Are there any valid paradoxes?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper » May 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm

Having resolved a few paradoxes recently, I've been looking through Wikipedia's list of paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes to see if any of them stand up to scrutiny at all, but I can't find any that do. It's a long list and it will take a long time to go through the lot carefully, but I'm becoming increasingly confident that every paradox is built on an error. Note: the word paradox can be applied to things that are merely surprising, which certainly does apply to many of the paradoxes in the list, but I'm using a stronger definition where there should be no satisfactory explanation. Are there any that still stand?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7235
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Greta » May 11th, 2018, 5:48 pm

Creation relies on destruction.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper » May 11th, 2018, 6:42 pm

Greta wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Creation relies on destruction.
Any reorganisation is a change from one pattern to another, so one is necessarily lost when the other is created. That is not the kind of paradox I'm looking for, but yes - it certainly does qualify under the soft definition of paradox as it can come as a surprise if you've previously only focused on one side of the process of creation without ever considering the other.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7235
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Greta » May 11th, 2018, 7:07 pm

David, I would agree with you, if not for emergent properties. The emergence of hydrostatic equilibrium in cosmic bodies and homoestatic equilibrium of life could reasonably be argued to be more than just regular change through exponential differences.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss » May 11th, 2018, 8:12 pm

David Cooper wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm
Having resolved a few paradoxes recently, I've been looking through Wikipedia's list of paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes to see if any of them stand up to scrutiny at all, but I can't find any that do. It's a long list and it will take a long time to go through the lot carefully, but I'm becoming increasingly confident that every paradox is built on an error. Note: the word paradox can be applied to things that are merely surprising, which certainly does apply to many of the paradoxes in the list, but I'm using a stronger definition where there should be no satisfactory explanation. Are there any that still stand?
My experience is that all erroneous assumptions, when thoroughly critically examined, end in paradox.
It appears that a paradox is a sure sign of a failed/impossible premise.
Like 'time trave', no matter how it is examined, logically, it results in paradox. That tells us that 'time travel', as depicted, as 'assumed', is not possible.

There are many paradoxes. Seems to be an 'invalid premise' in each.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum » May 11th, 2018, 9:22 pm

In general the law of non-contradiction cannot be broken via the same time and same sense [perspective].
While many paradoxes are due to errors, I believe all the more 'convincing' [seemingly] paradoxes listed are due to conflation of different senses, i.e. very subtle perspectives.

Humans has evolved to be necessarily conditioned to 'rigid' frameworks and perspectives to facilitate survival. When at survival level or under threat one has to make quick decisions to ensure survival in general, thus nature cannot afford to put humans in two or many minds. Thus such single [or narrow] mindedness is ingrained into the majority of human beings. This is the case of being stuck inside a box, i.e. framework of customs and habits.

With that rigid thinking embedded deep in the brain and the continual evolution to higher thinking ability, humans become aware of conflicting truths. Where they are unable to decipher the subtle perspectives within what is perceived, paradoxes emerge. It is the case of not thinking or cannot think outside the box.

I believe all paradoxes can be resolved by thinking outside the respective boxes with more refined critical thinking.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss » May 12th, 2018, 2:06 am

Spectrum wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 9:22 pm
In general the law of non-contradiction cannot be broken...

And yet it has been thoroughly refuted/broken in QM!
A=A and A=/=A and A sometimes = A and on and on...

The critical update of QM on (Aristotle's refuted laws of) 'logic' is;

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum » May 12th, 2018, 2:14 am

Robert Anton Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson (born Robert Edward Wilson; January 18, 1932 – January 11, 2007) was an American author, novelist, essayist, editor, playwright, poet, futurist, and self-described agnostic mystic. Recognized as an Episkopos, Pope, and saint of Discordianism, Wilson helped publicize the group[which?] through his writings and interviews. -wiki
Physicist? Philosopher? yes? no?

Deepak Chopra would have agreed with him.

I won't bite unless it is a philosophical view.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss » May 12th, 2018, 2:18 am

Spectrum wrote:
May 12th, 2018, 2:14 am
Robert Anton Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson (born Robert Edward Wilson; January 18, 1932 – January 11, 2007) was an American author, novelist, essayist, editor, playwright, poet, futurist, and self-described agnostic mystic. Recognized as an Episkopos, Pope, and saint of Discordianism, Wilson helped publicize the group[which?] through his writings and interviews. -wiki
Physicist? Philosopher? yes? no?

Deepak Chopra would have agreed with him.

I won't bite unless it is a philosophical view.
It IS a philosophical view!
All sciences inform philosophy!

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss » May 12th, 2018, 2:19 am

And Wilson certainly needs no defense to anyone who knows his work.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss » May 12th, 2018, 2:23 am

You don't need to 'bite' anything.
There is no argument here, and I wasn't fishing for one.
I was pointing out an error.
It's all 'out there' for researching.
Believe as you must, I'm not trying to mess with your mind. *__-

Eduk
Posts: 1936
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Eduk » May 12th, 2018, 9:00 am

Although QM proves absolutely everything I'm still not the ruler of reality. I have no idea why not.
Unknown means unknown.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper » May 12th, 2018, 6:02 pm

Greta wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 7:07 pm
David, I would agree with you, if not for emergent properties.
Are there any emergent properties that can't be fully accounted for in full by the components? It looks to me as if emergent properties are just compounds of component parts and properties.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum » May 12th, 2018, 10:12 pm

Namelesss wrote:
May 12th, 2018, 2:18 am
Spectrum wrote:
May 12th, 2018, 2:14 am
Physicist? Philosopher? yes? no?

Deepak Chopra would have agreed with him.

I won't bite unless it is a philosophical view.
It IS a philosophical view!
All sciences inform philosophy!
Science is merely a tool which provides specifically scientific knowledge for philosophy's consumption.
Scientific knowledge are very useful but at best merely 'polished' conjectures - Popper. Whatever QM produces, they are highly conditional 'polished' conjectures.
Note meta-Science is philosophy.
Philosophy as 'meta-' encompasses Science and all other types of knowledge.
This is why we have 'the Philosophy of Science' and never the other way round.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum » May 12th, 2018, 10:16 pm

David Cooper wrote:
May 12th, 2018, 6:02 pm
Greta wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 7:07 pm
David, I would agree with you, if not for emergent properties.
Are there any emergent properties that can't be fully accounted for in full by the components? It looks to me as if emergent properties are just compounds of component parts and properties.
Note the emergent of human consciousness and self-awareness that is aware of one's own self-awareness.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply