What is the Paradox of Existence?

[wuliheron]

"Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, or am I really a butterfly dreaming I am a man?"

Chuang Tzu

Grubs and butterflies aren't the only ones experiencing the paradox.

 

[Iacchus32]

But if the grub understood there was an "afterlife" (its life as a grub) maybe it wouldn't be a paradox?

 

[wuliheron]

Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.

Yes, but how can we as "finite creatures" grasp the concept of eternity if our "approach to eternity" (transcendence) wasn't part of "the plan?"

 

[wuliheron]

Yes, but how can we as "finite creatures" grasp the concept of eternity if our "approach to eternity" (transcendence) wasn't part of "the plan?"

Again, the finite implies the infinite and vice versa ad infinitum. Thus it is both possible and impossible for us to grasp. However, I have no clue what you mean by "the plan". Paradox is paradox and whether or not it constitutes a "plan" of some sort is something you will have to decide for yourself.

 

[Iacchus32]

Again, the finite implies the infinite and vice versa ad infinitum. Thus it is both possible and impossible for us to grasp. However, I have no clue what you mean by "the plan". Paradox is paradox and whether or not it constitutes a "plan" of some sort is something you will have to decide for yourself.

There's that which is temporary and that which is ongoing, which doesn't necessarily imply a paradox. So here we live in a "temporal world" as finite creatures, and yet if we were to pass on, only to discover that indeed there is an afterlife (where we live on Eternally -- which is what I mean by "the plan"), then where's the paradox? Therefore all we're speaking about is the difference between one phase and another ... i.e., that which "seems temporary" and that which transcends it.

 

[wuliheron]

Temporary is just another word for finite. Einstein's Relativity implies the past, present, and future all co-exist and the passage of time is merely an illusion. Furthermore, it also implies the universe is infinite but bounded. As a result the Buddhists and Hindus tend to love inventing theological arguments around Relativity and the Navaho nation sainted Einstein.

Time is one of the bigger mysteries in physics today.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron

If a cause is not an entity, what is it?

A cause is an event, and a thing performing an action could be considered an event. For example if there is a smashed plate all over the floor of your house, we can likely guess that YOU are the cause of it. But that is not entirely accurate, because the exact cause was the event of you dropping the plate on the floor. An entity that does nothing, cannot cause anything, relatively speaking.

For example, I am both an entity and a cause at all times and which you call me just depends upon context of the conversation. There are simply no examples in nature and no-thing I can conceive of where some thing is not also a cause and a cause is not also some thing.

I think that is missing the point, since the argument is that an uncaused being is not logically inconsistent. To sum it up...

When we say an entity was caused, we really mean the creation of the entity was caused by something else. As such, an entity without being created suffers from no logical contradiction.

It seems that the whole meaning of a "caused being" is the issue here. The above explanation works without contradiction or paradox, but perhaps you had a different definition in mind?

Again, to say some thing is the cause of existence but not a thing is a contradiction.

Yes, and I would say that existence cannot be caused, since that whatever cause would necessarily exist as well. I'm just saying that a causeless existence (ie. universe, god, etc.) doe not suffer from contradictions.

Causes are either things, discrete entities, or they are nonsensical. To say some thing has no context is nonsensical and paradoxical.

I would agree that an entity in action is a cause, especially since you won't find anything at rest in this universe. It seems that "things" are forever in motion, causing all kinds of havoc. But the focus is on the meaning of an entity "causing" the existence of another entity.

 

[wuliheron]

A cause is an event, and a thing performing an action could be considered an event. For example if there is a smashed plate all over the floor of your house, we can likely guess that YOU are the cause of it. But that is not entirely accurate, because the exact cause was the event of you dropping the plate on the floor. An entity that does nothing, cannot cause anything, relatively speaking.

Ok, then what you are suggesting is that an event is not an existent and that existence is an event with no cause and no context? In other words, existence is nonexist?

This is just back to my original assertion that existence is demonstrably paradoxical. Whatever explanation you can put forward for existence, if logically followed through, leads to paradox.

I would agree that an entity in action is a cause, especially since you won't find anything at rest in this universe. It seems that "things" are forever in motion, causing all kinds of havoc. But the focus is on the meaning of an entity "causing" the existence of another entity.

As I have already pointed out, the theory of Relativity implies another scenario altogether of a static and unchanging universe. Thus the paradox is preserved. On the one hand things seem to change and on the other the way they change implies they don't really change.

Again, context makes more sense of these confusing facts. Specifically, the context of paradox. As I pointed out in another thread, ya'll just don't get it. Paradox is the slipperiest "thing" or whatever it is or isn't. Try to disprove the existence of paradox and you end up proving it. Try to ignore it and it comes right back to haunt you. All you can do is accept paradox.

