What is the Paradox of Existence?

[Iacchus32]

Thunder Thighs

If everything in the Universe has a cause and effect, meaning everything has a beginning and an end, then the Universe must be paradoxical, because Who was there to trip the "first domino?" Of course I believe in the big-bang theory myself, but that would imply God had a Mistress? ... And the whole idea was conceived in "the moment" ... Hey Zeus!

Yep, Good Ol' "Thunder Thighs" ...

By the way, did you know that Nyssa, Oregon was the Thunder Egg Capital of the world and, that Dionysus, the only begotten son of Zeus -- born of Zeus' thigh -- was brought up on Mount Nysa? How strange? ... Whereas Nyssa (with two n's) lies directly on the border between Oregon and Idaho. And guess what? Zeus was brought up on Mt Ida! ... Whoa dude!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#nyssa

 

[Iacchus32]

Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possesses unique properties they do not have separately. Yin and Yang is likewise a principle and natural observation, albeit a historically Asian one that acknowledges the paradox of existence. The complementary opposites of Yin and Yang extend beyond synergy unifying its disparate elements in singularity. In harmony, dissonance, and static equilibrium synergy and singularity comprise rudimentary complementary opposites of Yin and Yang.

Actually it's not confusing at all, i.e., once you get pass the words. But after looking up one or two in the dictionary, I can see it all fits, and that it's correct. Whereas I think the one key word might be "equilibrium."

It also seems to imply a sense of cadence, by which everything is "set in motion."

 

[wuliheron]

The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.

It resembles the theory of inflation in that it refers back to singularity. Whether or not a singularity is a cadance is debatable. Some say there are three types of Taoist beliefs on this. Energetic Taoism as its called proposes change is the only constant, but they have the weakest arguments.

Personally, I try not to try and interpret the meaning of paradox or the origin of life, the universe, and everything, and just accept what is.

 

[Iacchus32]

The number 479

Originally posted by wuliheron:
The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.

Here the first three correspond to dimensions one, two and three, which then gives rise to form (i.e., an equilateral triangle), which then gives rise to a myriad of forms or, ten thousand forms. Hmm... this is the third time (hey!) the number 10,000 has come up today (and now this would be the fourth).

All of which brings up the numbers 432 and 479 which, correspond to the Dennis (my name, which comes from Dionysus by the way), and is what brought me to Physics Forums in the first place (on Feburary 17th, 2003). Whereas I went into more detail with this and posted the thread "Mystical number 479" under Mystics and Pseudo Science in PF 2.0. While you may also want to click on the link - http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html - which talks about how I discovered the relationship between the number 479 and my name.

And so from a previous thread on PF 2.0:

Originally posted by Iacchus32:

... If symbol doesn't show up, please http://www.dionysus.org/479.gif"

By the way, if you were to take 10 pennys (or coins of equal diameter) and arrange them to form a pyramid (equilateral triangle), you would get four tiers. The first or "base tier" would contain four pennys, the second tier would contain three pennys, the third tier would contain two pennys, and the fourth tier would contain one penny. Perhaps this is what gives rise to the decimal system? (i.e., it can only be done with an equilateral triangle and ten circles of the same diameter).

While it's also interesting that when adding the first three tiers: 4 + 3 + 2 -- and hence the number 432 -- you get the base tier (4), plus 3, the second tier (7), plus 2, the third tier (9); in other words, the numbers 4, 7 and 9 plotted between the numbers 1-10: 123(4)56(7)8(9)10. In this way you can see how the numbers 432 (quantity) and 479 (versus coordinates) are integral to an equilateral triangle and, to the decimal system.

As for the number 479, I don't know of any ancient references to it but, there is an obvious correlation to the number 432 and, to the number 10. Now as for the number 432, well that's another story. This was a favorite number of Joseph Campbell's, which he said went back a long ways and was used to describe the "rythm of the universe." In fact I'm sure if you were to look up Joseph Campbell and the number 432 on the Internet you could find numerous references. If not, there are plenty of references in his book: "The Masks of God - Oriental Mythology."

Oh, there's one thing about Joseph Campbell's name, "Joseph," which comes from Joseph, the patriarch and 11th son of Jacob (i.e., bible reference). And so brings up chapter 11 of the book of Revelation, which refers to the "Two Witnesses" and calls them the "Two Candelsticks." See how easily it is to construe the two candelsticks with the number 11? So it would seem somebody intentionally did this a long time ago? And, as everything in this universe has a left side and a right side (we all see and hear in stereo, and have a left brain and a right brain, and a left hand and a right hand, etc.), then the number eleven can really only suggest one thing, the coming together of the left and the right as "a whole" (completion).

Thus as I refer to in my page at http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html, the number 11 is the number of symmetry (balance) and, of validation (10 + 01 = 11). Hey, isn't it curious how well this fits in with the symbol above? which, I like to refer to as "The Winepress." And of course the number 11 appears twice within the configuration, suggesting to me the number 22 (20 + 02 = 22). Hmmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that there are 22 chapters in the book of Revelation? Who knows? ...

