Question to be discussed ...
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Matt, a lot of those old paradoxes have been allegedly 'solved' but it's not so much we can solve them, the point is, why do we have them?
The irony is, to 'solve' these paradoxes, we have to seeminlgy venture outside of the very thing that created them...........
I always feel its when 2 sets of rules/assumptions/laws/duties collide. Both make sense in isolation, but not in tandem.
Then again, the word Paradox itself is usually mis-used, causing further confusion, which some may refer to as a paradox, which, again, proves the point further.
If one guy had mapped out life's processes, laws and ethics, there would be fewer paradox's for sure, but then paradox's occur naturally in peoples lives, so I suppose we have them because we cannot avoid them. Many are by their nature 'unavoidable'.
Then again, the word Paradox itself is usually mis-used, causing further confusion, which some may refer to as a paradox, which, again, proves the point further.
If one guy had mapped out life's processes, laws and ethics, there would be fewer paradox's for sure, but then paradox's occur naturally in peoples lives, so I suppose we have them because we cannot avoid them. Many are by their nature 'unavoidable'.
Much like MissyQ said, it's because we live in a socially constructed world where meanings can collide. The Cretan example above, for example, relies on the construction of language to become a paradox (he's lieing though
). Even in mathematics, the same applies since it's a constructed language of logic rather than a prebuilt system tailored to everything it applies to. That's my take on it anyway.
Weirdly enough, I think this is as close to correct as to make no odds.Only if your are human....
Missy-Q's post about the collision of two laws/principles/theories etc is what makes this inevitable. Our very definitions of the world around us mean that we limit our possibilities. I know thats a fairly broad sweeping statement but over-generalisation aside, on the whole I think that is true.
Where as faith within religion allows for the possibility of events outside our understanding of physical laws, the logical/scientific nature of humans means that we do not always believe what we see or hear. Hence why paradoxes exist. We cannot apply our logic to a situation which, on the surface, appears to defy logic. For example, if I build a time machine and go back and kill my father before he met my mother, then I wouldn't exist to go back and kill him. But this paradox exists because of our understanding and definitions of the law of causality and time. This goes back to a thread Robbo ran earlier in the year.
Its an interesting question, which I am sure will be, and has been, debated for years. But, to me, it seems that we (Homo Sapiens) are the limiting factor in this.
Maybe we can focus more on language, whether it be linguistic or mathematical, rather than write off the question as a consequence of our species ......Its an interesting question, which I am sure will be, and has been, debated for years. But, to me, it seems that we (Homo Sapiens) are the limiting factor in this.
Or even theological???
Take the paradox: "there's no athiests in foxholes", implies we suddenly get belief. If so, we'd be quite happy to actually die and go off to paradise (whether it be the one with the fluffy white clouds or 72 virgins). However when Jerry, VC or whomever you're facing suddenly come over the lip, you'll probably fight tooth and nail and stick a bayonet in the c nut to stay alive.