Hey, so I was thinking about this today: Is there an absolute requirement of consistency on the physical world? If so, then paradox cannot exist in the physical world right? However, I do believe paradox CAN exist in the realm of the abstract. For instance if I believe murder is wrong and you believe murder is good, then we're both right from our socio-cultural perspective. I would hypothesize that this IS paradox and that it has the natural tendency (as a state) to decay (one opinion change, by force if neccesary). So, while paradox cannot EXIST in the physical world, paradox from the abstract world can manifest it into violence or debate or whatever in the physical world. Okay, it's late. Does that even make any sense to anyone? Comments?
It doesn't make any sense! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think I can see what your saying, however there is a clear distinction between the two things you are trying to compare! This reminds me of something I read where: 'A Russian astronaut and a Russian brain surgeon were once discussing religion. The brain surgeon was a Christian but the astronaut was not. The astronaut said, 'I've been out in space many times but I've never seen God or angels.' And the brain surgeon said, 'And I've operated on many clever brains but I've never seen a single thought.' How can we be sure that what goes on inside the brain is correct?! I would say that the fact that our technology is so great means that we can have a good degree of confidence in it, however when we are dead and gone our thoughts will go. The universe will still go on. This is the difference between what is real and what is not. Paradoxes can exist in our head but does this mean that it is possible for them to actually exist?! Like those optical illusions (especially this one). Is it possible for them to exist in real life?? No! How is it possible that they can be 'created' then i.e. how can we imagine such things or even draw them? It is exactly because of our imagination that this is possible. We can imagine things that don't exist, but this does not change what the real world, existence, is. So I would say no (!) it is not possible for paradoxes to actually exist in the physical world.
Good question. I think that paradox is a side of the irrational. Probably there are irrational items in cosmos; but if so, we can't theorize something about them because we are limited by our logical reason.
Re: what? You're right. I'll try to break it down for you: There are two fundamental aspects to reality in the context I'm trying to establish. 1) The physical world with which we interact. 2) The world inside our heads which approximates what is happening in 1) which also doesn't really exist in the physical world, but is just a funky pattern inside your head. I'm calling these: 1) The phsycial world. 2) The abstract world. I further assume (which seems to be self evident to me) that: 1) we really only "experience" the abstract world, or that which is filtered through our sensory system and into our brains for processing. 2) in the abstract world exist all "thoughts" and "feelings" and such. I'm asserting that: 1) In the physical world, "paradox" is generally considered impossible because the physical world is consistent. To maintain consistency you cannot have a paradox (at least this is a presumption of logic if I'm not mistaken, maybe there is a proof). 2) In the abstract world, I think "paradox" is not only allowable, but it's everywhere. I hate you and love you at the same time, bad example, but shit like that. Now that I think about it, maybe I'm really only saying "thinking" generally isn't consistent. Wow, what a keen observation I've made. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I hate it when I'm suddenly faced with just how full of shit I really am. Hehe. Maybe I don't either now that I think about it eh?
While it's true a Paradox can't exist in the real world it can however in the abstract world (as you so nicely call it the world in our noggins) and you may be right in saying that the actions of a Paradox existing in the mind produce result of the mind trying to reason it out through the means of violence...but more practically through debate and discussion or even research. I don't think the paradox manifests into violence or debate per se, but more rather that's what comes out from the result of mind trying to reason such a inconsistency in the perception of the physical world. So you may be more right then you think you are. Must say, quite a astute thought you had there.
A very inteligent post. You are correct, paradoxes can not exist in objective reality, they can only exist in our minds, or in abstract ideas that we create. If we try to believe in an idea that is supposed to represent some concrete real world thing, but it creates a paradox, we know that one of our premises must be flawed.
Well... I'm not sure that's entirely true, but for the most part. For instance, I'm not sure if the idea of a black hole is paradoxical in some manner. It's the "infinitely small size" of the black hole itself that is the paradox, considering that something of infinitely small size is not supposed to be able to have mass, yet it is incredibly massive. *shrug*. I'm no sure that some "quantum phenomena" wouldn't qualify as "paradoxical" as well. Just trying to stay fair.
