insanity/psychosis, etc... if there is a logic to the universe, and the mind is in the universe, does that mean that psychosis is logical?

a couple of options, including:
1. psychosis is in fact logical but just logic that isn't understood not unlike a chaotic dynamical system which actually arises from real simple, well behaved functions. it seems really "mad" but in fact, it's totally predicatble and goverened by the logic of a function if you know the initial conditions.

2. psychosis is an example of something in the universe that is not logical. hence, not everything in the universe is logical.

2a. btw, this is under the assumption that the mind and psychosis are ultimitely based on the physicality of the brain. if you throw that out the window, the statement that physical things in the universe are logical is preserved but you allow that nonphysical things to be illogical. that would have interesting interactions with the concept of God.

1 and 2a combo: the mind is not ultimately physical yet psychosis is still logical but just logic that isn't understood.

is it possible for subatomic particles to be in two states at once? that must be how i am believing in all of the above at once.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
3,762
2
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it doesn't either allow it or not allow it. "it" can do whatever "it" "wants." it's not clear to me that the two have much to do with each other. but for how i'm percieving your take on solipsism, yeah, having a universal set that contains fuzzy subsets gels with solipsism.

the mind doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the mind", since there both is no "outside the mind" and no "mind", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'mind'".
But that is not what Solipsists say, which is why I felt safe making these statements about the Universe while holding my argument against Solipsism. You see, the Solipsist doesn't say that the collection of all things that exist is the mind, they say that everything that exists, exists within their mind. The Solipsist believes that only one thing really exists, their own mind, and within that are phenomenological events, which they had previously perceived to be "objective", but which are in fact illusions.

So, my reasoning on the Universe cannot apply to Solipsism.
 
  • #41
3,762
2
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it doesn't matter whether or not set theory allows solipsism. (it does if fuzzy logic is employed, btw, and does not if fuzzy logic is not employed.)

euclidean geometry does not allow for the curvature of space-time either. so what?
Euclidean geometry is not comparable to logic, is it? After all, I don't think anyone would have a problem with my calling their idea non-Euclidean, but people cringe at the thought that their idea is "illogical".
 
  • #42
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
(SNIP) i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic. either i can't take a compliment or i can't take a hint. (SNoP)
ANd the rest of your above post hints to me you missed the last words of mine.....
Moi
and the clarity is that the Universe DOES operate in a logical manner, (is Known to) respective of Physical Matter.
If all is simply 'in mind', then belief in existence of 'in mind' is a self deception, as it denies the obvious connection of 'mind' and matter/brain, hence 'all matter', gravitationally, imperceptable to any/every one, but there......
 
  • #43
1,569
2
the appeal to something being obvious.

it's obvious that all that is an illusion, perhaps an illusion created by the mind. there, another appeal to obviousness.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the appeal to something being obvious.
it's obvious that all that is an illusion, perhaps an illusion created by the mind. there, another appeal to obviousness.
Einstein's responce, but he noted that it was a persistent illusion.

It is generated by matter, not mind, (interpreted by/in mind by/in imagination) and if you should wish to indulge in the 'self deception' of it, you could easily decide that yours is the only mind that ALL of this is being created for, exclusively to teach you!

Elsif you could admit quietly that you recognize "others", and all of the rest of it, like the rest of 'us'...........
 
  • #45
199
0
Do universal statements have any meaning anyway?

The concepts we use to discriminate and describe the world are relative. Does it mean anything to say 'everything is an illusion' any more than to say that 'everything is small'? If it is an illusion, it must be illusory relative to something more real and this 'reality' had better have more solid evidence than the apparent reality.

Does it?

I think there is evidence that some of our perceptions have 'illusionary' aspects, and we discover this by using more reliable and accurate tools to study reality. I don't think there's any evidence at all that what we think of as reality (eg. that there is a body of matter that I am 'sitting on' that we call a 'chair') is a nillusion.
 
  • #46
Ahem the reference to illusion deals with Einstein's E = mc2 ergo m = E/c2 or; "all is energy" energy is both 'illusory' and 'invisible' (sorta) hence the idea of it being 'an illusion' stems from the reality that it is all just an interplay of energy.......
 
  • #47
199
0
Energy is real.
 
  • #48
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Do universal statements have any meaning anyway?

The concepts we use to discriminate and describe the world are relative. Does it mean anything to say 'everything is an illusion' any more than to say that 'everything is small'? If it is an illusion, it must be illusory relative to something more real and this 'reality' had better have more solid evidence than the apparent reality.

Does it?


This is called the "skeptic" response to Solipsism, and I made reference to it earlier. Personally, I think it settles the matter rather well (and Wuliheron used to post much the same type of philosophy), but - since Solipsism still exists, and since it's come up in certain threads where I wish it hadn't - I still think it'd be helpful to find a logical error in the idea.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Energy is real.
And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s).......energy.
 
  • #50
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s).......energy.
But, with all due respect, what is the relevance?
 

Related Threads on Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
133
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
21K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
91
Views
12K
Replies
28
Views
8K
Top