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

The PoE (my version)

  1. Mar 19, 2003 #1

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    The Paradox of Existence :
    (Brought to you in drag's version with
    multiple credits involved in the definition
    evolution proccess.
    All rights reserved ! :wink: )

    " A system by defintion is something that
    has a minimum of two or more components.
    A reasoning system by defintion is applied to
    systems.
    A singular "thing" is paradoxical - unexplainable, since
    no reasoning system can be applied to singularity
    (NOT a BH center meant here. :wink: ).
    Hence, if the Universe were singular it would be
    paradoxical. However, that is of course an unreal
    claim because any fact - anything we think/
    feel/whatever is sufficient to denounce total singularity.
    Hence, the Universe - ALL exitence IS a system.

    Now, ANY system has certain rules = a reasoning system.
    The TOTAL lack of a reasoning system is called TOTAL
    CHAOS. Total Chaos is an impossibility because
    by definition a system has 2+ components and
    it is always possible to make a pattern between
    even 2 components.

    In conclusion, the Universe is a system and some
    reasoning system - rules apply to it.
    Now, for example : math, chess, backgammon or
    any other system has rules. However, the rules
    of the system can NEVER explain the EXISTENCE
    of the WHOLE system. We can, for the above systems,
    because for us they are just components in
    a larger system.
    However, the Universe = ALL existence is the ultimate
    system and hence by definition - there is nothing
    "beyond" it.
    Final Conclusion :
    The existence of the Universe can not EVER in ANY WAY
    be explained - a REAL paradox of existence. "

    If ANYONE can see a problem OR doesn't understand
    the above definition - SPEAK UP, PLEASE ! :wink:
    If you simply disagree WITHOUT ANY REASON -
    you should go to church or somethin' ! :smile:

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 19, 2003 #2
    How about God?

    Would it be a paradox if we understood there was Creator? It wouldn't be a paradox to Him would it?
     
  4. Mar 19, 2003 #3

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: How about God?

    Greetings !
    A creator is really the same thing - we still
    have a paradox - an unexplainable. God, however,
    requires additional baseless assumptions added
    to my defintion above with no reason whatsoever,
    because a paradox by definition = the unexplainable.
    So, I DO NOT (becuase I CAN NOT) deny God.
    I simply think it's an unneccassary assumption.

    In my opinion (and as I repeatedly said on PF2),
    God is the "human-friendly" version of the paradox
    of existence which "serves" it to the "layperson"
    in a nice decorated "plate" so he doesn't have
    to think too much about it. God provides this
    otherwise possibly (to some) psychologicly frightning
    and "faceless" paradox with a "human-friendly version"
    = the "good old" God who means well and who
    has SPECIALY created HUMANS to be the smartest
    and most capable creatures.
    (No offense, but - get a grip people ! Why not flying pink ellephants for that matter ? :smile: )

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2003
  5. Mar 19, 2003 #4
    Nice try Drag, but I think it needs a lot of work. I've spent the better part of thirty years working on this subject and, believe me, it ain't easy. People have been going over this since the cave man days.

    A paradox is not simply a mystery or ignorance. The more profound paradoxes such as the paradox of existence do not merely defy common sense and everyday experience, but are self-referential and self-contradictory. The liar's paradox is the most famous of these among logicians:

    "Everything I say is a lie."

    Existence is paradoxical because every proposed explanation can be demonstrated to led to a self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. This constitutes not only rational philosophical evidence, but emperical evidence. In the case of your explanation it does not even touch on this simple fact of life, but instead, summarilly denies existence is paradoxical with only the slightest logical and emperical evidence to support it.

    Its a bit along the lines of saying everyone I've ever met likes hamburgers, thus vegitarians must eat hamburgers. Yeah, sure nature is orderly and possesses synergy or systems as you refer to them, but that does not prove existence itself is rational. Nor for that matter, does it
    the emperical evidence that existence is paradoxical.
     
