Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Universe
In summary: I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me.In summary, the reason I voted "yes" is because I believe that there is something paradoxical about the universe, even though we may never know for sure. I also believe that the mind or any rules created by it may not be capable of completely understanding concepts like infinity.
  • #36
If it is so obvious then why is Mentat asking the question? Are you sure you have the question right?

Nope, I just go with the literal interpretation. If it's wrong, whoever started the thread can clarify it.

I have no negative attitude about paradoxes. If I have a negative attitude about anything, it is aimed at people who are so closed minded that they will not listen to anything people are saying. Their only response is that they are somehow the only person who can see the light and everyone else is just biased or an idiot. All of these are cop-outs when used in a philosphy forum. As much as I have tried to keep you on track by explaining to you exactly why I disagree, you always seem to head for the tredges of name calling. So what is showing through (if anything) is frustration with ignorance.

Maybe your own ignorance.

So you're going to throw away all knowledge and lessons learned from less complex areas of science and base your entire philosophy on a relatively ill understood theory like QM? It's ok with me. It is your opinion. Yep you have a bunghole too. lol

Wrong, I do not base my philosophy Quantum Mechanics, its just one of the more dramatic examples. As usual, your bias is showing again in your attempting to put words in my mouth.

Real questions do not demand answers, make accusations, inflamatory statements, or personal attacks. Sarcastic questions based on negative attitudes do. And yours is becoming more obvious by the post. Please stop now.

You don't have to like me personally or agree with what I have to say, but dogging my posts and harassing me is out of line. You did it in the last forum and it looks like you are intent on it again here.

There is a great deal more evidence than just QM to support my views, which are based on a widely respected philosophy with a tremendous number of scientific and technological applications. It also happens to be the basis of how half the world thinks and to be angry and negative at how half the world thinks is a sad state of affairs.

Deny it all you want, it is older than civilization and has survived better critics than you. It will undoubtly survive longer than your outdated views as well.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
Ouch. I've been insulted yet again simply for disagreeing.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Maybe your own ignorance.
I will admit that I am ignorant of exactly what your view is. Since the topic is actually not very complex it is a bit frustrating that we have to pretend it is.



Wrong, I do not base my philosophy Quantum Mechanics, its just one of the more dramatic examples. As usual, your bias is showing again in your attempting to put words in my mouth.

Real questions do not demand answers, make accusations, inflamatory statements, or personal attacks. Sarcastic questions based on negative attitudes do. And yours is becoming more obvious by the post. Please stop now.

You don't have to like me personally or agree with what I have to say, but dogging my posts and harassing me is out of line. You did it in the last forum and it looks like you are intent on it again here.

There is a great deal more evidence than just QM to support my views, which are based on a widely respected philosophy with a tremendous number of scientific and technological applications. Deny it all you want, it is older than civilization and has survived better critics than you. It will undoubtly survive longer than your outdated mechanistic views as well. [/B]

All of this above is you doing the same thing you did in the last thread/forum that I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you. It results in you justifying the reason no one agrees with you by calling them biased and categorizing them into buckets like "mechanism" all with a disrespectful, arrogant tone. The whole time using ill disguised propaganda to try to turn it all around and make it look like it is the other person who is doing all of this disrespectful name calling! It is classic political BS and very obvious. No one with an open mind is going to read this crap and buy it guy. Why not just think about what I'm saying and then explain why you disagree. Continuing to sling the word "bias" around does nothing but make you look like you are dodging the tough issues. You use it because you think it gets to me and that's easier than actually have an intelligent on topic response. I know this personality type well. But I'm actually finding humorous all this dodging and name calling propaganda. Thank goodness for me it is so obvious so others can enjoy it too.

Now I fully expect you to totally avoid the paradox topic and once again try to make it seem as If I have insulted you totally unprovoked. Mentioning mentor action to police me would be no surprise at all. Even though any mentor can read this thread and see that you are extremely disrespectful and do not know how to use a philosophical discussion to your benefit.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by Sensei

Like I said in a previous post, we are arguing whether physical paradoxes in this universe exist. I think the sane thing to do is

Yes sensei, this is how I interpreted the question that Mentat asked and I am certainly agreeing with your approach below to try to discuss this in a productive way. But if you read what has been posted above you will see that wuli doesn't even think that's what we're talking about. He thinks the question that Mentat asked means something else. I have no idea exactly what that question is but you can see that we can't even start where you have suggested below.

