The PoE (my version)

  • Thread starter drag
  • Start date

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
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.
 
2,224
0
How about God?

Would it be a paradox if we understood there was Creator? It wouldn't be a paradox to Him would it?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Re: How about God?

Greetings !
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would it be a paradox if we understood there was Creator? It wouldn't be a paradox to Him would it?
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:
1,927
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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.
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:

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by drag
A singular "thing" is paradoxical - unexplainable, since
no reasoning system can be applied to singularity.
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.

Originally posted by drag
However, that is of course an unreal claim because any fact - anything we think/feel/whatever is sufficient to denounce total singularity.[/b]
I dispute that one cannot feel something singular. But, that is another discussion.


Originally posted by drag
The existence of the Universe can not EVER in ANY WAY
be explained - a REAL paradox of existence.

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:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
...but instead, summarilly denies existence is paradoxical...
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.)
Originally posted by wuliheron
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.
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.
 
2,224
0
Liar's paradox

"Everything I say is a lie."
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!
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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?
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.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

Greetings LW Sleeth !

Some real arguments finally ! :smile:
(No offense to anyone !)
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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."

I'm not sure that I follow this argument...
What do you mean by "...attribute...to reality itself..." ?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.
"Two facts..." ?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I dispute that one cannot feel something singular. But, that is another discussion.
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.)
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.
Please, explain ! (unstable/stable ? existence can not exist ?)
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.
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.
 
1,927
0
You should lay-off drugs, they can really mess-up
your brain functions... NO OFFENSE !
I am presenting an argument and definition FOR
the PoE (if you hadn't noticed ).
(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.)
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.

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.)
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.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by drag
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.
If you can't acknowledge God as real, then how can you acknowledge God "in context" with anything else?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings Wu Li !
Originally posted by wuliheron
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.

Aah... A Challenge for me ! :smile:
Originally posted by wuliheron
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.
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.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure that I follow this argument... What do you mean by "...attribute...to reality itself..." ?. . . 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 ?
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?
 
1,927
0
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 ?"
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.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

Greetings LW Sleeth !
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't know why but your answer made me laugh (maybe you can explain that to me!).

I'm not sure of the reason either, however, it is
great because laughing is fun and healthy ! :wink:
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.
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...
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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?
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.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The PoE (my version)

Originally posted by drag
. . . 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.

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.
 
3,754
2
Your very premise seems flawed.

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

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Re: Your very premise seems flawed.

Originally posted by Mentat
Drag, you completely confused "paradox" for "misunderstanding", and from then on, your reasoning was based on a flawed premise.
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!!!!!!!!"
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
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.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Re: Your very premise seems flawed.

Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Drag, you completely confused "paradox" for "misunderstanding", and from then on, your reasoning was based on a flawed premise.
Hmm... :smile:
What would you call something that CAN NOT
be explained. :wink:
Because, that is EXACTLY what my argument (and
many others) are about. NOT SOMETHING that lacks
explanation. Rather, arguments about the LACK
of POSSIBILITY for ANY explanation AT ALL.
I'm sorry, but if you didn't see that part up until now,
you're in trouble... :wink:

"Does dice play God ?"

Live long and prosper.
 
3,754
2
Re: Re: Your very premise seems flawed.

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Hmm... :smile:
What would you call something that CAN NOT
be explained. :wink:
Because, that is EXACTLY what my argument (and
many others) are about. NOT SOMETHING that lacks
explanation. Rather, arguments about the LACK
of POSSIBILITY for ANY explanation AT ALL.
I'm sorry, but if you didn't see that part up until now,
you're in trouble... :wink:

"Does dice play God ?"

Live long and prosper.
I would call it unexplainable. "Paradox" means that it can be explained, but it's explanation requires contradictory premises.
 

Related Threads for: The PoE (my version)

  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Posted
2
Replies
31
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top