i dont live on the water front what would i do with a paradox

The egg

Tell us about the egg and where it came from.

I want to hear this too

Hi Billy-

Here's one you might think is funny. "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics, doesn't understand quantum physics." Dawkins

Seems because of the way we are, nearly everything associated with quantum physics appears paradoxical.

Someone like Dawkins could never understand quantum physics so he thinks that no one can understand it. It is because he is trapped inside of his own box I think.

JB, I wondered about that, eventually concluding that what he meant was, because he did understand quantum physics, including it's seemingly irrational component, that it wasn't possible to "understand" it in the way that we normally think of understanding something. Also dubious. Don't know. I'll look into it.

I believe that was the point, or paradox, which isnt a paradox but a contradiction. Clever nonetheless.

FIrst the chicken egg "paradox" is dependant on how you deifine a chicken. Evolution indicates that the precursors/ansesters of modern day chicken layed eggs. Find the time and point at which the genetic variance is too great for them to reproduce. However the ansester is no longer a chicken as we define it. So at what point over say 500,000 years was the criteria satisfied for that label of a species, this leads to the ultimate question, who gives a sht.

Again your paradox about needing to be aware of self before we can be aware that we are aware is dependant on defintion. I would say self-awareness is being aware that you are aware, making it redundant. Also you deal with these concepts like absolutes which is the source of your paradox.

It came from God and was placed into a proto chicken.

DOnt get discourged, How about its is provable that atoms can not be pin pointed accurately in space and time. One predermination does not rule out freewill altogher. No paradox. That other one is a contradiction not a paradox. It is an incomplete sentance as you make refferance to nothing other than two contradictory staements. This red ball is blue....whoa...no sorry try harder. Also the way you phrased it isnt even a contradiction. It would be if you said, "It is true this statement is false." Thsi was a simple way of explaining golels theroem. Not a question for the ages. It implies you cant prove something from inside the system of rules used to make the assertion. It has no referance but itself which assert nothing. Now you mat scartch your head, however you only asserted that what you say is false from a written staement, and i didnt hear you talking.

I reckon paradox is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm just using a looser definition of paradox than yours. In mine, I'm referring to statements or ideas that - on their face and otherwise - confound intuition. We can probably agree that once one unravels them to their own satisfaction, they no longer appear to be paradoxes to the one that did the unravelin', though they still may appear that way to others.

Using the chicken/egg example as an example: Yesterday, after Billy answered "egg", I logically, same as you I assume, began following the trail of evolution backwards through time. However I just kept on going back and back until I realized that the real question is "what came before ANYTHING?". That resolved the conflict momentarily, until the follow on question arose "well, whatever that was, what came before that?" That one kinda made me feel like throwin' up, so I went back to the chicken and egg question, eventually arriving at the following.

I think because we were discussing the concept of how a whole relates to its parts in a different thread, the thought occurred to me that perhaps the chicken and egg aren't two different things as much as they are one whole thing, that is, some sort of gd diabolical "chicken system." This idea seemed somehow to hold enough intuitive truth that I was able to say to myself "Eff it, that's good enough. I'm tired of thinking about it," and went on about my business. That was yesterday.

Today I went back to the question of "what came before whatever came before anything, ad infinitum." I know that question appears to be thoroughly absurd but I can think of no better way to put it. I went on to apply yesterdays partial resolution to this question and decided that although somethingness and nothingness appear to be two separate things, they are actually more of a "one thing," which is also what I happen to already believe, sort of.

What's the upshot of all this? Well, I feel I now know slightly more than I did before, at least to my personal satisfaction. That's what we want, right? To know?

At any rate, this is a long response to your short question "Who gives a sht?" concerning the chicken and the egg. The above is more or less "why" I give a sht. As for the question "who gives a sht," - well, people who tend to think way too much, obviously.

Finally and seriously, don't you find arguing over these types of things rather pointless?

paradox is not the same as contradiction. A commonly sighted paradox, you go back in time and kill your father before you were born. Paradox. the blue ball is red- contradiction. See the differance.

Yes, I see the difference.I don't believe your example is an appropriate corollary to the true/false example though. And while I also agree that contradiction isn't paradox, contradiction is a necessary component of paradox. Two contradictory things that each appear to be true is pretty much the definition of a paradox.

I believe the reason the example "The following statement is true: everything I say (write) is false" is paradoxical is rooted in our necessity, as humans, to accept each others statements as true, unless we have reason for suspicion (dealing with a used car salesman), or the statement contradicts what we already know to be either true or false: A blue ball is blue = true. A blue ball is red = false. Imagine what life would be like if our initial assumption when someone states something is that it is false until proven true.

So:

What I am about to say is true. Response- OK

Everything I say is false. Response- OK... Hey, wait a minute! That means what you said before is false, which means that what you're saying now is true, and so on.

Where, to paraphrase, if you don't mind:

All blue balls(!) are blue. Response- OK

This blue ball is red. Response- "...Whoa... no sorry try harder" - as you say.

Just aware that you are aware

Ha! It depends on if you know yourself or not, you're saying. Whenever I hear someone say that they're trying to find themselves, I'll often reply "Well, if you do happen to find yourself, please tell yourself I said hello." :)

To win a game of chance you may have to side with the opposition.

The statement "everything i say is false" is the same as the blue ball is red, meaning its observer dependant which is the explanation for godels therom. You con not dertmine the validity of a staement/equation without being outside that system or rules you used to come to that conclusion. See now?

Some call me the thread ender.