I agree with the overall tone of your post. I am curious myself where an open discussion on this might lead. I myself would love to have a clear concise argument in favor of paradoxes so that I can competently represent a minority view on this forum full of reductionist scientist. That is why I probe so throughly on wuli. I actually want him to succeed. But either my standards are higher than his or he just isn't very good at explaining his thoughts. Oh well.


Having said all of this, I'm going to leave it to you. I have learned not to "cast my pearls before swine" before. But sometimes my ambitious side forgets.


a) present what you believe to be a paradox and explain why

b) present what you believe we're trying to explain to help clarify the issues.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
I will admit that I am ignorant of exactly what your view is. Since the topic is actually not very complex it is a bit frustrating that we have to pretend it is.

That's what the early Greek philosopher's thought about Zeno of Elias' paradoxes and philosophy. Simple... right? Wrong! It took a millennia before anyone could mount a serious counter argument. As I keep saying, paradox is a slippery subject, obviously you have under-estimated it.

If you think it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with me, just stop. Easy, isn't it?

Ancient Chinese saying,

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

Come to think of it, why do you persist after all this time if I have proven myself so thoroughly incapable of having an intelligent conversation?

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

That goes for ourselves as much as other people.

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."
 
  • #40
Originally posted by wuliheron
That's what the early Greek philosopher's thought about Zeno of Elias' paradoxes and philosophy. Simple... right? Wrong! It took a millennia before anyone could mount a serious counter argument. As I keep saying, paradox is a slippery subject, obviously you have under-estimated it.


It is simply a word that is being used several different ways because it is poorly defined. It doesn't have to be as complex as this.

If you think it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with me, just stop. Easy, isn't it?

I plan to. That's why I said to sensei that I'm leaving it to him to sort out. So my responses on paradoxes have stopped once I ,again, realized you are not capable of intellegent discussion.

Anything else I say will be to defend myself from obvious propganda meant to mislead. If you want to believe all the name calling 'bias' crap then tell it to yourself in the mirror. Because I'm not going to let you spout it off here without showing it for what it is.

Ancient Chinese saying,

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

I have watched and seen your motivation for what it truly is. Thats's why I choose to let Sensei takle over.
 
  • #41
Anything else I say will be to defend myself from obvious propganda meant to mislead. If you want to believe all the name calling 'bias' crap then tell it to yourself in the mirror. Because I'm not going to let you spout it off here without showing it for what it is.

Now you are declaring yourself the unofficial moderator of this forum.

I have watched and seen your motivation for what it truly is. Thats's why I choose to let Sensei takle over.

You are not making sense to me. First you declare you will not allow me to spout crap, then you say you are letting Sensei takle over. The only clear thing you have said here is that you think I am full of crap and have hidden motives.

"Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."
 
  • #42
Originally posted by wuliheron
Now you are declaring yourself the unofficial moderator of this forum.

No, just defending myself.



You are not making sense to me. First you declare you will not allow me to spout crap, then you say you are letting Sensei takle over. The only clear thing you have said here is that you think I am full of crap and have hidden motives.

[/I]

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.

Carry on Sensei
 
Last edited:
  • #43
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.

Well then, that was easy enough.
 
  • #44
Watch the personal attacks!

I must say that I am shocked at the amount of personal attacks that people are making here. Kerrie can't censor everything, it's our responsibility to keep out conversations civil. Wu Li, would you mind not trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look like an idiot, it's backfiring. Fliption, I'm learning that, if something is hopeless, you should just leave it alone.
 
  • #45
I'd like to clear up the issue of my original question's meaning. I meant, "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?". Please forgive the misunderstandings I may have caused, but I (like Fliption) had not recognized the subtle difference between the two questions - "Does the universe allow for paradoxes?" and "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?".
 
  • #46
Wu Li, would you mind not trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look like an idiot, it's backfiring. Fliption, I'm learning that, if something is hopeless, you should just leave it alone.

I am not trying to make everyone who disagrees with me look like an idiot, nor for that matter do I care about people's perceptions of me. I am demonstrating quite effectively I believe that some people just won't leave well enough alone and simply cannot agree to disagree and leave it at that. As you admit yourself, you are learning if something is hopeless...

