do paradoxes exist

[GLORY]

In my opinion there are no paradoxes in reality 
paradoxes only exist when they were made up
conditions, pre-definitions, not questioned accepted rules and assumptions lead to paradoxes
using them in logic leads to contradictions of assumptions
every statement is a pre assumption/pre-definied/accepted rule
every word in a sentence is an assumption/pre-definition/accepted rule
logic is made of made up rules 

examples:
"this sentence is false"
assumptions:
this is a sentence
this sentence makes a statement
this sentence has content/meaning
this sentence must make a correct statement
this sentence must be true or false

"something exist rather than nothing"
assumptions:
there is something
something does exist
nothing does not exist / nothing is nonexistence
there is a difference between something and nothing

"4 is bigger than 2"
when the number 4 is defined to be bigger that 2, and to be the double as big, the assumptions are: 
there are 4 and 2 / there are numbere
not existent numbers do not exist / -∞ to ∞ includes every possible number 
4 is not 2 / difference between them
4 is bigger that 2
numbers have values
numbers can be finite 
numbers are exact, seperable, unique
numbers can be added, substracted, multiplied and divided
numbers makes sense and follow rules 
0, negative and positive numbers can be used in the same way

mathematics is a construct and so the logic used in mathematics is a constructed logic
by breaking the the rules which were made to create this logic, the logic cant be used anymore which leads to contradictions to the rules
self-reference can be contradictory or not contradicory, self-reference can validate or violate the rules
rules can be based on observation of physical laws or they can be made up like in a game

logic in physics:
assumptions could be correct if it does not contradict observation: the assumption "something exists" can be correct
the better the logic the less assumptions it makes, and the less contradictions to observation can be seen or produced using this logic
which assumes that observation is the most correct and closest method to truth

maybe nothing can be know for sure

[effortlesslumen]

Going beyond the logic of paradoxes  does not mean there are none, its more like a limitation of something that dissolves into the  infinite.  The playground in which assumptions are made is a paradox aswell.  There is nothing but everything.

Edited February 22, 2023 by effortlesslumen

[effortlesslumen]

So yes there are no paradoxes and there is no reality. Yet there is.

[thepixelmonk]

Paradoxes are definitely a facet of reality. I still think leo's paradox video is maybe his best to date, did a really great job at pulling a lot of these topics together in a cohesive way.

[Carl-Richard]

Whether paradoxes can or cannot exist, if you're using logic to justify either case, you're limiting reality to logic, which means your answer might not be true.

[Eternal Unity]

@GLORY Wonderful! I follow your content. Post more often, dude!

[Leo Gura]

See my Paradox video.

[DocWatts]

Paradoxes are a result of limitations within the framework we're using to make sense of a particular phenomenon or domain.

Often these are born of constructing false dichotomies and dualisms which are perfectly adequate as a simplified model for convenience's sake, but begin to break down under scrutiny.

They can also be born of a type or category error, namely by making bad discernments about the inherent nature of a given phenomenon, and ascribing it to a domain where it doesn't really fit.

Edited February 27, 2023 by DocWatts

[caspex]

Everything can make sense if you don't limit yourself, so yeah paradoxes don't exist.

But that's only the case when you limit yourself to 'when you don't limit yourself'. If you do limit yourself then you can make all kinds of paradoxes.

So do paradoxes exist or not exist in 'reality'? Well, considering everything, they do and also don't. Which can be seen as a paradox in itself, or not. Depends on how you limit your logic.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Swarnim

[player1995]

If something lets say "creation" is Infinitely Intelligent, then by nature it must be paradoxical.

I highly recommend the book Tao Te Ching and teachings of Lao Tzu.

[SamC]

On 2023-02-22 at 5:17 PM, GLORY said:

In my opinion there are no paradoxes in reality 
paradoxes only exist when they were made up
conditions, pre-definitions, not questioned accepted rules and assumptions lead to paradoxes
using them in logic leads to contradictions of assumptions
every statement is a pre assumption/pre-definied/accepted rule
every word in a sentence is an assumption/pre-definition/accepted rule
logic is made of made up rules 

examples:
"this sentence is false"
assumptions:
this is a sentence
this sentence makes a statement
this sentence has content/meaning
this sentence must make a correct statement
this sentence must be true or false

"something exist rather than nothing"
assumptions:
there is something
something does exist
nothing does not exist / nothing is nonexistence
there is a difference between something and nothing