  6. Mar 19, 2003 #5
    This is only true to the extent that you use God "in theory." But, to the extent that you "know" He exists, then it's not true.

    Are you saying you believe in God for the sake of theory, but not in reality?

    EDIT: Added more in red letters.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2003
  7. Mar 19, 2003 #6

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In the above quote you explain a paradox as that which defies explanation. But then you seem to go on and attribute paradox-ness to reality itself (rather than explainability) by saying, "Hence, if the Universe were singular it would be paradoxical."

    My major objection to Wuli's hypothesis has always been that I don't see existence as paradoxical; rather, paradox is merely a bit of confusion mentality gets stuck in when confronted with two facts about reality which appear to contradict each other. Almost everything that has appeared that way has been resolved, so I think those things that still appear so will eventually be understood as well.

    I dispute that one cannot feel something singular. But, that is another discussion.



    There it is again. Is paradox a thing of the mind, or is it existence? To me, if existence is paradoxical, then existence is unstable. But as someone pointed out in another thread, the nature of existence is such that it cannot not exist, so I don't see how existence gets more stable than that.

    Paradox is therefore nothing but a mental dilemma, which is made worse when we project our confusion onto existence. Reality is the way it is, whether or not we can accept or understand it. I mean, don't you agree that if someone can't "possibly imagine relativity," that doesn't make relativity itself a paradox? The paradox is in the mind, not in existence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2003
  8. Mar 19, 2003 #7

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    You should lay-off drugs, they can really mess-up
    your brain functions... :wink: NO OFFENSE !
    I am presenting an argument and definition FOR
    the PoE (if you hadn't noticed :wink:).
    (Could it be that you're a bit carried away with all
    those arguing against you, that you forgot who's on
    YOUR side - on this subject.)
    The fact that you can lead any explanation to such
    a result is NOT a PROOF of that fact.
    I'm trying to provide an argument that PROVES
    the PoE as an absolute real paradox and defines
    it too. (So far, I think my argument is perfect.)


    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  9. Mar 19, 2003 #8
    Liar's paradox

    On the one hand you have Truth, which is derived from Good, on the other hand you have Falsity (the lie), which is derived from Evil. And there it is, the contrast between good and evil. I see no paradox in this!
     
  10. Mar 19, 2003 #9

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    I don't follow your first 2 sentances.
    As for you question :
    I do not believe in God and I tend to try to believe
    in nothing whatsoever (which is practicly impossible,
    of course). But, what I AM saying is that I, in the
    context of the PoE, can not deny God because there
    is NO REASON in a paradox and hence you can
    ASSUME ANYTHING including God (or pink flying ellephants).

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  11. Mar 19, 2003 #10

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

    Greetings LW Sleeth !

    Some real arguments finally ! :smile:
    (No offense to anyone !)

    I'm not sure that I follow this argument...
    What do you mean by "...attribute...to reality itself..." ?
    "Two facts..." ?
    I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not talking
    about emotions or unity with the mind or something.
    All I'm saying is that the observation of ANYTHING
    by us is sufficient to denounce existence as
    a singularity. (No matter how that observation happens
    and what is it's nature.)
    Please, explain ! (unstable/stable ? existence can not exist ?)
    Reality is the way it is, indeed. I'm just trying to find
    out - Which way is it ?

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  12. Mar 19, 2003 #11
    No drugs, just a brain on hyperdrive. A brain that tells me I want strong allies and muscle resistence is the only way to build muscles.

    How do you think it proves anything? Sorry, but all you can do is demonstrate paradox. It just can't be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proving a genuine paradox is like proving something is genuinely irrational and that just can't be done anymore than you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is rational. Look what happened to Newtonian Mechanics when Quantum Mechanics was invented.
     
  13. Mar 19, 2003 #12
    If you can't acknowledge God as real, then how can you acknowledge God "in context" with anything else?
     
  14. Mar 19, 2003 #13

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings Wu Li !