Yeah but amazingly enough these flawed premises exist and some in a very stable condition too. Makes you think doesn't it. Paradoxs are strange anomolys in perception of reality and our underdtanding of it. Here's to paradoxs *grabs beer*.......woo hooo...(sorry that was stupid but beer will do that to youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That, in itself, is merely a premise. If we should somehow discover a paradox that does exist in reality, we will instead conclude that that premise is flawed. All premises, even basic logical ones, like the law of non-contradiction must yield to reality and empirical evidence. Adam
But we can and we do! Black holes for instance. We do theorize about them and it seems that reason, logic (which is something that we possess) can understand a great deal. Logic, expressed through technology, has got us into space and can therefore help us explore the universe in order to discover truths. This must surely bring about the question of whether it is possible for man to understand everything. Is it possible for us to know 'the truth'?? Not just in terms of universal consistency (which can only give us so much because even if we have mapped every single part of the universe, and every single substance in the universe, up to the very edge of the universe, that will still not be enough), but in terms of man at the individual level knowing the truth. That is not to say just one individual man, but maybe many men, or maybe everyman, but knowing everything. Do we have that capacity?? Our brain has the capacity to take us from this planet so where else can it take us?? If this is true then on what level has evolution come about to form such beings?? I think your making a good observation Wesmorris!! You should try to follow your thoughts through to a conclusion though...even if it takes time!
But then quantum theory is just that, theory. No one has any real proof for it, and in fact I think most of it is just complete garbage. . . then again that's probably because most idiots try to use it to support their arguments without even understanding it, and as such completely misuse and misrepresent it.
Yes they do...some situations that we call paradoxs exist in real life: such as Humans working better in teams, you would think that a human depending on another to get something done to help them in their job would be their weekness yet humans are strongest when they work in teams. Depending on others may seem a weekness but when we work in teams and in groups we produce excellent results. Also if such situations didn't exist in real life how would we percieve them in our mind in the first place and call them Paradoxes.
Charles, I like your analogy, but just one more thing I want to throw in. Scientists are now specuating that even things like thought, or information dont really die. Instead their dispersed in some kind of a holographic fashion. Almost similar to the manor in which teleportation is supposed to work. It's a very mysterious thing - But probably a lot simpler than we think. And one reason that I think so many people don't believe in God these days is because we painted him into some kind of an entity that he is not. I don't think 'he' gives a damn what I do. God should be above everything, and in that aspect the lack of entity.
Hey Elbaz, so how about this one: Okay so if you wanna take that route here's my theory... (hold on to something): I've established an assertion in one of these damn threads regarding something about the abstract world and the phsycal world right? (just nod and humor him) Okay well.. side trip... but remember where we were: ponder consciousness and time with me for a moment. what time is it really? (say: "it's right now.") exactly! It's right now. It's ALWAYS right now right? I mean, as far as you can really confirm (for the sake of argument) there is no other time than right now.. right? Now, thinking of what's in your head right now.. what's there? If you try to, can you think of your whole life? Can you think of first grade from having read it when I am now asking you to do it? You can. Essentially.. is it not that in the abstract world, we are experiencing more time at THIS time.. than just this time (through the brain's feedback mechanism)? Hence, does consciousness lie outside of time? If you can fit more time in any given sliver of NO time (the present) then it is possible that there are dimensions outside of time that we simply can barely percieve of and they are those which allow the phenomenon of consciousness to happen. If consciousness itself exists only in this context I've attempted to establish and the dimension are there.. is it not possible that a human mind establishes a pattern or something in those dimensions which is connected to the physical brain until death.. at which point it is freed to exist only within abstract space. I would add that abstract space MUST by definition exist or I would not be able to type this to you. Since it has to be real, this theory MIGHT have some merit. Did that make sense to anyone?
I think that God and the Bible can clear this mess up. The Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are three qualities of the universe: Time, Space, and Matter. To exist (except for God), all three are required. Each quality consists of three elements. The brain has three stages: Conscious, unconscious, and something in-between (When you hallucinate) Therefore, we live in a trinity of trinities but only in our minds. Okay I don't know, Im high on my sleeping pills.
Originally posted by CounslerCoffee There are three qualities of the universe: Time, Space, and Matter. What about energy? To exist (except for God), all three are required. Each quality consists of three elements. What are the 3 elements of time or space or matter? The brain has three stages: Conscious, unconscious, and something in-between (When you hallucinate) Or you could say that the brain has a continium of stages. Okay I don't know, Im high on my sleeping pills. I always thought that sounded funny. Wouldn't you get low on sleeping pills?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think it's not a good idea justify some argument from religion, which is not itself justified. It's better to argue using rational sentences that are valid to everyone in the forum.
