The Paradox of ExistenceMembership Status
Registration Date: Jun 02, 2003Usergroup: Sponsors
Articles Submitted: 0 articles
Total Comments: 2868 (1 per day)
Total Time Online: 50 days, 3 hours and 45 minutes
Last seen: 04/27/12 - 01:35:06
Biographical Information
Location: Chesapeake, VAOccupation: Woodbutcher
Interests: theoretical physics, guitar, singing
Biography: father of two
Contact Information
Guestbook: View or sign guestbook (0)Submission History
Most recent articles:Pack Hunters
The Gift of a Question
The Scientific History of Paradox
The Paradox of Existence
Find all articles submitted by wuliheron
By wuliheron
06/02/03 (Edited 02/27/12)
Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it apparently does not make rational sense. Nature makes an inordinate amount of sense but existence itself is patently irrational and, thus, possibly supernatural. Nonetheless, attempts to rationally explain existence have proliferated since the dawn of humanity, but all of these have led back to paradox rather than resolving the paradox of existence.
One proposed explanation for existence is that it just is, and is not contingent on a cause or anything else for that matter. This is rhetorical nonsense. You might as well say dill pickles explain the meaning of life for all we are able to meaningfully glean from such a statement. It does not begin to describe much less account for existence but, at best, can be interpreted as an affirmation or expression of humor.
Others have argued that the reality of our existence is self-evident, and to think otherwise is pointless and often destructive solipsism. As Aart Van Der Leeuw put it succinctly, "The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Whether true or not, this decidedly pessimistic and anti-intellectual attitude fails to resolve the paradox in any intelligible manner. Rather than supplying an explanation or evidence for the origin, disposition, and authenticity of existence, it perfunctorily dismisses the wisdom of exploring the mystery.
Along similar lines of reasoning, many have proposed that paradoxes are not real but instead, entirely the result of the natural limitations of language, abstract thought, and perception. It could well be then that humanity is simply incapable of rationally perceiving much less conceptualizing its own existence. Alas, this argument again summarily denies the empirical evidence of the paradox of existence while making an unverified assertion. Undoubtedly we have managed to find solutions for countless paradoxes, but in other cases what we have considered to be rational has turned out to be irrational. Undoubtedly it can be productive to investigate paradoxes for rational solutions, but to do so without an acknowledgement and awareness of the depths of our ignorance is to loose our objectivity and needlessly impose limits on ourselves.
Infinity is one of the more popular accounts put forward for the paradox of existence. The vast majority of humanity has argued that if existence is infinite in certain respects this somehow makes it rational, for example, if existence is eternal and has no beginning or end. Unfortunately for such arguments the concept of infinity itself is paradoxical. Lao Tzu expressed this conundrum of infinity and the paradox of existence with elegant classic flare some twenty-five hundred years ago:
The mother of nature.
It has no name,
But I call it "the Way";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".
To declare something is infinite is to assert that it has no limits. However, this presents a paradox because the statement contradicts itself. Specifically, it imposes the limit on itself that there are no limits. Because of this irrational self-contradictory and self-referential statement we can interpret infinity any way we so desire and none can prove us wrong. All they can do is point out the inherent irrational paradox.
This inability to logically express much less prove or disprove infinity, has not prevented people from around the globe using the term for everything from casual everyday use to elaborate engineering designs and obscure theological debates. Infinity, for example, is central to calculus, which has revolutionized modern science. Thus, paradoxes and infinities are not so easily ignored as meaningless, trivial, or useless. Nor for that matter, can they be casually dismissed as manifestly wrong, misleading, or indescribable.
