What does paradox reveal about the nature of truth?

@cicerone imposter,

no it is not a paradoxe, as u said it, ur troops so the confusion with urself needs of being is obvious
which is more clear in self defense argument where it says how then all possible to realize is hundred percent right in case of self defense

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

paradoxes seem to exist bc all so everything is evil life which mean being by abusin truth knowledge and objective rights

when freedom is not recognized and supported then any objective mean must b constant to mean by being opposite
only freedom stands so the true zero which is actually truth stand so freedom infinite superiority dimensions, allow to mean objectively anything while being present fact relatively to

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Hey Matt, I could not help of thinking about this...In conjunction to the OP. Have you ever studied Taoism? It deals a great deal with paradoxes or paradoxical words...

Lao-Tzu claimed that all words of truth are paradoxical...Do you find this to be true? I think paradoxes could help one understand the nature of truth (to them), if it gets one to examine the positions that are paradoxical...(but that would be their subjective views, to me)

I think a paradox proves that no one could know the nature of truth...

Thanks Spade!
Yes I do have (some) familiarity with the connection to Taoism.
My fascination with paradox started when I first read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. This book touches a lot on that connection, and is really fun and playful.

Spade wrote:

I think paradoxes could help one understand the nature of truth (to them), if it gets one to examine the positions that are paradoxical

Your comment is very in line with the point of view that I had, and that I wanted examined/criticized by this debate. So thanks again.

Quote:

Lao-Tzu claimed that all words of truth are paradoxical...Do you find this to be true?

Well, I don't claim to know of any "words of truth", but I do think that an understanding of the 'nature of paradox' would be critical to ever finding such words.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I would say it is close to one if not one...I think a paradox would be "we usually think we are doing what is best, while understanding they are usually not necessary, and usually wrong..." rather than "support our troops..." but it is very close to the same thing, but I think it is important to point out us thinking it is wrong, and thinking it is not necessary while doing it because we think it is best, at the time...knowing we think it probably is not...to make it even more of a paradox...

But I do think you gave me a way of understanding my own questions though you said you are in no position to give an answer...

I would say there would probably never be a paradoxical position that could be paradoxical, and be seen as universally true...Because if it was thought to be almost unanimously, universally, true...I do not think that many would view this truth as paradoxical...and the nature of a paradox being paradoxical is the reason why it is seen as self contradictory, while being found to be true...because paradoxes, in nature, are self-reliant on each persons perspectives...

In other words, I see it that it always take a person to examine a paradox themselves, to understand why it is a paradox to them...and each paradox, is subject to a persons own perspectives as to why it is a paradox to them, and what about each paradox is actually truth to them once examined....So paradoxes are always subjective by its nature...and so are the examined truths about a paradox...

Another example: If I was to even say every paradox is a paradox...Or every paradox is paradoxical...I can see why one would argue that a paradox is not a paradox or paradoxical because it allows one to find truths, and not just self contradictions...of self contradiction...

I think the only way it could equate was if one was to show that a paradox is not really a paradox, but were just universal truths, and almost none would see any contradictions about "the paradox presented" so it would not be seen as a paradox any longer, even if it actually is...One side would have to give

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I agree that paradoxes are individual inclinations and perceptions as well as our determinations of good and bad.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

You, igm, and Fresco, for instance, regularly make pronouncements of what the REALITY has to contain and what is definitely does not contain. Of course, when called on it you guys always explain the caveats and conditionals. But the plain fact is, Matt, that the caveats and conditionals only come from you (universal “you”) when you are cornered.

CHALLENGE to you, igm, Fresco: Lemme hear you guys acknowledge in plain, easy to understand English…that you acknowledge we do not know the REALITY…and that any suggestions you are making about it are nothing more than guesses…and that the fact that we do not know the REALITY is much, much, much, much more integral to the reason the REALITY is not being described here than are the limitations imposed by language’s limits.

I am genuinely sorry if anything I have written leaves in you with the impression that I think I know with all certainty anything.
I do not think that.
I haven't gone back through all of my comments to find where I committed such an error in communication, but I will trust you that such errors are there.
My struggle is that within, what I view to be the normal context, a statement such as "Within mathematics there exist paradoxes." I think the assumption is that what is meant is "I think within a high degree of certainty that within mathematics there exist paradoxes".
I agree that there is no way for someone to absolutely know anything.
To take just a simple and cliched example "Life is but a dream." How could I ever know that it isn't.

Last night I watched a really nice talk by John Lloyd on the virtues of internalizing the point that I think you are trying to impress upon us:

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

If I was to even say every paradox is a paradox...Or every paradox is paradoxical...I can see why one would argue that a paradox is not a paradox or paradoxical because it allows one to find truths, and not just self contradictions...of self contradiction...

I think the only way it could equate was if one was to show that a paradox is not really a paradox, but were just universal truths, and almost none would see any contradictions about "the paradox presented" so it would not be seen as a paradox any longer, even if it actually is...One side would have to give

This reminds be of an attempted strategy to eliminate the issue altogether.
Rather than try to eliminate paradox, lets embrace it.

Take:
[ This sentence is false ]

We can't decide if the sentence is true or false, so lets just decide that any such statement (self-refuting ones) are neither true nor false they are just "paradox".

So now we have not 2 categories of truth (true or false), rather we have 3 categories (true or false or paradox).

*Something can be true so long as it is not false and not paradox.
*Something can be false so long as it is not true and not paradox.
*Something can be paradox so long as it is not true and not false.

How do you feel about this way of looking at things?

3 Replies

@MattDavis,

Thank you for that, Matt.