I'd like to clear up the issue of my original question's meaning. I meant, "Can physical paradoxes actually occur?".

Existence itself seems like a likely candidate for a genuine physical paradox that applies to everything en toto, wholly irrational and ineffable. It may even be infinite in every way conceivable as you might prefer to say it. However, I tend to think we can find rational as well as paradoxical explanations for just about everything else. That's why explanations are so useful.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by wuliheron


Existence itself seems like a likely candidate for a genuine physical paradox that applies to everything en toto, wholly irrational and ineffable. It may even be infinite in every way conceivable as you might prefer to say it. However, I tend to think we can find rational as well as paradoxical explanations for just about everything else. That's why explanations are so useful.

You see? This is what you always do, and it really gets on my nerves . You talk about the paradox of existence as though it were proven, even in an argument about whether it exists or not. This is a perfect example of the kind of self-fulfilled reasoning that was the topic of my thread (in the old PFs), and that destroys all rational debate.
 
  • #48
You see? This is what you always do, and it really gets on my nerves . You talk about the paradox of existence as though it were proven, even in an argument about whether it exists or not.

All I said was it seems like a likely candidate

Considering all the evidence, it does seem likely to me. The only evidence, I think, we are ever going to have on the issue is statistical evidence like Quantum Mechanics which suggests the same possibility.

However, I will add that one interpretation of such "paradoxes" is that we are just staring at nature, and nature is staring back so to speak. Kind of like trying to use the "pickle" to define itself. Past a certain point you just find yourself going in circles.

This is a perfect example of the kind of self-fulfilled reasoning that was the topic of my thread (in the old PFs), and that destroys all rational debate.

Sorry, but the topic is paradox and nothing less than the entire universe. There is no other reasoning possible that I am aware of. If you can come up with a better way to talk about the subject be my guest.
 
  • #49
Does the universe allow for paradoxes?

I think it does in the sense that it provides a means by which to contrast those things which appear contradictory in nature (which is really all I think wuliheron is getting at), other than that I don't believe so. Does it sound like I'm tyring to agree with everyone here? Oh my!
 
  • #50
I think it does in the sense that it provides a means by which to contrast those things which appear contradictory in nature (which is really all I think wuliheron is getting at)

No, that's not all I'm trying to get at. Paradox can also be compared to what doesn't appear contradictory. One example is the concept of infinity in mathematics. Calculus does not actually address infinity itself, which is not a number, but merely approaches infinity and in the process of getting closer to the paradox puts it to useful work for us.

We can also approach other paradoxes as well both using logic and mathematics without actually touching upon the paradoxes themselves. Often what we are ignorant of proves even more useful than what we know.

One way to do this is to keep an open mind about what we think we know, such as the Earth is flat, and look for paradoxical ways to view nature which can then be applied logically.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by wuliheron
All I said was it seems like a likely candidate

Considering all the evidence, it does seem likely to me. The only evidence, I think, we are ever going to have on the issue is statistical evidence like Quantum Mechanics which suggests the same possibility.

However, I will add that one interpretation of such "paradoxes" is that we are just staring at nature, and nature is staring back so to speak. Kind of like trying to use the "pickle" to define itself. Past a certain point you just find yourself going in circles.



Sorry, but the topic is paradox and nothing less than the entire universe. There is no other reasoning possible that I am aware of. If you can come up with a better way to talk about the subject be my guest.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by, a better way of talking about paradox? Do you mean the way that doesn't insist that there is in fact a paradox, without proof?
 
  • #52
I don't understand this. What do you mean by, a better way of talking about paradox? Do you mean the way that doesn't insist that there is in fact a paradox, without proof?

Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the inexplicable, apparently contradictory but true, or self-referential and self-contradictory. There is no way to prove something is inexplicable. The best you can do is demonstrate something is apparently inexplicable. However, that does not mean we cannot use the words like inexplicable, unfathomable, and ineffable. If you can think of a better way to use such words, more power to you.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the Asians on this one. They've spent thousands of years perfecting ways to talk about the inexplicable, unfathomable, and ineffable.
 
  • #53
I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I am repeating something someone already said.

Aren't paradoxes anisotropic in most occasions? Does a paradox specify something that defies human knowledge?
 
  • #54
Aren't paradoxes anisotropic in most occasions? Does a paradox specify something that defies human knowledge?

