The discussion centers on the concept of the Paradox of Existence, exploring its implications across philosophical, scientific, and existential dimensions. Participants examine various explanations for existence, the nature of infinity, and the limitations of human understanding in rationalizing existence.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of existence or the validity of proposed explanations. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the implications of paradoxes and infinity.
The discussion acknowledges limitations in understanding existence, particularly regarding the definitions of infinity and the unresolved nature of paradoxes. The scope of the conversation is broad, touching on philosophical, scientific, and existential themes without definitive conclusions.
This discussion may be of interest to those exploring philosophical inquiries into existence, the nature of infinity, and the intersections of science and philosophy.
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.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Mentat has read my original post in this thread which goes into detail, even if you have not. [/B]
Originally posted by Fliption
Mentat, Notice that he doesn't say "why" your comments are unsupported and absurd. They just are. And yet it is the one paragraph he chooses to "cut and paste" as if it contains any information to help you bridge the gap between your opinion and his.
Take my advice. Give it up and save yourself the frustration. He is not interested in what you think. The sooner we get these useless topics off the board the sooner we can perhaps have meaningful dialog on something else.
Then why not cut and paste the relevant points? Why only cut and paste the insulting piece with no information content?
Originally posted by wuliheron
I have been over this countless times with Mentat, just as you know perfectly well I have gone over it with you countless times. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. Mentat knows this very well and, like you, presents no proof to the contrary whatsoever.
All he does is argue the point, as you seem intent on doing. He invents one argument after another after another with no proof, no references, no nothing. And, again like you, he then insinuates I am not being reasonable.
Stop it people or I shall have to get the moderators involved. This is a serious discussion, not a podium for you to push your private agendas.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Stop it people or I shall have to get the moderators involved. This is a serious discussion, not a podium for you to push your private agendas. [/B]
Actually this thing I've done with the numbers does portay the "clash of opposites" (Ying and Yang) and the two being joined in "synergy." You can't interpret it from this one post, but if you refer to the PF 2.0 Archive which, I just got in the mail today, you can look it up in the Mystics and Pseudo Science section. You will also need to know that the numbers 4 and 9 correspond to the colors white and black, which I could explain to you later.
Originally posted by Mentat
Is there, or is there not, a thread that addresses the difference between "infinity" and "limitlessness"? Who started this thread? Have you been able to present any proof against my arguments?
Originally posted by Loren Booda
What of paradox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of paradox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of nonparadox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of nonparadox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be nonparadox?
If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?
Originally posted by Loren Booda
What of paradox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of paradox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of nonparadox applied to paradox? Must they together still be paradox?
What of nonparadox applied to nonparadox? Must they together still be nonparadox?
If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?
If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox? Is it possible that what is a paradox for one person is a nonparadox for another, that in reality paradoxes are relative rather than absolute?
Paradox applied to paradox doesn't make a paradox, it makes two of them.
If the paradox in limited human perception and logic were the source of all [humanly] observed paradox, then an omniscient being (a paradox) would perceive our world as nonparadox?
If infinity is paradoxical, then a being that is all-knowing would seem paradoxical (to a limited, paradoxical being).5) Why is an omniscient being paradoxical?
If infinity is paradoxical, then a being that is all-knowing would seem paradoxical (to a limited, paradoxical being).
I had merely tried to develop a simple logic governing paradox. Synergy (see wuli) is one such example.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Broadly paradox refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true.
Some paradoxes have been shown to be relativistic, the theory of Relativity provides a pointed example. The constancy of the speed of light was considered a paradox until a rational explanation was discovered. In fact, even with a rational explanation of the phenomenon it is still a paradox by definition because it defies everyday observation. In other words, it is somehow true even if contrary to what we experience in our everyday lives. Of course, all paradoxes and indeed everything could ultimately be relativistic, but this remains an unproven assumption.
I'm sorry but this defies the principle of synergy and, thus, provides yet another paradox. Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possesses unique properties they do not have separately. If you can name two things that together do not display unique properties from when they are separate you will win a nobel prize.
Because any two things together display unique properties, we give them names. A box has six sides, each can be indistinguishable from the others, but when separated they do not constitute a box. Essentially then, the argument leads directly back to the central problem here of word play which you seem to enjoy so much Mentat.
People can define words however they want, but the need for such useful words as paradox remains. Unless you can address the need for the word paradox, redefining it will not change the fact that we still need a word to describe this thing.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Synergy and paradox are root metaphors which describe each other. The concept of paradox is a refutation of synergy and vice versa. Each is a useful metaphor for describing life, but the map is not the territory. :0)
Whoah, this has to be wrong. Synergy does not describe paradox, and paradox doesn't describe synergy. Also, paradox doesn't refute synergy, because a paradox is (according to logicians) a logical conclusion drawn from two [contradictory] propositions. Thus, paradoxes do make something new, out of two different things (and isn't that what you said Synergy was?).
Wu Li, I still think I'm right about the two paradoxes being two paradoxes. However, to honor the principle of Synergy, we'll say that paradox applied to paradox actually equals a metaparadox. Is that better?
What do you mean by "add one Quantum Indeterminate to another"?The essential statement of QM is that nature is fundamentally random and unpredictable. This is not the ordinary kind of randomness you get when bouncing a few ping pong balls around the room, it is much more profoundly random than that. So random that particles appear and disappear out of nowhere, jump through walls, and otherwise become incredibly and almost magically unpredictable.
Also, I still don't see how, just because synergy and paradox may be opposite sides of the coin, they are necessarily paradoxical, or how they in any way make reference to each other.
Both synergy and paradox are root metaphors, fundamental principles, and natural observations. Everything can either be described as synergistic or paradoxical. In fact, nothing has ever been proven to be just synergistic or just paradoxical. Even Quanta display both properties. Is it a particle or a wave, mass or energy, etc.? Well, it is evidently both.
Like the paradox of existence then, quanta appear to be somehow both rational and irrational. Obviously we do exist and existence is to a great extent very rational and orderly, but by that same token it makes no sense whatsoever. Every possible attempted explanation of existence leads to paradox and, as with quanta again, a great deal of existence appears to be paradoxical. To say that nature and existence both make sense and do not make sense is a paradox.
Again, I have to ask, is this thread about applying logistic paradox (conclusions based on self-contradictory propositions) to existence, or about the unexplainable nature of existence?
How many times do I have to say it, paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true. I'm discussing all of these definitions which all more or less fall under the category of the irrational. You could also say they all fall under the category of the indeterminate or inexplicable, but perhaps irrational is best for this discussion. It covers all the bases including that of logicians definition of paradox as self-referential and self-contradictory.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, the failure to explain something is not proof that an explanation does not exist.
Calm ! Calm Wu Li ! Calm boy !Originally posted by wuliheron
I couldn't care less!
Originally posted by wuliheron
I don't know how many times I have repeat myself before you listen to what I'm saying instead of interpreting what I say.
Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it appears to be paradoxical. There is no evidence that it really is paradoxical not to mention that whether or not it really is paradoxical:
I couldn't care less!
It makes no difference in my life whatsoever. For the sake of argument let's say scientists prove tomorrow that existence is infinite. So what, who cares! I'm still going to do what I do. Let's say instead they prove everything is utterly random and meaningless. Again, so what! Who cares! What possible difference can it make unless you are attached to some particular vision of life or biased against the irrational.
There are no real - absolute factsOriginally posted by Mentat
And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.
And btw, "demonstrably" paradoxical doesn't meant that it "appears to be paradoxical". It means that it can be demonstrated (= verified) that it is paradoxical. And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.