Now when people normally use the word infinity they are referring to something so vast it may be impossible to measure, and this seems quite rational to most people. Even so, like countless reflections in a house of mirrors, with infinity you can never be quite certain if what you are looking at is real or just a reflection. Whichever way you turn looks the same and where exactly we might be within the maze of reflections, much less if there is a way out of the maze, cannot be determined by just looking around. William Blake expressed this somehow flowing yet timeless, comprehensible yet incomprehensible quality of infinity in his popular poem, "Auguries of Innocence":
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour
Over the millennia these sometimes confusing images of infinity have been logically and mathematically manipulated to prove an incredible number of absurdities including, for example, that one equals two. Eventually mathematicians and philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel, established that mathematics and logic could not be used to prove the validity of infinity without producing paradoxes. In other words, if the concept of infinity is not irrational or just so much illusory smoke and mirrors, apparently no one can ever prove it logically or mathematically.
In an actual house of mirrors we can walk right up to the nearest image and touch it to see if it is the real McCoy or just another reflection and, using this hands on method, we can find our way out of the maze. Regrettably, this direct approach is evidently impossible in the case of infinity. No one has ever scientifically proven any kind of infinity exists in the real world much less that the concept is logical.
Everything science has investigated to date has eventually turned out to be, by the standards of science itself, rational and finite or presumably irrational or paradoxical. This continuing failure to scientifically prove anything in nature is infinite leads us, once again, inexorably back to paradox. If existence is finite, then how can it have any reasonable causal origins? If it is infinite, then how can it be rational? The scientific establishment has been just as helpless to clarify the situation as the rest of us.
A partial explanation for this persistent confusion is that paradox and the absurd is perhaps the slipperiest concept ever invented. Disproving paradoxes has been done as I mentioned earlier, but it can be a difficult task. As often as not attempts to disprove paradox just generate new paradoxes in a manner similar again to the reflections in a house of mirrors. Even attempting to just ignore a paradox can generate new ones; again, not unlike the way infinities behave. At times it appears all we can do is shrug our shoulders and accept paradox as it presents itself.
For all these reasons and more, existence presents the astonishing likelihood that at least one paradox may be real in some sense and not merely the result of ignorance on our part. Whether invoking eternity, oneness, or the supernatural each new explanation proposed for existence has invariably lead back to paradox. For something to be eternal, God-like, or all encompassing invokes logically impenetrable paradox. If God or eternity really can explain existence, then where did they come from? If everything is profoundly unified, than logic is the illogical. Coherent explanations to this puzzle of existence are impossible by the very definition of logic if, indeed, existence truly is a paradox, as it certainly appears to be.
Once we have accepted and acknowledged this simple fact of life, we can then move on to more easily and objectively explore how best to approach, conceptualize, and use paradoxes and the irrational like any other handy and ubiquitous tools. By extending this pragmatic approach we can adopt the position that we do indeed exist after some fashion, but that the precise nature of our existence is fundamentally impenetrable to reason until proven otherwise. In fact, whether or not we ever solve the mystery of life, the universe, and everything may be entirely irrelevant. Obviously there is still a great deal more we can learn about life and, in the process, about ourselves.
Among the many less personal ramifications of this enduring base ignorance is that the very foundations of logic, philosophy, and science have remained dubious for millennia. Despite innumerable attempts by extremely sincere, capable, and dedicated people throughout history the paradox of existence has consistently defied all rational and objective investigations for obvious and self-evident reasons. The humbling and mounting realization accompanying this failure is that, in addition to existence, everything else may eventually prove to be paradoxical and only appear to be rational to us because of the limits of human perception.
In light of the failures of all these classic attempts to resolve the paradox that Iâ??ve presented here, it might seem that the paradox of existence is a pointless problem to tackle and, therefore, the most sensible and pragmatic path would be to simply ignore that particular paradox. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes obvious this is not the case. On the contrary, dramatic new progress has been made in the last century towards at least partially resolving the paradox of existence and, in the process, the effort has led to an incredible number of practical applications.
Despite the persistent possibility existence may be somehow illusory or beyond definitive resolution, the rate of progress in understanding our existence is rapidly increasing. Modern physics, computer programming, and psychology are but a few of the fields that have benefited in the last century from the exploration of the paradox of existence. However, before discussing such abstruse developments further, it is helpful to first understand more pedestrian paradoxes. That journey begins with a general understanding of the history of paradox and the absurd.