Exactly so, except I wouldn't describe them as defying human knowledge so much as logic and reason when taken out of context. For example, the liar's paradox makes perfect sense when spoken by a compusive liar:

"Everything I say is a lie."

But, logically analyzed without assuming such a context it is meaningless.
 
  • #55
I see, so do you mean that the liar paradox is a paradox, because it defies logic? Is that all a paradox does?
 
  • #56
Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the inexplicable, apparently contradictory but true, or self-referential and self-contradictory. There is no way to prove something is inexplicable. The best you can do is demonstrate something is apparently inexplicable.

The inexplicable can also include the ineffable, that which cannot be expressed. Whether the ineffable defies logic or not then is by definition impossible to say. This is a major source of confusion for westerners encountering Asian philosophy.
 
  • #57
What a paradox really is.

A paradox does not have different meanings, just because people happen to misunderstand what it means. Something is only paradoxical when it can be explained, but the explanation requires the use of contradictory propositions.
 
  • #58
What a paradox really is.

A paradox does not have different meanings, just because people happen to misunderstand what it means. A paradox is an explanation. What differentiates paradoxes from other explanations, is that it requires contradictory propositions.
 
  • #59
par·a·dox

A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
A statement contrary to received opinion.

I have been over this countless times with you Mentat, just as you know perfectly well. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. You can argue that pigs have wings all you want, and you do seem to like to do it a great deal.

If words are to have meaning, we must find aggrement on them. The dictionary is a great place to start.
 
  • #60
Yes and no. Paradoxes are features of vocabularies.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by wuliheron
I have been over this countless times with you Mentat, just as you know perfectly well. Just punch "infinite mathematical absurdities" into your favorite browser and see what comes up. You can argue that pigs have wings all you want, and you do seem to like to do it a great deal.

If words are to have meaning, we must find aggrement on them. The dictionary is a great place to start.

While this dictionary's definition is not perfectly compatible with what you will find in books about logic, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said.

BTW, a dictionary is not always a good place to start. Think of how many dictionaries there are that will have someone believing that a theory is synonymous with an hypothesis. Sometimes it's better to see what those, who make use of the certain concept, define it as. However, a dictionary definition is valuable, and I don't see any contradiction (in the quoted definition) with what I said about paradox.
 
  • #62
While this dictionary's definition is not perfectly compatible with what you will find in books about logic, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said. BTW, a dictionary is not always a good place to start.

If the dictionary fails us, then we can move on to splitting semantic hairs if we feel so inclined. This particular dictionary definition contradicts what you said by including the inexplicable instead of restricting the use of the word paradox to the contradictory.

As for Rage's idea that paradox is merely a feature of vocabularies, such a stance summarilly denies the emperical evidence of the paradox of existence without providing evidence. I suppose next Rage will claim objectivity is merely a feature of vocabularies. For all I know he may be correct, but I see no evidence to support such a position much less any practical purpose that can be served by adopting such a position.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by wuliheron
If the dictionary fails us, then we can move on to splitting semantic hairs if we feel so inclined. This particular dictionary definition contradicts what you said by including the inexplicable instead of restricting the use of the word paradox to the contradictory.

As for Rage's idea that paradox is merely a feature of vocabularies, such a stance summarilly denies the emperical evidence of the paradox of existence without providing evidence. I suppose next Rage will claim objectivity is merely a feature of vocabularies. For all I know he may be correct, but I see no evidence to support such a position much less any practical purpose that can be served by adopting such a position.

Well, logician's seem to restrict the word, "paradox", to the contradictory, and this is the kind of paradox that the thread is about.

Don't you realize that YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE. So why does it matter that Rage ignores the "paradox of existence", it probably doesn't exist.
 
  • #64
Well, logician's seem to restrict the word, "paradox", to the contradictory, and this is the kind of paradox that the thread is about.

Well, if you want to use specialized definitions of words then you might do well to say so ahead of time.

Don't you realize that YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE. So why does it matter that Rage ignores the "paradox of existence", it probably doesn't exist.

Reductio ad absurdum is a strong argument as Rage is well aware, while making noises about "vocabularies" is not. If context is paramount, than the context of existence is the ultimate contextualizer and once again Rage's logic leads back to the paradox.
 
  • #65
Mentat... of course the universe allows for paradoxes. How else could we have come up with them?