This is something Asians tend to know so well, but the west has made a great deal of progress in the sciences by denying the validity of paradox so that has become the western tradition. With the advent of QM and Relativity, however, paradox is once again commanding more respect in the west.

 

[wuliheron]

Reviewing people's arguments on this subject I thought it might be helpful to place the subject in a historical context as well.

Zeno of elia was the first in the western philosophical tradition to point out that whatever explanation you could put forward for life, the universe, and everything could be demonstrated to ultimately be paradoxical. He himself argued the universe was unchanging, indivisible, indestructable, and eternal. In other words, strikingly similar to Einstein's spacetime continuum taken to the extreme.

As solid an argument as Zeno had, it was useless at the time. The Pythagoreans argued basically that the universe was organized symmetrically and harmoniously and, in the process, invented a great deal of the foundations of the mathematics still fundamental to physics today--much more useful. Plato took this theory and made a very pretty ethical philosophy of it that is possibly still the most popular in the world today, but his student

Aristotle took it and ran with it full tilt, organizing the sciences into a useful endevour. In the process of doing this, he outright banned the use of infinities and other paradoxical concepts and began the western tradition of treating paradoxes as axiomatically wrong.

Caught in the middle of all this was poor Democritus, the first Atomist. He argued that existence was random in much the same fashion as Quantum Mechanics proposes today. First Zeno pointed out the inherent paradox of Democritus' theory and when Plato became popular and powerful among the Romans, he summarilly had all of Democritus' books burned as "ugly and demeaning." When the early Christians then burned down the library of Alexandria all but a few of the seventy books Democritus had written were lost forever.

For the next millennia western philosophy largely ignored paradox and if it were not for the Arabs preserving much of the ancient Greek's works like Zeno's paradoxes we might not even know what these philosophies were about. With the advent of Newtonian Mechanics and calculus, the returning of the west's attention to paradox became inevitable.

Newton had succeeded in doing what was thought to be impossible. He had incorporated paradoxical infinities into his mathematics despite Aristotle's banishment of them, incorporated an etherial vision of space and time that defied mechanistic interpretation, and incorporated the dreded magical action-at-a-distance. If his theory were not so accurate and useful and he had not lived in England after Henry the Eigth had kicked out the Catholic church, he would have been killed.

The first serious challange put forward that demonstrated this changing trend was Spinoza's formalization of Pantheism. Leibnitz was so enraged by Spinoza's philosophy that he basically helped to drive the, literally, poor man to his death just as Plato had hounded poor Democritus. Spinoza's Pantheism was compatable with Newtonian Mechanics, but did not fit within the western scientific, philosophical, and religious traditions. Newton and Leibnitz were primarilly focused on creating a new and powerful scientific tradition that the church simply could not stamp out and Pantheistic theories threatened a huge fight with the Church. Thus Pantheism languished until Einstein expanded upon Newtonian Mechanics and the Catholic churches' strangle hold on western civilization was broken.

However, while western philosophers and scientists attempted to make sense of this turn of events the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics kept throwing monkey wrenches into every attempt to make sense of the situation. Einstein, of course, argued that QM was simply too irrational. Indeed, the irrational and paradoxical is exactly what QM is all about and, so, it is often referred to as an "incomplete" theory while this is seldom said about Relativity.

After a hundred years of QM many physicists and philosophers today are resigned to paradox once again. Whatever paradox is or isn't (if anything!) it has certainly turned out to be useful and impossible to deny forever.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Science is a method which neither accepts nor rejects anything. For that matter it doesn't eat, sleep, or die. What I said was:



Rewritten this can say "The method uses varifiable evidence that can be proven and disproven. Infinity does not fit into this category as one of this method's concepts."

Maybe you're drinking too much coffee or something. Mellow out dude.

This is still a flawed view of theoretical science (which is all science, nowadays).

I tried hard, but I didn't see any hostility - or any strong emotions - in my previous post, so I think you need to mellow out.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Eternity, as I pointed out in the original post, is a paradoxical concept. Whatever you might believe or rationally understand about existence always leads back to the paradox. Infinity implies no limits, Oneness implies the logical is the illogical, etc.

Infinity does not mean "no limits". I will continue to repeat this, as long as you continue to post that infinity is paradoxical. I have already shown - through rational/reasoning argument that, while it cannot be proven to exist, infinity is not a paradoxical concept.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ok, then what you are suggesting is that an event is not an existent and that existence is an event with no cause and no context? In other words, existence is nonexist?

Uhh, no. The universe is a thing without a cause. As I have already explained, this merely means the universe was not created from some prior event. I don't know where you get the idea that such a concept means existence is nonexistent.

Seriously, when someone says something was caused, do you interpret that to mean "the thing is a thing"? No, the creation of the thing is what is caused.

This is just back to my original assertion that existence is demonstrably paradoxical. Whatever explanation you can put forward for existence, if logically followed through, leads to paradox.

