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.
  • #71
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

A great thread Mentat !

Thanks, drag.




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.

That's a reasonable answer. Basically, you think that the universe is ultimately unexplainable? I suppose that - while that is a slightly different kind of "paradox" then I was thinking of (one in which the laws are self-contradictory) - I agree with you to some extent.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #72
I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will disappear with enough knowledge of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Thomo
I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will disappear with enough knowledge of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws

Thanks for your participation, Thomo. I agree with you (at least to some extent), in that the universe would (IMO) not be at all stable of it's laws were self-contradictory.
 
  • #74
The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws

There's the rub. Do protons live forever? Is the speed of light utterly invariable? For that matter, is fourteen billion years long enough to make an accurate assessment considering the uncounted layers of complexity the physical universe displays? Certainly the physical laws appear invariable, but nothing else does. Because the evidence is so strong for both points of view we may have to wait for a theory of everything and, even then, it could make the situation appear even less clear.
 
  • #75
Yes, there are paradoxes. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. I think there are plenty of paradoxes in existence. For example, the mind-body paradox.
 
  • #76
Greetings !
Originally posted by Thomo
I voted no as I suspect a paradox in physics will disappear with enough knowledge of the subject.The universe has been around for a while and appears relitivly stable,paradoxs could only de stabilize physical laws
No offense, but that is a clear example of
closed-mindedness. Wuliheron's argument is
just a part of the infinite possibilities.

Infinite complexity in infinite combinations (IDIC).

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by drag
No offense, but that is a clear example of
closed-mindedness. Wuliheron's argument is
just a part of the infinite possibilities.

Infinite complexity in infinite combinations (IDIC).

I think it is a difference of opinion. Not close mindedness.
 
  • #78
Originally posted by DrChinese
Yes, there are paradoxes. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. I think there are plenty of paradoxes in existence. For example, the mind-body paradox.

"Mind-body paradox"?
 
  • #79
Originally posted by wuliheron
There's the rub. Do protons live forever? Is the speed of light utterly invariable? For that matter, is fourteen billion years long enough to make an accurate assessment considering the uncounted layers of complexity the physical universe displays? Certainly the physical laws appear invariable, but nothing else does. Because the evidence is so strong for both points of view we may have to wait for a theory of everything and, even then, it could make the situation appear even less clear.

You are making Thomos' point, IMO. He was saying how the "apparent paradoxes" are actually just the result of our not having enough knowledge on the subject (I won't agree or disagree with this, at the present time), and you are saying that there are so many things that we don't understand.
 
  • #80
You are making Thomos' point, IMO. He was saying how the "apparent paradoxes" are actually just the result of our not having enough knowledge on the subject (I won't agree or disagree with this, at the present time), and you are saying that there are so many things that we don't understand.

Quite the opposite, I'm saying that the more we learn the deeper the enigma becomes. At the rate this mystery has deepened it may never be resolved.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by wuliheron
Quite the opposite, I'm saying that the more we learn the deeper the enigma becomes. At the rate this mystery has deepened it may never be resolved.

Yes, but the fact that these (as yet not-understood phenomena) is what comprises the so-called "paradoxes" is Thomos' point, is it not?
 
  • #82
Yes, but the fact that these (as yet not-understood phenomena) is what comprises the so-called "paradoxes" is Thomos' point, is it not?

No, I think his point is that if existence were ultimately founded upon paradox, the irrational, chaotic, or whatever you care to call it, we wouldn't observe the stability we see in the laws of the nature today. This, however, is the same as the anthropic principle which people use as an argument for the existence of God. The standard counter argument is that if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by wuliheron
No, I think his point is that if existence were ultimately founded upon paradox, the irrational, chaotic, or whatever you care to call it, we wouldn't observe the stability we see in the laws of the nature today. This, however, is the same as the anthropic principle which people use as an argument for the existence of God. The standard counter argument is that if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue.

Not to get off-topic, but isn't that what one of the anthropic principles states - that "if the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to speculate on the issue"?
 
  • #84
I might have it backwards. Anthropic reasoning attempts to detect, define, and correct improper reasoning. It's a confusing term that's been picked up by a number of people to prove God exists or doesn't exist or that no serious evidence exists to prove God exists.

Still, you understand what I'm saying. Essentially, just as scientists have used the Anthropic Principle to disprove any evidence of God exists, you can apply the Anthropic principle to the paradox of existence to show all of science may be founded on a house of cards and God may well exist. Brings a slight smile to my face just thinking about all those serious over-educated people arguing over such nonesense for all they are worth. :0)
 
  • #85
I don't see my self as a closed minded person but then what closed minded person would? As for paradoxs I can't imagine a stable universe if its physical laws were paradoxial(sp?) Maybe that indicates a limit to my imagination.Humans by nature I suspect try to find order,pattern and reason to the world around them so that may cloud their willingness to accept paradoxs I have been in the last couple of weeks trying to get my head (to no avail!)around A-causality, an event with no cause seems almost a paradox when veiwed in the context of the order we observe around us.

Thomo
 
  • #86
I don't see my self as a closed minded person but then what closed minded person would? As for paradoxs I can't imagine a stable universe if its physical laws were paradoxial(sp?) Maybe that indicates a limit to my imagination.

I think it could be limit to human imagination in general. I can't begin to imagine a rational cause and effect origin of existence, for example, and I can't even begin to imagine how anyone else could either. Still, it could just be a lack of imagination on my part. :0)

Humans by nature I suspect try to find order,pattern and reason to the world around them so that may cloud their willingness to accept paradoxs I have been in the last couple of weeks trying to get my head (to no avail!)around A-causality, an event with no cause seems almost a paradox when veiwed in the context of the order we observe around us.

Exactly, it is paradoxical. Virtual particles appearing and disappearing out of nothing, electrons teleporting, etc. are just impossible to imagine as Feignman pointed out when he said, "If you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM." However, I think I can say in all confidence that what Feignman did understand about QM was that he didn't understand QM. :0)
 
  • #87
Greetings !
Originally posted by Thomo
I don't see my self as a closed minded person...
Thomo
I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong
way Thomo, I was only talking about your idea
and your example in that particular message.
Again, no offense. :smile:

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking
up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting
world I find myself in-an interesting hole I find
myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact
it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to
have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as
the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as,
gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's
still frantically hanging on to the notion that
everything is going to be alright, because this
world was meant to have him in it, was built to
have him in it; so the moment he disappears
catches him rather by surprise."
Douglas Adams

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
>>>I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong
way Thomo, I was only talking about your idea
and your example in that particular message.
Again, no offense. <<<<

Didnt even occur to me to take offence mate.

If all of the current recognised paradoxs were resolved with future knowledge I'm sure as pointed out there would be others discovered. The fact that the previous paradoxs were resolved in itself does not mean that certain paradoxs exist.
I cannot entertain the idea that we will ever know all there is to know about everything. With that in mind the existence of paradoxs may well end up in the file along with questions like what happened before the Big Bang and if there are multi or parrallel univeres do the same physical laws apply ...ie we have no way of knowing.
I still suspect though paradoxs are indicators of holes in our understanding of "life the universe and everything"

I am only a new poster to your forum thankyou for treating my posts respect and courtesy
 
<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
4
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
9
Views
407
  • Cosmology
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
283
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top