One must remember that our brains are definitely a product of the universe and so... any product a brain produces is part of the universe, as well.
 
  • #66
of course the universe allows for paradoxes. How else could we have come up with them?
Because we, in our perspective, see paradoxes when something doesn't comply with our[human] logic. I believe the whole concept is anisotropic.

One must remember that our brains are definitely a product of the universe and so... any product a brain produces is part of the universe, as well.

And our brain is known for its ability to ellude us.

i.e, temporal lobe esp.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
And our brain is known for its ability to ellude us.

i.e, temporal lobe esp. [/B]

If "known" is a function of the brain then the "ability to ellude" you speak of is, no doubt,also an illusion.

This is the paradox of thinking.
You may only think you're thinking!
 
  • #68
Originally posted by quantumcarl
If "known" is a function of the brain then the "ability to ellude" you speak of is, no doubt,also an illusion.

This is the paradox of thinking.
You may only think you're thinking!

Don't be foolish, carl, if she "thinks that she's thinking, then she is thinking (about thinking)".

Anyway, I already said that I was not talking about conceptual paradox. I was talking about physical paradox. Our brain is physical, but our mind is not, and it is the mind that conceives of paradox.
 
  • #69
Our brain is physical, but our mind is not, and it is the mind that conceives of paradox.

true. The brain is the organ of the mind. So how are you going to speak of the physical brain, without referring to the mind?
 
  • #70
Greetings !

A great thread Mantat !
Originally posted by Mentat
I suppose I'll set the example, in showing the reason for our choices:

I picked "no", because I have always seen the universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the possibility of a T.O.E.). If it is governed by a set of laws, then the propositions that make up those laws, could not contradict each other (IMO) or else we'd be able to break the so-called "laws". A conclusion that is based on contradictory propositions is a paradox.

I picked "yes", because I have always seen the
Universe as governed by a set of laws (hence the
possibility of a T.O.E.).
However, there is no possibility of a law that will
explain the existence of all the other laws.
Further more, since the existence of the laws lacks
an explanation, there is no advantage or reason
to the claim that they must "fit" nicely together.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.
 
<h2>1. What is a paradox?</h2><p>A paradox is a statement or situation that seems contradictory or absurd, but may actually be true or reasonable.</p><h2>2. Can the universe allow for paradoxes?</h2><p>There is no definitive answer to this question as it is still a topic of debate among scientists and philosophers. Some argue that the laws of physics and logic do not allow for paradoxes, while others suggest that the universe may exist in a state of constant paradox.</p><h2>3. Are there any examples of paradoxes in the universe?</h2><p>There are several examples of paradoxes in the universe, such as the grandfather paradox in time travel, the liar paradox in logic, and the Fermi paradox in the search for extraterrestrial life. However, these are still theoretical and have not been proven to exist in reality.</p><h2>4. How do paradoxes impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>Paradoxes challenge our current understanding of the universe and force us to question the fundamental laws and principles that govern it. They can also lead to new discoveries and advancements in science as we try to resolve these paradoxes.</p><h2>5. Can paradoxes be resolved?</h2><p>Some paradoxes can be resolved through further research and understanding, while others may remain unsolved. It ultimately depends on the specific paradox and the current knowledge and technology available to study it.</p>

1. What is a paradox?

A paradox is a statement or situation that seems contradictory or absurd, but may actually be true or reasonable.

2. Can the universe allow for paradoxes?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it is still a topic of debate among scientists and philosophers. Some argue that the laws of physics and logic do not allow for paradoxes, while others suggest that the universe may exist in a state of constant paradox.

3. Are there any examples of paradoxes in the universe?

There are several examples of paradoxes in the universe, such as the grandfather paradox in time travel, the liar paradox in logic, and the Fermi paradox in the search for extraterrestrial life. However, these are still theoretical and have not been proven to exist in reality.

4. How do paradoxes impact our understanding of the universe?

Paradoxes challenge our current understanding of the universe and force us to question the fundamental laws and principles that govern it. They can also lead to new discoveries and advancements in science as we try to resolve these paradoxes.

5. Can paradoxes be resolved?

Some paradoxes can be resolved through further research and understanding, while others may remain unsolved. It ultimately depends on the specific paradox and the current knowledge and technology available to study it.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
9
Views
405
  • Cosmology
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
282
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top