Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

There is no paradox

Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:40:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is the nature of paradox? Paradox consists more than one of something. And something is function. What we perceive as an existence, actually it's not an existence, in the sense that what we perceive is merely functions.

If there is paradox then there must be the two of functions.

These functions, one to another are functioning within two possibilities:

1. Both functions are functioning without distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at the same placement. It's like saying "me and myself". In the sense that we can perceive the sameness in between both at any different point of views. If that so, then there is no paradox.

2. Both functions are functioning within distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at different placement. In the sense that we can perceive the differences in between both at different point of views. But it's not paradox, since both are working at different placement.

An example: when we were watching an advertisement on television, and there were two images at the same place, it doesn't have to be considered there was paradox. It just an assertion that "both images" were displayed at the same place but at different time (but we can't perceive it, our understanding notify it). Meaning, there is a distance (gap, switching from one image replacing another image quickly) in between both images, therefore this is not a paradox.

If there is paradox, then there must be:

- both functions are running at the same placement, there is no separation on what is pointed as paradox.

By saying that I am good and I am evil, it's not paradox, since both qualities are running at different placement. I prefer to understand paradox as possibilities, since (what we consider as) paradox is just different placement of something.

The problem, is that we don't know how to locate the different placement. But once, we can find the different placement of working functions (to be considered as paradox), then we can perceive it as different actualization of possibilities.

By asserting "this is paradox" it's the same as saying "there is the same placement of different functions", which is impossible. Remember that, i am referring existence in this case with "functions", since what we perceive as existence is merely functions of particles, and a particles is function of another particles. (and i am not going into debate about what is this before current function, but i just want to assert that at least "if we perceive paradox" then it has relation with functions).

Is there paradox? There is no paradox, but there is only different qualities. We just have to see from different point of view, and see if there are different placement (to make sure it's not a paradox).

But yes, again this term is generally misused, by asserting there is paradox just because we are perceiving differences from the same thing, which it's not paradox, since both are coming from one thing but actualized at different placement (we just don't aware of it, we just don't understand "what paradox is").

Besides IF THERE IS PARADOX, AND WE INSIST THERE IS, THEN BOTH FUNCTIONS CAN'T BE ACTUALIZED (APPLIED) TOGETHER (therefore there is nothing to be pointed), because one of them must be running within orders.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:24:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:40:43 AM, Seremonia wrote:
What is the nature of paradox? Paradox consists more than one of something. And something is function. What we perceive as an existence, actually it's not an existence, in the sense that what we perceive is merely functions.

If there is paradox then there must be the two of functions.

These functions, one to another are functioning within two possibilities:

1. Both functions are functioning without distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at the same placement. It's like saying "me and myself". In the sense that we can perceive the sameness in between both at any different point of views. If that so, then there is no paradox.

2. Both functions are functioning within distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at different placement. In the sense that we can perceive the differences in between both at different point of views. But it's not paradox, since both are working at different placement.

An example: when we were watching an advertisement on television, and there were two images at the same place, it doesn't have to be considered there was paradox. It just an assertion that "both images" were displayed at the same place but at different time (but we can't perceive it, our understanding notify it). Meaning, there is a distance (gap, switching from one image replacing another image quickly) in between both images, therefore this is not a paradox.

If there is paradox, then there must be:

- both functions are running at the same placement, there is no separation on what is pointed as paradox.

By saying that I am good and I am evil, it's not paradox, since both qualities are running at different placement. I prefer to understand paradox as possibilities, since (what we consider as) paradox is just different placement of something.

The problem, is that we don't know how to locate the different placement. But once, we can find the different placement of working functions (to be considered as paradox), then we can perceive it as different actualization of possibilities.

By asserting "this is paradox" it's the same as saying "there is the same placement of different functions", which is impossible. Remember that, i am referring existence in this case with "functions", since what we perceive as existence is merely functions of particles, and a particles is function of another particles. (and i am not going into debate about what is this before current function, but i just want to assert that at least "if we perceive paradox" then it has relation with functions).

Is there paradox? There is no paradox, but there is only different qualities. We just have to see from different point of view, and see if there are different placement (to make sure it's not a paradox).

But yes, again this term is generally misused, by asserting there is paradox just because we are perceiving differences from the same thing, which it's not paradox, since both are coming from one thing but actualized at different placement (we just don't aware of it, we just don't understand "what paradox is").

Besides IF THERE IS PARADOX, AND WE INSIST THERE IS, THEN BOTH FUNCTIONS CAN'T BE ACTUALIZED (APPLIED) TOGETHER (therefore there is nothing to be pointed), because one of them must be running within orders.

