What is the Paradox of Existence?

[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.