    Aah... A Challenge for me ! :smile:
    The difference is rather simple. QM, NM or
    whatever deal with the components of the
    Universe, which are probabalistic. I'm dealing
    with the ENTIRE Universe = ABSOLUTE existence
    that is undoubtful in any way. So, I CAN make
    absolute arguments IF they deal with absolute
    things.

    The relevant question here, in my opinion, is - WHY
    do you think my argument is inadequate ?
    If you do not answer such a question then
    you're being as evasive as the many people who
    reject the PoE and yet produce no real argument
    to back up their opinion and no solutions either.

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  15. Mar 19, 2003 #14

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

    I don't know why but your answer made me laugh (maybe you can explain that to me!). Anyway, let me try to clarify my ideas.

    Let's take the two elements of your hypothesis and contrast them. They are: explaining existence and existence itself. This is like the difference between an idea of a tree, and the objective reality of a tree. An explanation is an "idea" thing because it is dependent on thinking; but apart from our ideas and explanations of existence is the actual objective reality of existence.

    So when you made your argument you attributed paradox to both aspects. You said because we cannot explain existence, existence is paradoxical. But I countered by pointing out that all you seem to really prove is that the processes of explanation are paradoxical (in regard to existence), and therefore paradox is a thing of the mind, and not actual existence itself.

    To answer your question of two apparent paradoxical aspects of reality that have been resolved, I might offer the wave and particle nature of EM. It seems a perfect example because researchers couldn't imagine that both were true . . . in their minds they had pre-concepts that EM had to be either a wave or a particle. So it was their preconceptions that created the appearance of a paradox in objective reality, while reality itself was functioning perfectly unparadoxically.

    Does that make sense?
     
  16. Mar 19, 2003 #15
    Ahhhh, that clarifies things a bit.

    Efforts such as String theory are attempting to do something similar to this, but they are not trying to provide absolute proof for the simple reason that the only proof that seems possible is statistical again, just like Quantum Mechanics.

    Essentially they are attempting to create a paradoxical theory which can be interpreted in several distinct ways, possibly as many as twenty ways but here is the short list:

    Synergistic
    Infinite
    Continuum
    Ineffable

    Like a paradoxical poem, the theory would over all not make rational sense, when viewed from each of these distinct perspectives or contexts it would describe nature.

    Each distinctive interpretation of a paradoxical theory of existence is likely to possess unique strengths and weaknesses depending upon the particular application and context. For example, from the basic interpretation of Continuum I mentioned, such a theory might provide invaluable insight into the degree of influence of the observer on measurements, but with little or no direct physical application other than determining how best to go about pragmatically verifying the influence of the observer on experiments and vice versa. The opposite might be true for the Synergistic interpretation, which could conceivably provide numerous physical applications with little or no indication of how much an observer affects experimental results. Interpreted as Infinity (i.e. a self-perpetuating hermaphroditic Mother Nature if you will) such a TOE might offer unique and sweeping insights into the organizational hierarchy of the forces and laws of nature but with limited obvious use in distinctive contexts or situations. And, last but not least, viewed from the most paradoxical perspective of all a TOE could afford some individuals spiritual enlightenment, or, at least humor or artistic appreciation, while defying attempts at physical analysis.
     
  17. Mar 19, 2003 #16

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

    Greetings LW Sleeth !

    I'm not sure of the reason either, however, it is
    great because laughing is fun and healthy ! :wink:
    First of all, I'm glad over your choice of words
    when you said - "you seem to really prove".
    Second, when I'm talking about the real PoE I mean
    that the fact is that the Universe exists and no
    reason and explanation can be applied to it - a total
    violation of any reason - of everything.
    It's not something I can cook for dinner and
    put on a plate. :wink: Indeed, it is in the mind.

    It is possible that there was a REAL
    manifistation of the PoE IF time is not infinite.
    Of course, there is no absolute way to prove
    it even if this was the case(because different
    reasoning systems can still apply to the situation).
    Either way, we can still recognize the PoE as a
    concept that's backed-up by absolute reasoning.

