The contents of a container such as a bottle, box, or room are the things that are inside it. If you empty a container, or empty something out of it, you remove its contents, especially by tipping it up. An empty place, vehicle, or container is one that has no people or things in it. An empty glass is a glass usually made of glass material that is not filled with something. Give me a beer I have an empty glass. How do you even manage in life? You get into a pub, ask for a pint, but the barman knows you and puts a glass on the counter without filling it. So, what do you do? You look at the glass, drink your nice pint of air and pay a pound to the barman? How can a pint of air be so expensive?! EB
No, it is not the lowest temperature that is theoretically possible. At least not any more. It was the lowest temperature thought to be possible... until recently. http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/negative-temperature.cfm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for the update....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!..... but does it invalidate my argument that zero can have several values depending on perspective?
If I was a devout Buddhist I would say "thank you very much" and give him a tip that leaves his tip jar full of emptiness as well... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! re: Nirvana, void, emptiness and the role it plays in Buddhist philosophy... It is logic that claims the paradox as a paradox so yes, the liars paradox is quite logical as are all similar. IMO Humor is quite logical for example and is often a play on paradoxes similar to the liars paradox.
compare the following two statements: 1+ (-)1 = 0 and 0 = 1 + (-)1 and note the differences in meaning... The equivalence suggested by the = sign could be argued as non reciprocal. Whilst 1+(-)1 can equal zero can the same be said for zero = 1+(-1) ? or am I just manipulating contextual constancy? or The sum total of everything is nothing yet the sum total of nothing can only be nothing. re: thoughts on "ex- nihilo".
If there's an equivalence, it's reciprocal. Second, in mathematics, equality is a symmetrical relation: A = B is equivalent to B = A. If you're trying argue about mathematical results, you need to understand the method of calculation used in mathematics. And if not, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. If you want to make a philosophical point, start by articulating what your point is. EB
If I understand QQ, the equation is theoretically reciprocal, but in reality you cannot start with physical zero as being the result of a physical (+1-1), whereas you can physically start with (1) and deduct (1) to end up with zero.
I tried to find a sensible resolution of this paradox but all I found was not convincing at all. The idea that the sentence doesn't refer to anything is wrong on the face of it. The idea that it doesn't make sense is a bit better but not quite right. The sentence makes enough sense that you can see it is paradoxical. So, saying it doesn't make sense because it is paradoxical doesn't help since it makes enough sense to be felt as paradoxical. Some Arthur Prior dude has a more interesting position. He asserts that there is nothing paradoxical about the liar paradox because, he says, all statements implicitly assert their truth. Thus, the statement "This statement is false" is straightforwardly understood as "This statement is true and this statement is false". But then, "This statement is true and this statement is false" is a formal contradiction and as such we can say that it is false. And then there is no paradox because saying that the statement "This statement is true and this statement is false" is false is not contradictory with the fact that it is indeed false. Ergo, no paradox. I don't buy it, at least not the way it is presented, but there seems to be something correct in that explanation. Still, what I didn't find was an explanation of why it should be felt to be a paradox if it is not a paradox. To me, there's no doubt it sounds paradoxical. Now, apparently, there is no simple solution in the context of mathematical logic. Why is that? Anybody knows? Tarski apparently "diagnosed" the paradox as arising only in languages in which it is possible for one sentence to predicate truth (or falsehood) of another sentence in the same language and indeed of itself. So, his solution is to forbid that possibility in mathematical logic. Right, so, basically, he just changed the subject of the conversation and in effect admitted to not having a proper resolution. Unless anyone can update my findings? EB
OK, so, it's not about mathematics. And as far as I know, we didn't start with zero. The numeral zero is a late invention. We started with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. and only much later, we found zero was a good idea that saved time and eased up calculation. So, where is the problem already?! EB
Hi there. Speakpigeon, A=B is not equivalent to B=A. They are different statements. Please consider the following... A=B A=A+1 Print A Print B B=A A=A+1 Print A Print B The statements move, "leftwards": the first stating that A equals B (A is equal to whatever B is) while B remains untouched. The second statement alters B to whatever A is (A remains untouched.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There's no argument present, as yet. There is a sentence. Some people seem to be interested in its truth value, a property sentences do not inherently possess - it would have to be assigned as an act of imagination, which is of course possible. I have introduced a more interesting property one could assign by imagination, as one names a cat: the color of the sentence.
Firstly, this is a philosophy forum so one would expect philosophical discussion. Secondly, the paradox implied by the liars paradox can be seen in many forms but especially when having to confront zero, nothingness or void. Ex nihilo, probably the worlds greatest and most puzzling paradox ( generally meaning as "from nothing came something") is able to be demonstrated using the method I mentioned earlier. try ( philosophy of Math) x + (-)x = 0 =/= (-x) + x as a more complete rendition of the issue. (which puts the end of the statement in the middle "0") In mathematics and perhaps formal logic ( I am confident Sarkus may comment otherwise) the liars paradox is the simultaneous rendition of both. This sentences true ... x + (-)x = 0 This sentence is false ... 0 = (-x) + x ( because zero can only equal zero) thus we end up with: This sentence is falselytrue ... a paradox and classic deception. ( think: fraud ) (note: falselytrue is one word with one meaning) Notes: Dualism requires the invention of negative values, values that are less than zero, in non dualism there are no negative values, thus the invention of negative values is one of theoretical convenience and purely imaginary.===== Also it is worth noting that while the sentence is read left to right is can only be comprehended as a whole. Like stating: This sentence is false = A and then saying that: A = paradox One of the reasons this came up for me earlier on was when discussing the veracity of the special relativity outcome of "the relativity of simultaneity" which concludes with two t=0 on the HSP. (t=o and t=o') which I felt was another, considerably more complex version of the liars paradox.===== In mathematics it could be successfully argued that all values achieve their value when compared to zero. ie. 1-1 = 0 therefore 1 = 1 so basically I would claim that all of mathematics has an inherent paradox because philosophically : 0=/= 1-1 yet 1-1 = 0 again re: ex nihilo note: the topic can be extremely difficult to properly fathom and I hope my post isn't too confusing...as "short speak" forum posting makes it almost impossible to convey what is needed for comprehension.
One could conclude that the existence of everything is fundamentally premised on a paradox. Therefore one could expect every intellectual attempt to understand it will always end up with a paradox. Including any discussion about a paradox...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Example: When you try to find the middle of a ruler you will arrive at a zero point that doesn't exist. So one has to conclude that zero both exits and doesn't exist simultaneously.
An expert liar, one that would beat any polygraph is one who deliberately utters Falselytrue statements. (not falsely true but falselytrue)
Theoretically there is no problem, but one of the equations does start with zero. 0 = 1 + (-1) and that does not work in applied mathematics. We were talking about the mathematical reciprocity of 1 + (-1) = 0 and 0 = 1 + (-1). The mathematical equivalence is there, but it is a non-functional argument in reality. I see an old church ready for demolition. the next day; I see the empty lot where the old church once stood but has been demolished, +1 -1 = 0. however I see an empty lot. I don't know that there ever was a church standing on it. the next day; I see an empty lot. 0 = ? + (-?)
You've yet to explain how 0 would be different from (-x) + x, "philosophically" or otherwise. I don't even know what it could possibly mean that "all values achieve their value". That's just gobbledegook. Your claim that "all of mathematics has an inherent paradox because philosophically 0=/= 1-1" is idiotic. If it is philosophically that 0 is different from 1 - 1, then the paradox is entirely in philosophy. You've yet to explain how that would be a paradox inherent to mathematics. Just a long vacuous post. EB