What would it ential if mathematics science and all views ended in meaninglessness

[pam699]

What would it ential if mathematics science and all views ended in meaninglessness

I am not asking do they
but
instead asking a hypothetical and asking what if they DID end in meaninglesness WHAT WOULD THIS ENTAIL as a hypothetical

And, what exactly do you mean when you use the term "meaninglessness"? Hypothetically, that is. Do you mean by "meaninglessness" that science and mathematics lose their utility as tools to count money, build bridges, or map DNA? So, what does "meaninglessness" mean?

Regards
S.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Is this another thread about this same subject? I'd probably just go through life. What other choice do I have?

[loser]

Hypothetically, this thread is absolutely meaningless and should end immediately with this disclosure...hypothetically.

[pam699]

come on what would it intail if logically every view maths science every thing ended in meaninglessness or self-contradiction and thus could not be logically true but false

[Mozart1220]

If rats were the size of English schoolchildren they could wipe us out in a week. Other than that I just don't care.

[Jack]

every thing ended in meaninglessness or self-contradiction and thus could not be logically true but false

You would never know for sure what was reality and what was fantasy. You would "lose your grip on reality", a phrase we use to be polite when discussing people who have gone insane.
Sanity is, in part, the ability to trust your own thoughts. When you can no longer do that, you cease to be a productive member of society. The mentally ill are generally pitied but seldom trusted.
It's sad when people lose touch with their own minds. I can't believe it's a state to aspire to.

[pam699]

but why would u just not say hey normal logic must be wrong rather than go mad-suerly it is simpler to question the logic that leads to meaninglessness than go mad

when normal logic made the subatomic world meaningless they just invented a logic which made it meanioingfull -quantum logic- so why go mad -just change your logic

[Kamehameha34]

It's like you type what ever is in your head, mid-thought, then make a thread for it..


Making a new thread dedicated to the same moronic author doesn't escape the people willing to point out that he is, indeed, moronic.

[pam699]

but why would u just not say hey normal logic must be wrong rather than go mad-suerly it is simpler to question the logic that leads to meaninglessness than go mad

when normal logic made the subatomic world meaningless they just invented a logic which made it meanioingfull -quantum logic- so why go mad -just change your logic

[Kamehameha34]

Umm.. Let's highlight the similarities in your two posts:

but why would u just not say hey normal logic must be wrong rather than go mad-suerly it is simpler to question the logic that leads to meaninglessness than go mad when normal logic made the subatomic world meaningless they just invented a logic which made it meanioingfull -quantum logic- so why go mad -just change your logic

but why would u just not say hey normal logic must be wrong rather than go mad-suerly it is simpler to question the logic that leads to meaninglessness than go mad when normal logic made the subatomic world meaningless they just invented a logic which made it meanioingfull -quantum logic- so why go mad -just change your logic

[pam699]

Quote:
but why would u just not say hey normal logic must be wrong rather than go mad-suerly it is simpler to question the logic that leads to meaninglessness than go mad

when normal logic made the subatomic world meaningless they just invented a logic which made it meanioingfull -quantum logic- so why go mad -just change your logic

SO WHATS THE ANSWER

Quote by: pam699 come on what would it intail if logically every view maths science every thing ended in meaninglessness or self-contradiction and thus could not be logically true but false

Hypothetically, if everything were meaningless, then you too would be meaningless, which entails meaningfulness. And why is that? Because a negative multiplied by negative is a positive. It then follows that if everything except you were meaningless, you would, in fact, be meaningless (a negative times a positive equals a negative). But, of course, you see the paradox. If you're meaningless and everything else is meaningless then everything including you is meaningful because, as stated above, a negative times a negative always equals a positive. Therefore the notion of meaninglessness is meaningless. That's why even discussing meaninglessness gives it meaning.

I trust everything is now clear.

Regards
S

[pam699]

hey great but u are still left with everything eslse is meaninglessnes to -even meaningless
if some one showed that meaninglesnes was meaningless that would be good since it is what the meaninglesness of allll views entials-but nevertheless you are still left with the meaninglessness of every thing else
dean claims thesis and its antithesis end in meaningless
ie the negation of the negation of the negation ad infinitum

so what does this entail

The flaw in Dean's dialectic--thesis->antithesis->thesis--is the observer. The observer cannot consider meaninglessness if he/she/it is meaningless. If the observer is not meaningless then nothing else is meaningless. Meaninglessness can only exist in a state of nothingness. In state of nothingness, there can be no consideration of anything. The moment Dean discusses his theories he gives them meaning. The paradox is inherent in not only the language of his views, but in the states he describes.

In other words, meaninglessness is a logical and physical impossibility no matter how the problem is stated, because stating the problem gives meaning.

Regards
S.

[pam699]

hey meaninglessness = self-contradition
are you saying the self contradictions in maths that isherwood shot him self in the foot with are not self-contradictions and thus meaningless-gee if you r u will become famous as the discover of the arguments that prove the sholkem peterburg etc paradoxes as being wrong

hey the observer can be a mass of self-contraditions and discover self-conttradictions or meaningless in everything else

the observer when it interprets the world or itself will just discover that it and the world are a mass of self-contraditions or meaninglessness

My argument doesn't rely on the quality of the observer, merely the existence of one.

Regards
S.

[pam699]

meaninglessness does not say anything about existence or truth- just that every thing ends in self contradiction or meaninglessness such as truth or existence

Quote by: pam699 meaninglessness does not say anything about existence or truth- just that every thing ends in self contradiction or meaninglessness such as truth or existence

What you're going to find is that your conclusion is not based in reality, but rather is merely an artifact of language. One can argue that everything ends in self-contradiction or meaninglessness and prove it within the symbolic representation of reality we call "language," but the proved self-contradictions and meaninglessness can't be demonstrated experimentally outside of the symbolism of language.

Mathematics, which is also a symbolic representation of reality, if often used to predict what might happen in the real world, but experimentation is done (where possible) to confirm the mathematical findings. Mathematicians understand that symbols can never fully represent realty, and they are therefore cautious about their conclusions. Would that putative philosophers applied the same cautions and intellectual discipline

Regards
S.

[pam699]

yes i agree with you
quote
What you're going to find is that your conclusion is not based in reality, but rather is merely an artifact of language. One can argue that everything ends in self-contradiction or meaninglessness and prove it within the symbolic representation of reality we call "language,

but when language is the only way or means we can access reality it means that our understanding of reality will always end in meaninglessness

it seems that reality will always be incomprehensible so long as we use language
the very thing mystic have been saying for centuraies
ie reality must be appeoached non-conceptualy not linguisticlly

but hegle argued that reality was a self-contradiction regardless of language
where kant said the mind placed the contradictions there hegle said no they are there independent of any mind

but thanks for finally seing deans point
but we r still left whether kant or hegle are corect or the mystics-but then in terms of language any interpretation will end in meaninglessness