 

[wuliheron]

Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Taoist story of genesis is simple,

From the one came the two,
From the two came the three,
From the three came the
Tenthousand things.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

Okay fine ... I was just wondering if you understood the relationship bewteen an equilateral triangle and the decimal system, and that if this is what was meant?

 

[wuliheron]

There are a number of different interpretations of the Taoist account of genesis, but I've never heard that proposed as one. Note that this account of genesis is not structurally different from the principle of yin yang itself except that it proposes a sequence of events. It comes from the Tao Te Ching, a highly paradoxical document, and could be interpreted any number of ways. I don't believe such vagueness was accidental. :0)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Newton's Mechanics assumed a perfectly non-paradoxical premise, but he was evidently wrong.

As I already showed with Eh's argument that existence just IS, this is not a rational argument. It is meaningless rhetorical nonsense that is equivalent to saying the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is dill pickles. Asians often use the analogy that life has Suchness and Isness, but they don't pretend to claim this is a rational argument or explanation.

It is a perfectly rational argument. If there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was no existence, "before" Big Bang. And thus, existence started, but was not necessarily caused by anything.

And, again, if you keep insisting infinity is rational I shall just have to do the old cut and paste routine:

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

You have just quoted somebody's opinion, not proof. Why should I accept somebody else's opinion any quicker than I accept your, I have a lot of respect for you - and your wisdom, I just don't agree with you on this topic.

 

[wuliheron]

It is a perfectly rational argument. If there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was no existence, "before" Big Bang. And thus, existence started, but was not necessarily caused by anything.

Eh is very much aware of the word "infinity" which he never used. You, however, keep making this same unsupported statement. Again I shall resort to cut and paste.

As long as you are determined to Keep restating over and over again that the universe is infinite I will keep using this cut and paste response. This is not my opinion, but a historical and scientific fact. Your continuing to post this nonsensical response is against the forum rules on harassment, unscholarly, and uncivil to say the least.

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of the entire history of both eastern and western philosophy, mathematics, and science and is brazenly irrational in its own rite to continuously assert. You might as well start arguing pigs have wings. As far as I'm concerned such drek should be kept on the mysticism bulletin board. [/B]

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.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

Obviously your words don't apply to every discussion I have about paradox.

Mentat has read my original post in this thread which goes into detail, even if you have not.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Mentat has read my original post in this thread which goes into detail, even if you have not. [/B]

Then why not cut and paste the relevant points? Why only cut and paste the insulting piece with no information content?

 

[Mentat]

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.

I rarely leave an argument undecided, just because of someone else's closed-mindedness, but I may have to this time.

Wu Li, I mean no disrespect to you, but I don't think that posting someone else's unsupported opinion (unsupported by facts, that is) strengthens your case in the slightest - if anything, it weakens it. I tell you my opinion, and I show you why "limitlessness" and "infinity" are not the same thing (on numerous threads)[/b], I'd have to conclude that my arguments are much more sound.

 

[wuliheron]

Then why not cut and paste the relevant points? Why only cut and paste the insulting piece with no information content?

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

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?

 

[Iacchus32]

479 - Yin and Yang

Originally posted by wuliheron
Please stay on topic. The topic of this discussion is the paradox of existence, not numerology.

Actually this thing I've done with the numbers does portray the "clash of opposites" (Yin 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.

Thanks.

 

[Fliption]

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]

LOL. Man you need help. Seriously.

I have not told you that you were wrong. Most of the time we have semantic problems. I'm sorry but no website on mathematical absurdities is going to pull you out of the fact that if we aren't speaking the same language then we will never understand one another. But the last post was the most hilarious and insane yet. Keep them coming lol.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

That's interesting, but I still want to stick primarilly to the subject at hand. Please don't get too side tracked with analogies that may confuse the issues. :0)

 

[Mentat]

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?

Well?

 

[Mentat]

As I've told lifegazer, many times before, if I don't get a response I assume that means that you don't have one, and that I was right. I don't mean to irritate you in any way, but I will "declare victory" if my argument (presented in this thread) is not proven wrong.

 

[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?

 

[Mentat]

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?

As I have said numerous times, in response to your posts... say WHAT?

 

[Mentat]

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?

I'll be reasonable, and try my best to answer the parts that I understand (btw, I will answer your questions in the order of your having asked them, but will indicate when I have skipped one):

1) Paradox applied to paradox doesn't make a paradox, it makes two of them.

2) Together, they are one paradox (the paradox of explaining an otherwise nonparadoxical concept, in a paradoxical manner).

3) No. If you apply non-paradoxical reasoning to a paradox, you still get non-paradoxical reasoning (it makes no difference what the topic is that you apply non-paradoxical reasoning to, you yeild non-paradoxical reasoning).