I make a rule of not watching videos...and broke it to see what this was about. My expectations were to watch a minute or two...and then jump away. I watched the entire thing.

I will make my comment as large as I can...but I wish I could make it much, much larger:

AMEN!

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

You wrote,

Quote:

*Something can be true so long as it is not false and not paradox.
*Something can be false so long as it is not true and not paradox.
*Something can be paradox so long as it is not true and not false.

All three applies on any issue, because we do not agree on what is true or false.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

We can't decide if the sentence is true or false, so lets just decide that any such statement (self-refuting ones) are neither true nor false they are just "paradox".

I would have to say there is a fourth option...that is not self refuting...And it does not have impact if the sentence is true or false, because it still relies on paradox...not "true or false"...You tell me if you disagree, and why? Something can be paradox, because it can be true, and it can be false...

Do you think this is self refuting because something can only be true or false, ultimately? Or would you say it is a fourth possibility, because a paradox's truth is reliant on the false implications that every paradox retains, that makes it true once examined? Meaning it must be seen as false, to be seen true...that every paradox maintains...

Not really saying the sentence is true or false, at the moment...but a paradox, because a paradox is both from the start...without implications as to either true or false...by itself... subjectively in a way that no one would completely agree?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I am sorry mate...Was not thinking about it clear enough from the way I interpreted it...Your third, and my fourth are the same exact things...Sorry...OK yes, I can agree...

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I appreciate your input.
I am not exactly asking for agreement.
I am curious as to what impact this could have on the understanding of the concept of "truth".
Basically how could this change a worldview to think
not in terms of the 2 colors of
"true" and "false"
but in the 3 colors of
"true", "false" and "paradox"?

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I think you were mentally looking at a case like:
[This sentence is paradoxical.]
If you assume (without looking at the content) the sentence to be "true" then it follows that it is both not "paradox" and not "false".
The content claims "paradox" to be its value which means both not "true" and not "false".
The sentence is self-refuting and therefor paradoxical.
But if it is paradoxical then the content of the sentence does agree with it's derived truth value of "paradox" which would make it a "true" statement and not a "paradoxical" one.

We have now created a sentence that is paradoxical even within terms of deciding if it is paradoxical.
I think you were onto something before you second guessed yourself.
This is a sort of 4th color of truth value.
A meta-paradox.

And I think that you could keep nesting more and more paradoxes inside of the structure I laid out above for each new color we add.

Adding a truth value beyond 2 adds 3 adds 4 adds 5 ... and on indefinitely.....

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

"It's true that this statement is false" would be a true statement if I wasn't lieing. If it were a false statement then I would say " this statement is true". Orr I could say "it's not true that this statement is false".

1 Reply

@Looking4Truth,

Ok.

Looking4Truth wrote:

"It's true that this statement is false" would be a true statement if I wasn't lieing.

Are you then saying that a statement can be true when it's content is not true?

Quote:

If it were a false statement then I would say " this statement is true".

Are you then saying that a statement can be false when it's content is true?

Quote:

Orr I could say "it's not true that this statement is false".

This is also paradoxical and is equivalent in content to "This statement is false."

We could keep reasserting the claim of falsity within the sentence.
We could keep adding "It is true that,...." to the beginning of the sentence.
We could keep replacing "false" with "not true".
We could keep replacing "true" with "not false".
None of those things changes the essential content of the statement.
"This statement is false"

Such as:
This statement is false.
It is true that, this statement is false.
It is not false that, this statement is false.
It is not false that, this statement is not true.
It is true that, it is not false that, this statement is not true.
On and on......
No resolution.... (I think)

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I think you were onto something before you second guessed yourself.

I am sorry Matt, I think you are correct...I second guessed myself, because when I had seen the negative vote, I thought I was off base, but I should have know better...I will give my views as to multiple or meta-paradoxes in a few minutes...

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

The fifth color spectrum in the paradoxes would be it is paradoxical because the statements can be false, and not true....

And the sixth would be...it is paradoxical because it can be true, and not false...

Then false and false, then true and true...

I am not sure it can get much higher than 8 or would require a lot of thinking...

It would be something like it is false because it is not true, because it is false...etc...And keeps on going...that is how I see it...anyways...

Then as high as false, false, true and true, true, false...etc...

false, true, true...true, false, false,....false, false, false, true, true, true...

then four sets...then five...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I don't know who voted it down.
I voted it back up.

That isn't exactly my understanding of these new colors.
So for #4
true=cannot be (false, paradox, or meta-paradox)
false=cannot be (true, paradox, or meta-paradox)
paradox=cannot be (true, false, or meta-paradox)
meta-paradox=cannot be (true,false, or paradox)

Gotta go, off to yoga.
Hope your friend is hanging in there.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

OK, I got ya...If that is how you see it...then I would say #5 would be

Truth = cannot be false, paradox, meta-paradox, meta-false (or para-false, or ortho-false) preferably "para"

#6 would be

Truth = cannot be false, paradox, meta-paradox, para-false, meta-truth...

Then possibly as high as meta-para-paradox...etc...

but this is all speculations on my part...

Have fun at yoga mate!

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I'm saying what I mean. The content of the statement is false and that's true Wink

. If the statement was true, then that's false Wink

. If you understand what I'm saying, then is it a paradox? If the meaning of the statement is known, keep it known. Is simplicity harder to understand rather than complexity? Is confusion more tasteful than understanding? Although you thirst for answers, what quinces your thirst? Simplicity or complexity? Understanding or confusion? True or false?

0 Replies

What does paradox reveal about the nature of truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know