Contradictions in the universe.
We've all come across a paradox or two during our lifetimes, be it the grandfather paradox made famous by several iconic films, the liar paradox, paradox of free will, Russells, the list of examples is seemingly endless and spans all range of disciplines from science and mathematics to philosophy and linguistics. Even chemistry and biology have several between them.
So why on earth would paradoxes be built into the universe? Are contradictions fundamentally necessary? Do paradoxes somehow govern the laws of nature or obey some true laws of nature we have yet to discover? Or are they merely generated by false assumptions regarding the subject of the paradox - A fallacy in the understanding of how time works for example. Or where the self ends and begins. Or the meaning of language?
Perhaps the universe has no paradoxes only assumptions. And those assumptions when combined correctly contradict eachother just as one persons belief or lifestyle may contradict anothers only if they were to encounter one another. Could paradoxes simply be a by-product of conscious awareness. A necessary boundary to allow limitless imagination, speculation and query in a universe that otherwise may just have determined laws and strict defined regulation that would not permit the fluidity or plasticity of thought and combination of ideas that the mind can and does generate.
Is argument itself not the ultimate paradox? Should you ever consider an idea or hold a belief you will inadvertently encounter opposition. Why is there rarely unanimity of thought between conscious beings? Is the sensation of self, of ego, of ones success in a limited existence paradoxic to anothers? Ones wealth, anothers poverty. Ones authority, anothers submission.
If there is any ultimate truth out there it certainly would demonstrate the contradictory nature of its pursuit. The transience of agreement and the overwhelming lack of logic to many aspects of experience. What do you think a paradox is and why it exists? Is there anything in common that links paradoxes together? Could it be one simple rule that manifests as a different contradiction when applied to different disciplines? All views encouraged and welcome :)
So why on earth would paradoxes be built into the universe? Are contradictions fundamentally necessary? Do paradoxes somehow govern the laws of nature or obey some true laws of nature we have yet to discover? Or are they merely generated by false assumptions regarding the subject of the paradox - A fallacy in the understanding of how time works for example. Or where the self ends and begins. Or the meaning of language?
Perhaps the universe has no paradoxes only assumptions. And those assumptions when combined correctly contradict eachother just as one persons belief or lifestyle may contradict anothers only if they were to encounter one another. Could paradoxes simply be a by-product of conscious awareness. A necessary boundary to allow limitless imagination, speculation and query in a universe that otherwise may just have determined laws and strict defined regulation that would not permit the fluidity or plasticity of thought and combination of ideas that the mind can and does generate.
Is argument itself not the ultimate paradox? Should you ever consider an idea or hold a belief you will inadvertently encounter opposition. Why is there rarely unanimity of thought between conscious beings? Is the sensation of self, of ego, of ones success in a limited existence paradoxic to anothers? Ones wealth, anothers poverty. Ones authority, anothers submission.
If there is any ultimate truth out there it certainly would demonstrate the contradictory nature of its pursuit. The transience of agreement and the overwhelming lack of logic to many aspects of experience. What do you think a paradox is and why it exists? Is there anything in common that links paradoxes together? Could it be one simple rule that manifests as a different contradiction when applied to different disciplines? All views encouraged and welcome :)
Comments (62)
I don't believe they are. I think paradoxes are superficial. They are limitations on language and defects in human thinking. In Russell's Paradox the statement is:
"The set of all sets that are not members of themselves." Immediately we have a problem because the statement assumes that this entity [I]is[/i] a set, but it is not, as the paradox shows.
It needs to be restated as:
"All sets that are not members of themselves."
Now we can ask the question What is this entity if it is not a set? See my entry on R.Paradox. in the mathematics thread.
One of the weirdest is Banach-Tarski, and that one arises if one assumes the Axiom of Choice. Discard the AOC and it goes away. Another, the Diagonal Paradox, is simply a matter of perspective and magnification.
For a more palatable paradox, there is Braess' Paradox (which has been employed in a number of major cities):
For each point of a road network, let there be given the number of cars starting from it and the destination of the cars. Under these conditions, one wishes to estimate the distribution of traffic flow. Whether one street is preferable to another depends not only on the quality of the road, but also on the density of the flow. If every driver takes the path that looks most favourable to them, the resultant running times need not be minimal. Furthermore, it is indicated by an example that an extension of the road network may cause a redistribution of the traffic that results in longer individual running times
What a weird thing to assert.
How do you know that?
Is this another discussion where you start to be interesting and then disappear?
Maybe by "grammar" you mean math here, and the AOC is "bad grammar"
Well, yes; a grammar that accepts AOC as against a grammar that does not.
How would you know if the compass is fixed?
I'm just suspicious about going from a little reasoning to a statement about how the world works.
An experiment that shows the truth of what you're saying would be better.
...over two hundred pages; and thousands more in secondary literature.
The Summa Theologica has 3020 pages in the hard cover edition.
What's this conversation about? What do you want?
Read PI. Or @Sam26's notes. I'm sure not motivated by you to put in the effort.
You're missing my point. Reasoning gives you a hypothesis. And maybe you meant that, you just left out "My favorite hypothesis is..."
yep.
No, it doesn't, and yes, we do. This is a typical situation where informal or sloppy language can result in an apparent paradox. IOW is right.
You're a rationalist. Kind of rare in this century. :grin:
A post of mine from the thread 'Existence of an external universe'-
There are two spacetimes, quantum spacetime and physical spacetime. Quantum spacetime is an n-dimensional spacetime (it has been suggested n = 10 or 11). Physical spacetime is 4-dimensional. This effectively means there are two universes.