4) Yes, for the aforementioned reason.

5) Why is an omniscient being paradoxical?

6) No, something is self-contradictory, or it is not.

Hey, I guess it wasn't that incomprehensible! I just needed to try harder to understand what you were asking.

 

[wuliheron]

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?

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.

Paradox applied to paradox doesn't make a paradox, it makes two of them.

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.

 

[Loren Booda]

Loren

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?

Mentat

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.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

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)

 

[Mentat]

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.

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?

 

[Mentat]

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?).

 

[wuliheron]

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?).

Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possesses unique properties they do not have separately. Paradox, as I have also aready explained, includes the irrational and unpredictable which violate this principle. Quantum Indetermancy is an example of the irrational and unpredictable.

Both principles then are complimentary opposites which define each other and contradict each other in the same breath, just as the concepts of "up" and "down" do. Without a recognition and definition of synergy the term rational has no meaning and without the irrational the rational and synergistic has no meaning or context. In other words, they form yet another paradox. Something that appears to be true and, yet, contradictory and irrational at the same time.

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?

Add one quantum indetermancy to another and what do you get? Indeterminate. Sometimes the results are synergistic and at other times you get nothing more than what you put into it. Thus paradox contradicts the principle of synergy just as the existence of synergy contradicts paradox. All you can say is its a paradox. You could call it a metaparadox, but other than being the result of two paradoxes combined it displays no unique properties to distinguish it. Therefore giving it a nother name is redundant and possibly misleading.

 

[Mentat]

What do you mean by "add one Quantum Indeterminate to another"?

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.

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?

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[Mentat]

But existence is not necessarily irrational, just because the attempts to explain it have resulted in irrationalities (in your opinion).

 

[wuliheron]

Exactly, the failure to explain something is not proof that an explanation does not exist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, the failure to explain something is not proof that an explanation does not exist.

So why do you conclude that existence is paradoxical, just on the basis that it has not been understood yet.

 

[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.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I couldn't care less!

Calm ! Calm Wu Li ! Calm boy !
We're all on the same side here...

 

[wuliheron]

LOL, I am calm. I'm just running in circles screaming and shouting, but not because I'm in trouble or doubt. Some people just demand you shout sometimes or they don't take you seriously, as you have just demonstrated so well.

My first job as a kid was washing dishes in a Greek resturant. It took a while getting used to owners screaming and shouting all the time, but after awhile it became clear where they were coming from. They were real sweathearts who treated their employees like family, but in their family screaming and shouting was how you got the message across that something was important.

 

[Mentat]

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.

And I couldn't care less about whether you believe in the paradox of existence or not. This thread is not about your belief. I'm disproving the supposed paradox itself.

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.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
And something that can be demonstrated/verified is a fact.

There are no real - absolute facts
except for existence. All else is either
likely or unlikely for you at some time.
Read my final conclusion in my PoE thread.
The many ways in which we can "reach" the
PoE do not yet make it absolute like I
assumed earlier, because we can not
cancel out absolutely the option that a
solution to all these ways can be found, but
they certainly make the PoE the most certain
probabalistic "fact" that we know.

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

Sorry, but looking out my window the Earth looks flat. That doesn't mean it is a fact that the Earth is flat. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, but at the same time it shows signs of being rational as well. Without a way to prove or disprove it either way all we can do is accept the evidence of our eyes until proven otherwise, but that doesn't mean we have to assume it is a "fact".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but looking out my window the Earth looks flat. That doesn't mean it is a fact that the Earth is flat. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, but at the same time it shows signs of being rational as well. Without a way to prove or disprove it either way all we can do is accept the evidence of our eyes until proven otherwise, but that doesn't mean we have to assume it is a "fact".

And the Earth is not demonstrably flat, it merely appears to be so.

Anyway, if all you are saying is that people have yet to figure out what to make of existence, then I have misjudged the thread.

 

[wuliheron]

And the Earth is not demonstrably flat, it merely appears to be so.

The Earth is demonstrably flat to a certain extent. Enough of an extent that people widely assumed it was flat for eons. Today we can demonstrate that this is merely an effect of scale, but you can still demonstrate that it appears flat as well.

Anyway, if all you are saying is that people have yet to figure out what to make of existence, then I have misjudged the thread.

I'm saying it may not even have a rational explanation, at least not one we can understand. Unlike the flat earth, perceiving any meaning or order or origin of existence may just be beyond our ability to comprehend much less perceive. This also means that ultimately everything science investigates may prove incomprehensible. Eventually each science in turn may find itself doing a bit of navel gazing without making any further progress in certain areas.

In the case of Quantum Mechanics and other areas the most useful thing to do in the meantime has turned out to be revising Aristotlian logic and studying the subject of paradox on its own more qualitative, contextual, and allegorical level. None of these have proven to be easy tasks by any stretch of the imagination, but they have proven to be exceptionally fruitful.