"4 is bigger than 2"
when the number 4 is defined to be bigger that 2, and to be the double as big, the assumptions are: 
there are 4 and 2 / there are numbere
not existent numbers do not exist / -∞ to ∞ includes every possible number 
4 is not 2 / difference between them
4 is bigger that 2
numbers have values
numbers can be finite 
numbers are exact, seperable, unique
numbers can be added, substracted, multiplied and divided
numbers makes sense and follow rules 
0, negative and positive numbers can be used in the same way

mathematics is a construct and so the logic used in mathematics is a constructed logic
by breaking the the rules which were made to create this logic, the logic cant be used anymore which leads to contradictions to the rules
self-reference can be contradictory or not contradicory, self-reference can validate or violate the rules
rules can be based on observation of physical laws or they can be made up like in a game

logic in physics:
assumptions could be correct if it does not contradict observation: the assumption "something exists" can be correct
the better the logic the less assumptions it makes, and the less contradictions to observation can be seen or produced using this logic
which assumes that observation is the most correct and closest method to truth

maybe nothing can be know for sure

There are no paradoxes,  yet they are which is the paradox 

[Reciprocality]

There certainly are no paradoxes.

 

I hesitate to provide the proofs here but I can tell you that when you know the difference between self-subsistence of the duality in concepts and the actual conditions for truth-values every infinitely regressive paradox becomes nothing more than an engagement in form without content. The liars paradox becomes reducible to this:

Premise 1. There is truth 

Premise 2. There is falsity

or alternatively

"I wish to conceive the concept of truth and falsity."

 

Logic remains unharmed.

[Reciprocality]

In the simplest possible way: "this statement is false" purports to be a statement but fails the condition for statements.

A statement is something x about y, if x is unthinkable without being a duality then y can not be the other half of that duality, for then you would state nothing at all.

When you want to believe that it is paradoxical you have defined a statement as meaning a quack or a roar, which is typical of people who want to have personal and unquestioned power over words.

Edit: But under your own definitions, when statements are quacks and roars they fail to attempt at being logical. 

And that which fails at trying to be logical is not even contradictory, and certainly not paradoxical.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Leo Gura]

If there are no paradoxes, isn't it a paradox that we have a word for something that doesn't exist?

Edited May 31, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Reciprocality]

What what you just said actually means is this: "is it not weird that there is at all anything?" or "existence is unbelievable" And I am almost certain this will be misunderstood.

Falsity is created out of truth, there is as you have repeated again and again: only truth. Falsity is an emergent layer of truth, it is in your language god playing with himself. 

 

The inconsistency of our thinking does exist, and it is not a paradox that we have a word for it, it is simply an additional layer of inconsistency to think that the first layer of inconsistency were a problem on the part of logic itself and not our own ability to think.

Logic is nothing more than a re-instantiation of premises together in unity. Their unity creates the rule.

 

When you wish to think a 1 you have already thought a duality, and you have for yourself now a 2. every other discrete number follows from this under its rule.

[Reciprocality]

I am fine with having a word for failing to understand that logic is the creation itself of rules through maintaining two or more identities in a formal or even informal system.

 

The real problem here is that there are no independent rules, and so the inconsistency of our thinking only exist when someone notices, and then it exists only for themselves during the noticing, and so far as I understand your teachings I am pretty sure you will agree to this statement, but then I can not fathom why you would consider this paradoxical in any other sense than as I mentioned above: it is unbelievable that we exists at all, for belief requires the creation of rules and we can never outbeliev ourself.

No amount of logical conclusion could ever possibly make it absolutely astounding that the world is actual, non to mention possible, yet the world is astounding, through our failure of logic. 

[Leo Gura]

I have a simple theorem: Every finite system will at some point break down in a paradox.

Finitude itself is paradoxical.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Vibroverse]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I have a simple theorem: Every finite system will at some point break down in a paradox.

Finitude itself is paradoxical.

Every system contains its opposite, or antithesis, in itself. Its negation will be in itself. And, of course, that also includes what i just said. Reality is an eternal dynamism that only can be intuited. Then, the modelling builds itself based on that mode of intuition. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Vibroverse

[Schizophonia]

Paradoxes are false, they are sophisms.

 

[Reciprocality]

@Vibroverse @Leo Gura All you are saying amount to this: "We wish to maintain the integrity of discrete numbers/integers, 3 is an integer and so is 10, through the act of dividing the latter with the former we have now reached a continuous variable (3.333..) and fail to maintain the integrity we sought to" and then "we failed our mission, it must be the fault of the conclusion itself"

The problem is that the concept of discreetness and division are two sets the subsets of which are antithetical to one another, and then that you wished it weren't so by "maintaining the integrity" in the first place.

What you end up with is that you must begin with at least two axioms that as sets never contain subsets that contradict one another, and this you do in a way I could teach an 8 year old, you bring forth the nature of dualities and do not allow them to describe anything in empirical experience as though they were borrowed from experience the way ideas like "mountain" are.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Reciprocality