The Paradox of Problems

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by lixluke, Feb 16, 2007.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    By CS.

    There are 2 ways to logically consider a system functioning properly.
    Either a system is “functioning properly” or a system is “not functioning properly”.

    1. If our goal is for the system to functioning properly, we would define a problem as anything that prevents the system from functioning properly.
    2. If our goal is for the system to not function properly, we would define a problem as anything that prevents the system from not functioning properly.
    Consider #1 to be the goal. The goal is for the system to function properly. Therefore, anything that prevents the goal is defined a problem.

    Considering the goal for the system to function properly, some believe that problems are inevitable, and in some cases necessary for a system to function properly. This, of course, is a logically flawed belief.
    If the goal is for the system to function properly, and if we assume it to be true that a system requires problems in order to be functioning properly, then eliminating problems would cause a system to not function properly.

    This is the paradox we abide by. As long as we consider the elimination of problems to be a problem, we will always have problems. Considering the elimination of problems to be a problem is in itself the biggest problem.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Problems aren't inevitable, it's only when people deviate from the rules that they occur. For instance people getting into car crashes, if they merely followed the rules of driving things would be fine. If they still get into an accident it wouldn't matter because the other system is established to deal with it, ambulances. As long as they follow the rules things will develop properly, and people either die or live.

    Rules will keep in place the system for which dealing with problems comes about. If this system is followed even though some problems arise they'll still be within the normal range of these systems to deal with. Of course hurricanes aren an exception, but even then the system can only do so much as it's financially able, otherwise it does what is can and the rest of those hungary or without homes must be left to die.

    Anyway that's part of this..
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Internal combustion engines ..... friction .... systems working properly, but friction will eventually wear it out to where it is NOT functioning properly.

    Which, of course, means that the internal combustion engine is actually functioning properly, right?

    Baron Max
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Well Baron Max, I mean that's entropy so yeah. Does entropy apply to problems though :L
  8. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Your logic is a little hay wire. It should say:

    1. If the intention is for something to be, anything that interrupts this is a problem. Also, an added meaning is anything that could potentially get in the way.

    2. If the intention is for something not to be, anything that makes it so is a problem. Included in this is anything that may attempt to make it so.

    Most anything can have something that could get in the way. It is often not viewed as a problem if it is viewed as something that will not impede your intention.

    Problems can come from a number of sources: 1. A lack of correct prediction of known or knowable conditions. 2. Intentions that clash with yours from others. 3. Random unpredicted events that only God could have foreseen.

    Any change we envision can be assumed to not already exist. To make it so is the intention. Anything that is perceived to counter this is a problem. Thus what is a problem to some is not to others based on perception. Many different ideas can exist, some correct, and some will never be. There is no paradox, there is only perception or the lack of it.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  9. Meanwhile Banned Banned

    There's no logical flaw except for your own logic because before there's a system there's a design. And before a design there is a situation. And before a situation there is a problem. And before a problem there are values. And before values there is morality. And before morality there is perception. And finally before perception there is consciousness.

    Therefore, to assume that a system's goal is to function is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat: it is the goal of consciousness to function. Eventual problems only serve to further that goal!
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    How so?
    When it comes to perception, conflicting intentions mean what particular is a problem for one might not be a problem for another. Either way no matter who's perception it is, the basis still remains the same. No matter what it is Person-X perceieves to define as "properly functioning", a problem still remains anything that impedes "properly functioning". Therefore, claiming that a problem is necessary for proper functioning is the same thing as claiming anything that impedes proper functioning is necessary for proper functioning.


    This is not different from saying anything that impedes that goal serves to further that goal. It is a contradiction.
  11. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    1. By what standards?
    2. Most systems function at optimal levels, otherwise they wouldn't exist for very long. These levels are dictated by necessity. For example, take the human body vs cars: The human body is extremely efficient whereas cars are wasteful. But they serve different purposes and they serve those purposes well...

    It's not a paradox. You are just using objective standards where they don't belong.

    Anyways, what's your point? That we should sit in the mud and not build huts because our roofs will leak? Not eat because we may get deadly parasites? Humans have succeeded thanks to their problem solving abilities not in spite of them!
  12. Meanwhile Banned Banned

    You are using doublespeak to further your goal, and I was actually trying to introduce logic. Furthermore, you quote a conclusion while ignoring its mainspring. This gives me a damn good idea why something will either serve -- or impede .

    New conclusion: either drive into a bloody traffic jam (a process) and arrive (a goal) half an hour late. Or take a sleepy detour into the neighboring suburb and... arrive half an hour late.

    My point was problems are part of a package deal.

    Precisely -- it's all part of the never-ending process.
  13. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    You ever hear someone say something will not be a problem? A true problem is plain and simple. If you wanted a cup of coffee, having to get up and walk over to the were you will make it is a problem. You could fall and hurt yourself. Or is it? Most people don't see a problem with something so simple as walking. Thus to them it is not a problem.

    A problem is ANYTHING that counter acts your intention. But, funny enough, not anything can stand in your way. So a new definition is born, it is anything that COULD stop you as opposed to all the little things that simply need to be done. Just keep that in mind, a problem is not one unless it can really stop you. When was the last time you worried about sun flares stopping you from having that cup of coffee? It could stop you, but to most people, it is simply not a problem.
  14. Meanwhile Banned Banned

    Actually a "problem" is just the resistance of a force before an action. It just so happens to be identified as a "problem".
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Claiming that problems are necessary for proper functioning is a paradox. It doesn't matter how you define "proper functioning", anything that works against it is a problem. It is impossible for anything that works against it to support it.
  16. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Why would we assume a system needs something preventing it from functioning properly in order to function properly?

    Assume a paradox exists. Therefore, a paradox exists.
  17. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    It is my opinion that everything we try to figure out "logically" will end up being a paradox because of how the human mind works. Because, as a human, we can only observe a limited perspective of what is actually going on, then we are forever doomed to fill in the gaps with our own imagination, causing the following explanation to be flawed.

    Therefore, all functions require problems but also require us to solve the problems. Because the problems only exist when the human mind designates them as such.

    Without someone to say there is a problem, there is no problem.
  18. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Here is a major problem. The top richest 1% of the people on a planet of 6 billion people amounts to 60 million people. It is hard to believe that there are 60 million that sit there and do nothing while everybody else supports their frivilous lifestyle. Who are the 60 million richest people on earth? I am sure as hell not on that list.
  19. Lord Hillyer Banned Banned

    i wear my sunglasses at night.
  20. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    I looked that up, and it is by somebody named, corey Hart. He's one of them?

Share This Page