The physical universe is an emergent property of the quantum universe of energy. It is 'conjured up' from quantum spacetime.
When there is an n-dimensional event in the quantum universe that event is reduced from n dimensions to 4 dimensions so n - 4 dimensions of information are lost. More so, a quantum event is registered in the physical universe as a physical trace effect. eg a spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect. But these trace effects are necessarily physical 4 dimensional objects in the physical universe while the event that caused them is an n-dimensional event in the non physical universe of energy. So physicists are reduced to trying to measure an n-dimensional event with a 4-dimensional ruler. No wonder quantum physics is weird.
I'm just going by what the scientists tell us. If a quantum event is n-dimensional and the only way to physically measure it is in a 4-dimensional world, n - 4 dimensions of information are lost.
Take a 3-dimensional object. Project its shadow on a 2-dimensional surface. You can see that 1 dimension of information is lost.
Well, no. There is still only one universe, with two descriptions.
It depends on what 'universe' is referring to. If we are talking in terms of geometry there are two spacetimes, quantum and physical. As far as measurement is concerned it comes to the same thing. I find that conceiving things in terms of two spacetimes makes things easier to grasp. When it comes to measurement the difference is semantic.
So the problem is semantical rather than grammatical. That makes more sense.
I think it was Bohr that said it is meaningless to say where a particle is outside detection. Where was it before detection? Nowhere. If by 'where' we are talking about a location in the physical universe then it was nowhere because a particle is not in the physical universe until it is detected*
Detection is when a particle collides with the physical universe/spacetime. This collision is registered as a trace effect on, for example, a photographic plate. Prior to the registration the particle was 'elsewhere' but not in the physical universe.
*Specifically, they are never in physical spacetime, they only leave trace effects here.
Nice OP!
One can easily think of paradox as the metaphoric intrinsic evil (tree of knowledge), or lack of perfection and/or inability to understand the true nature of our existence, so on and so forth. Kant, was one of many who raised the concern. Metaphysical questions try to help satisfy this curiosity and/or sense of wonderment.
One could also imagine a possible world where a different vocabulary or language could help resolve or even completely eliminate paradox, based upon the so-called cosmological conditions (think of the idea behind Glossolalia/speaking in tongues). In short, imagine a world where there is no contradiction and paradox, would there exist a different vocabulary… .
Quoting Benj96
We know the sciences discovered paradox (physics and cognitive). And we know Philosophy uncovered it. Christian philosophy tried to capture it in the book of Ecclesiastes. And the concept of Love still brings that notion of perplexity into reality-what is perfect Love.
When I find paradox, contradiction, or similar irrational behavior I find truth. A common truth of being in a state of finitude if you like. Ask why movies with an underlying existential theme like Forrest Gump (or at least some scenes in Scarface, Castaway, etc., etc.) were so popular back in the day.
Cognitively, as it relates to the human condition, I wonder if fear has something to do with it... (?). In other words, should we embrace paradox and contradiction, or try to deny its existence. (Should we care about it or ignore its implications.) What kinds of truth's are worth exploring, and can the way we think about truth help mitigate this angst...
Again, nice Post!
To the point of the OP...
The first thing one needs to understand that the universe or reality or whatever... cannot contradictory by itself, or rather it doesn't make sense to say that it is or not. Only the things we say about it can be. Contradictions are a language thing only.
For those who believe it is exclusively a language thing, what transcends language?
Example: A physical paradox is an apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the universe.
(What can transcend physical descriptions; what is our perception of Time itself?) In other words, objectively describe your perception of Time.
I have no idea what you are getting at. What transcends language, what do you mean? Lots of things transcend language, it's just a tool we use to communicate and describe the world.
It only applies to language because you need statements in the form of say X = Y and X does not = Y to be able to speak of a contradiction... the universe itself is not made up out of statements that can contradict eachother, so it doesn't make sense to say that contradictions or paradoxes are build into the universe.
No, I'm saying you can call it a spacetime or a universe, it comes to the same thing concerning what I'm saying about the loss of information.
Are you sure? Isn't mathematics yet another metaphysical language or conceptual abstract that describes the universe? Accordingly, how should one reconcile things like the Time paradox, expanding Universe/space v. static Galaxies, etc. through what means and method?
Short of the usual language paradox's associated with a priori logic (self referential statements) you seem to be excluding the deeper questions of existence.The perception of time is the most obvious unresolved paradox that is built into the universe, otherwise, physicists would have discovered a ToE.
Consider breaking down the definition of human perception. Is the perception of time a language onto itself? What means and method is not contradictory in perceiving time? Is self-awareness a metaphysical language?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Nor I. Although I agree with the bit about the bible being full of paradox.
Banno!
Good point The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.
You sure 'bout that?
Quoting 3017amen
You see, this paragraph does not ask anything, Despite the question marks. It's not like "What time is is?", it's like "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". If you want an answer you ought be somewhat more forthcoming as to what you ask.
This is what we call philosophical analysis.
It's what we do around here.
Yep, it's not like theology, where you just make stuff up.
Are you absolutely certain about that?
Please share your description of time without paradox.
OR, when challenged, change the topic.
Do bats eat cats?
Quoting Banno
Banno!
How is that working for you!?
LOL
When you get time (no pun intended) I think we would still love to learn about your description of Time without paradox!
That may or may not be the case. There is always a risk in magnifying a speculative quantum property to the macro world. The only substantive knowledge about the tiny realm is the mathematics that correctly predicts results. :chin:
The cat in the box is reality? :smirk: