True, we try to understand. That’s why we’re on this forum. Religion was formed because people didn’t understand nature the stars etc. We still do not know about death. So religion still exists. I do not believe in religion as I believe it is used to keep people ignorant. Easier to control them if they’re ignorant. I like to question things, and learn new things. How was the universe started? Is there a reason to be? What is your reason to be?

The double slit and various related experiments do come close to suggesting the universe likes paradox. But probably we just don't understand what's going on. — Marchesk

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.

yep. — Banno

You're a rationalist. Kind of rare in this century. :grin:

Banjo is right that “ grammars are neither good nor bad as they stand; only that they are better and worse for some purposes, and not others. But yes - paradoxes are grammar - techniques - pushed to where they ought not go.” I don’t speak well, however I love math, computers, chemistry. Those languages make sense, and are concise. Grammar can be flowery and deceptive.

The double slit and various related experiments do come close to suggesting the universe likes paradox. But probably we just don't understand what's going on. — Marchesk

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.

Wow! How would you prove that? How do you know there’s only 10 or 11? Maybe there’s 20. However, I do agree there is a non-physical universe of energy. We are trapped.

Wow! How would you prove that? — Becky

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.

This effectively means there are two universes. — EnPassant

Well, no. There is still only one universe, with two descriptions.

Well, no. There is still only one universe, with two descriptions. — Banno

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 do agree there is a non-physical universe of energy. — Becky

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.

So why on earth would paradoxes be built into the universe? — Benj96

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… .

Is there anything in common that links paradoxes together? — 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.

Contradictions are a language thing only. — ChatteringMonkey

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.

So the problem is semantical rather than grammatical. That makes more sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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. — ChatteringMonkey

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?

You seem to think you are saying something coherent. I'm not so sure.

I have no idea what you are getting at. — ChatteringMonkey

Nor I. Although I agree with the bit about the bible being full of paradox.

I'm not so sure. — Banno

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.

Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, — 3017amen

You sure 'bout that?

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? — 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.

This is what we call philosophical analysis. — Banno

Are you absolutely certain about that?

Please share your description of time without paradox.

Do cats eat bats?

OR, when challenged, change the topic.

Do bats eat cats?

Do bats eat cats? — Banno

This is what we call philosophical analysis. — 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!

What about Schrödinger's cat? The act of observance changes the physical entity.

The universe is perfect. The paradox is a perception of our own limited mind :)

Perfection is only perceived within your own mind. We are all chemical beings.

What about Schrödinger's cat? The act of observance changes the physical entity. — Becky

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:

“May or not be the case” is what you state. Show me your sources.

Chairs. Chairs transcend language. There are chairs, regardless of what you might say about them.

Wow! Debating semantics rather than reality