Be that as it may, the topic question of an uncaused being has not been shown to be paradoxical.

As I have already pointed out, the theory of Relativity implies another scenario altogether of a static and unchanging universe. Thus the paradox is preserved. On the one hand things seem to change and on the other the way they change implies they don't really change.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking the concept of a 4 dimensional space-time universe? Such a universe would be static and unchanging, and time would be an illusion. The 4th spatial dimension is what humans would interpret as time, but we would merely be incorrect in our assumption. Still, there does not seem to be a paradox here either.

Again, context makes more sense of these confusing facts. Specifically, the context of paradox. As I pointed out in another thread, ya'll just don't get it. Paradox is the slipperiest "thing" or whatever it is or isn't. Try to disprove the existence of paradox and you end up proving it. Try to ignore it and it comes right back to haunt you. All you can do is accept paradox.

That remains to be seen. Let's just make sure we're at least on the same page regarding an uncaused being.

Do you agree that when we say something is caused, we are talking about the creation of said entity? If not, what do you define it as?

 

[wuliheron]

The idea that infinity is not synonymous with limitless and is not paradoxical is wholly unsupported, flies in the face of two thousand years of history, and is brazenly irrational. 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.

The universe is a thing without a cause. As I have already explained, this merely means the universe was not created from some prior event. I don't know where you get the idea that such a concept means existence is nonexistent.

I'll give this one more try using as straightforward and untechnical a wording as I can.

If you are saying existence just is, without a cause, then your logic is not logic but mere rhetorical nonsense. You might as well say the meaning of life the universe and everything is pickles (I like dill myself and the number 42 just isn't appealing.) As such it does not constitute an explanation or even a description of existence.

It may not be paradoxical, but it is irrational and cannot be shown to be related to topic at hand except possibly as humor. Again, what matters is the context and in this context of the absurd it is boardering on being off topic. However, I really do appreciate your challanges, they really do help me clarify my arguments in such a way that just about anyone can understand them.

 

[Eh]

Fair enough. But no one has yet shown any logical contradiction with an existence that just is. I think the question "why does existence exist" is nonsense to begin with. It's like asking why is a frog a frog?

 

[drag]

See my thread, please.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yin and yang?

This is something Asians tend to know so well,[/color] but the west has made a great deal of progress in the sciences by denying the validity of paradox so that has become the western tradition. With the advent of QM and Relativity, however, paradox is once again commanding more respect in the west.

This is the yin and yang of it all right? Which speaks of the duality of things, which are opposite and yet inseperable and hence, the foundation for everything ... Is this what you mean by paradox?

Therefore, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and also, 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

And from the "one mind" we have fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites" ... regarding the fall from the Garden of Eden.

Where before the fall, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and afterwards, 1 + 1 = 2 (where we don't embrace the opposites a whole, but rather as singular and "seperate").

While I also understand Chinese culture, unlike Western culture, is not based upon the fall from the Garden of Eden, in fact with them it's as if it had never occurred?

 

[wuliheron]

Fair enough. But no one has yet shown any logical contradiction with an existence that just is. I think the question "why does existence exist" is nonsense to begin with. It's like asking why is a frog a frog?

As I keep reminding people, I couldn't care less whether existence really is a paradox or not. It makes no difference in my life whatsoever, whatever the answer might be. However, exploring this question has proven incredibly valuable for thousands of years. It is the basis of most philosophy and science today whether people recognize it as such or not.

If you'd like more details, send me a pm.

This is the yin and yang of it all right? Which speaks of the duality of things, which are opposite and yet inseperable ... and hence, the foundation for everything. Is this what you mean by paradox?

The chinese do have a sort of garden of eden myth, but instead of knowledge being the culpret it is civilization and all its bad habits. However, unlike the Christian myth of Armagedeon, Taoists tend to have utopian dreams of a future where civilization kicks most of its bad habits. In addition, synergy is central to both eastern and western thought and in yin yang is a bit more complex than you portray it. It is both singularity and synergy in utter paradox.

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.

If that isn't confusing enough, I've got more. :0)

 

[Mentat]

Wuliheron, how can existence be paradoxical, if we base it on a demonstrably non-paradoxical premise? Eh has already pointed out that it might just have no cause (which makes perfect, rational sense), and I have shown (in another thread, and in this one) that infinity is not paradoxical. These both work, as good premises, and resolve any possible "paradox of existence" (except, perhaps, Drag's version, which I deal with through different reasoning).

 

[wuliheron]

Wuliheron, how can existence be paradoxical, if we base it on a demonstrably non-paradoxical premise? Eh has already pointed out that it might just have no cause (which makes perfect, rational sense), and I have shown (in another thread, and in this one) that infinity is not paradoxical. These both work, as good premises, and resolve any possible "paradox of existence" (except, perhaps, Drag's version, which I deal with through different reasoning).

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.

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.

 

[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.