A paradox is a fictional concept. It cannot exist in reality by definition, and therefore by pointing this out as a, somehow, self defeater, all you are doing is strawmanning paradoxs.

Paradoxs exist in an abstract form as a concept or idea. For instance, I cannot think and not think at the same moment. By trying to say that paradoxs cannot exist by saying that the two qualities exist in different areas you completely miss what a paradox is. We cannot have square circles, but we can have circles which exist inside a square.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:26:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both the notion of paradox and consistency are the result of arbitrary human reasoning.

Neither exists in the world outside our measuring sticks.

Hey, I can turn that into a poem.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 5:52:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 3:24:03 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:40:43 AM, Seremonia wrote:
What is the nature of paradox? Paradox consists more than one of something. And something is function. What we perceive as an existence, actually it's not an existence, in the sense that what we perceive is merely functions.

If there is paradox then there must be the two of functions.

These functions, one to another are functioning within two possibilities:

1. Both functions are functioning without distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at the same placement. It's like saying "me and myself". In the sense that we can perceive the sameness in between both at any different point of views. If that so, then there is no paradox.

2. Both functions are functioning within distance, in the sense, each of functions are running at different placement. In the sense that we can perceive the differences in between both at different point of views. But it's not paradox, since both are working at different placement.

An example: when we were watching an advertisement on television, and there were two images at the same place, it doesn't have to be considered there was paradox. It just an assertion that "both images" were displayed at the same place but at different time (but we can't perceive it, our understanding notify it). Meaning, there is a distance (gap, switching from one image replacing another image quickly) in between both images, therefore this is not a paradox.

If there is paradox, then there must be:

- both functions are running at the same placement, there is no separation on what is pointed as paradox.

By saying that I am good and I am evil, it's not paradox, since both qualities are running at different placement. I prefer to understand paradox as possibilities, since (what we consider as) paradox is just different placement of something.

The problem, is that we don't know how to locate the different placement. But once, we can find the different placement of working functions (to be considered as paradox), then we can perceive it as different actualization of possibilities.

By asserting "this is paradox" it's the same as saying "there is the same placement of different functions", which is impossible. Remember that, i am referring existence in this case with "functions", since what we perceive as existence is merely functions of particles, and a particles is function of another particles. (and i am not going into debate about what is this before current function, but i just want to assert that at least "if we perceive paradox" then it has relation with functions).

Is there paradox? There is no paradox, but there is only different qualities. We just have to see from different point of view, and see if there are different placement (to make sure it's not a paradox).

But yes, again this term is generally misused, by asserting there is paradox just because we are perceiving differences from the same thing, which it's not paradox, since both are coming from one thing but actualized at different placement (we just don't aware of it, we just don't understand "what paradox is").

Besides IF THERE IS PARADOX, AND WE INSIST THERE IS, THEN BOTH FUNCTIONS CAN'T BE ACTUALIZED (APPLIED) TOGETHER (therefore there is nothing to be pointed), because one of them must be running within orders.

A paradox is a fictional concept. It cannot exist in reality by definition, and therefore by pointing this out as a, somehow, self defeater, all you are doing is strawmanning paradoxs.

Paradoxs exist in an abstract form as a concept or idea. For instance, I cannot think and not think at the same moment. By trying to say that paradoxs cannot exist by saying that the two qualities exist in different areas you completely miss what a paradox is. We cannot have square circles, but we can have circles which exist inside a square.

Hi,

To avoid ambiguous i am going to relate these examples (understanding) to reality:

1. We can't have square circle = if it's a ball (closer or the same as the shape of a circle) then it's not something else (closer or the same as the shape of a square), in the sense that, if we are saying this is a ball, then we are not saying it's a square by pointing at the same thing (which is a ball).

2. We can have circle which exist inside a square = if it's a ball (closer or the same as the shape of a circle) then it can be placed inside ANOTHER BIGGER THAN A BALL (which has the shape closer to the shape of a square).

And i don't know how to relate your assertion to my understanding. If you have different understanding to spot my fallacy on my understanding about paradox, please would you tell me an example of it? But it has to be related to reality to avoid ambiguous.

Thank you
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 5:58:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 3:26:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both the notion of paradox and consistency are the result of arbitrary human reasoning.

Neither exists in the world outside our measuring sticks.

Hey, I can turn that into a poem.

Nice poem:

- Both the notion of paradox and consistency are, ...

- the result of arbitrary human reasoning.

- Both the notion of paradox and consistency are, ...

- neither exists in the world outside our measuring sticks.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!