    On this aspect, you seem to be making the
    same point as Wu Li (though a bit more clearly -
    possibly a matter of definition taste of course -
    no offense Wu Li :wink:) - "there is no absolute
    reasoning or at least none that we can prove".
    I'm not sure about this, I'll consider it and see
    what I can come up with...
    Certainly. Like I said, I'll consider this.
    It may be that I was wrong...
    Then again, if justifaibly I agree with you then
    it's better for me, after all.
    Thanks.

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
  18. Mar 19, 2003 #17

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)


    I think you might agree that no reason or explanation WE are capable of can be applied to existence (as of now, at least), but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing can explain it.

    After having said that, I want to disagree with myself and say that although I cannot prove it, I don't believe any explanation will ever account for existence. I can't remember if it was you who quoted Godel's theorem (or the logical consequence of it) that states no formal and consistent system of logic exists from which all logical truths can be deduced. In a common sense way, I think that says reason is a calculating process which can only represent the parts (and their relationships) of the whole, but never the whole itself.

    I do, however, believe one might experience the basis of existence and so acquire some intuitive sense of it. To me it's like trying to give another person the meaning of love through explanations versus guiding him toward the experience of love, which instantly demonstrates to its subjects what love is (whether one understands it or not). Mind generates facsimiles . . . experience yields knowledge.
     
  19. Mar 20, 2003 #18
    Your very premise seems flawed.

    Drag, you completely confused "paradox" for "misunderstanding", and from then on, your reasoning was based on a flawed premise.
     
  20. Mar 20, 2003 #19

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Your very premise seems flawed.

    I don't want to put words in Drag's mouth, but what if it is true that all paradoxes are merely mis-, or lack of, understanding? That is, situations only appear paradoxical to our confused mind.

    In a discussion we were having at the last site, we talked about the difference between the objective and subjective. The objective, we said, is separate from our beliefs and understanding about it; and since the objective is all that exists, that is what defines existence. So it might be that all objective existence is perfectly consistent and therefore unparadoxical; rather, it is our minds that get twisted by looking at reality with preconceptions about how it is "supposed" to work, and when it doesn't we say "PARADOX!!!!!!!!"
     
  21. Mar 21, 2003 #20

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    I thought about it. You're right LW Sleeth, it is
    impossible to produce an absolute argument,
    indeed. At first, my assumption was that since
    existence itself is absolute - I can connect
    absolute arguments with it and show how
    it is paradoxical, amongst other things.
    However, it is clear to me now that a deeper
    contemplation about the neccessary validity
    of such arguments reveals a lacking of the ability
    to prove such absoluteness, with the absoluteness
    of existence itself not really being a factor in such
    a proof.

    BUT, what I'd like to point out is that my argument -
    partially because it is so(for now) seemingly
    independent from the particular properties of the
    Universe and since it is seemingly so short and
    basic - produces probably one of the most
    powerful arguments ever formalized for anything
    at all. Further more, there exists a possibility of
    forming multiple other arguments (although, mine
    appears to me like the best of which I'm aware
    of so far), about the PoE, each of which was also
    true throughout the ENTIRE human history including
    the present day.

    So, it would be neccessary for any new claim
    that "might" discredit the above explanation,
    to also provide an alternative solution to existence
    that will solve ALL of the apparent paradoxes,
    at once. Otherwise, even discrediting one
    apparent explanation/definition is completely
    insufficient to cancel out the PoE.

    In conclusion, it would appear that it is very
    unreasonable, to say the least, not to accept the
    PoE, despite it's probabalistic rather than absolute
    nature. It appears to be based upon the most
    CERTAIN claims in human history. A lot more than
    any scientific theory so far.

    "Does dice play God ?"

    Live long and prosper.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The PoE (my version)
  1. Poe's Eureka? (Replies: 1)

  2. Which song version? (Replies: 2)

Loading...