Dopson's Paradox

[roydop]

"This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

[Harbal]

"This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

I managed 9 minutes, roy, and then the tedium engulfed me.

[Trajk Logik]

"This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

[roydop]

"This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

So the same can be said of: "This statement is false.", which is what spurred Godel to discover the most profound revelation about logical systems.

Dopson's paradox doesn't mean anything to you because you don't want to know what it means. If you are intellectually incapable of understanding what the statement is relating, then you are either an idiot or in denial/delusion.

[Trajk Logik]

"This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

So the same can be said of: "This statement is false.", which is what spurred Godel to discover the most profound revelation about logical systems.

Dopson's paradox doesn't mean anything to you because you don't want to know what it means. If you are intellectually incapable of understanding what the statement is relating, then you are either an idiot or in denial/delusion.

I've read the statement and I don't know what it means, not because I don't want to know, but because the statement does not provide enough information to determine what is true or false about it. WHAT about the statement is false? What would make it either true or false - more information. Without that information, it is a meaningless string of scribbles.

"This statement is not written in English" at least provides more information about what could be false or true about it.

Instead of making odd assumptions about my willingness to understand, how about trying to help me understand? If you have something to teach, I'm all ears.

What makes 2+2=4 true or false? Don't you have to know what the scribbles refer to to know what makes it true or false? What does 2 refer to? What does + and = refer to? There must be some meaning to the scribbles for it to be defined as true or false. This is how language and math works. Without some real-world meaning behind the scribbles, they are just scribbles.

How would you determine the truth value of the statement, "Sarah is black and white." The statement follows the rules of the English language, but what does it mean? What is it referring to, and how would you determine what it means and whether it is true or not if not by making some kind of observation (using your senses) of Sarah?

One can make a logical hypothesis or theory, but if that hypothesis or theory does not fit observations, it is false. So logic alone, and observation alone does not make one true or false. What is true or false is confirmed by both logic AND observation.

[Iwannaplato]

I've started it and I'll keep going. Two points before I move forward with the video
1) Are you saying that sensation never lead to thoughts? It seemed like you were saying there is no causation between the physical realm and the thought realm If that's true, can you confirm? This seems very odd, but hey, I'll listen to the explanation. But then, if you demonstrate that won't I be hearing things (sensations) that change my thoughts? And If I think that it will help my muscle pain be milder if I rub some liniment into the muscle, doesn't my thought take part in a causal change that leads to the liniment getting spread out. I could very well have misunderstood.
Or,
you had an insight. This led you to make a video. That's part of the physical world, others and you can sense it. Wasn't there causation?
Let me know.
2) give a listen to the part where you mention 'wave function', something close to that and then a bit later 'superposition' a few times. Ask yourself how those terms out of physics could possibly make sense to someone who isn't you. How are we supposed to take 'superposition'. You don't even say what is in superposition. I believe you say 'that' is superposition. And how?

Superposition is a quantum principle that refers to a physical system that exists in multiple states simultaneously based on a specific set of solutions. The most commonly used set of solutions is all possible solutions, also known as Hilbert space. In quantum physics, the Hilbert space is the mathematical representation of all the possible states the system can take. If my system is a spinning electron, its Hilbert space is spin up and spin down, since these are the two possible options for the spin direction.

What are, for example, the solutions in this case? What are the states?

[Iwannaplato]

And now you are saying that symbols have to be two dimensional. But this isn't the case, even of the letters on your whiteboard. Braille and 2 d. and we could certainly have 3d symbols. We could easily develop a game with a code with different shapes that we pass that would have different meanings depending on the shape. IOW the pyramid, despite its square base, would mean sometihng different from the cube. And if you wanted you could add in symbols that are near two-dimentional - very flat squares, for example, that have a third meaning.

Then there's sign language, so a set of living languages in many countries, each with their own version. Here we have three dimensional communication, and actually to some degree four dimensional, since different 'rates of speech' would convey different things.

I may be missing something but I'd need an explanation for why symbols have to be 2D.

And now you are saying that thoughts are false (period), while telling us your thoughts about the 2d words on the whiteboard and using deduction, which we will think about as if you are conveying truth.

Further that is not what Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum is saying. It's not saying that all the assertions in a system are false. It is saying that some of the assertions cannot be proven. That's an enormous difference.

And again, you are expressing thoughts to get us thinking. And in that thought based argument you have lots of specific thoughts. If they are all false, why are you using deduction to show us.

All my premises are false
then
Premise 1, 2 , 3......etc.
Therefore X is true.

No, you can't tell us all the premises are false but the conclusion is true. I mean, that can happen, but anyone believing all their premises are false wouldn't bother using deduction. Giving them Koans, or telling them to meditate, ok. But this makes no sense.

[Iwannaplato]

This statement is false.

It's not a lie. You said at one point it is a lie. When that leads to a regress the same way that saying it is true would cause problems.

[Iwannaplato]

I do think it is interesting what you are saying about the statement when it is not read (by the sensing not speaker of English).

But let's say you are correct that in that instance, with that sentence, staying with the field keeps truth and thinking leads to falseness. Great.

But only with that sentence or similar ones.

If the sentence is 'You are reading me.'

Then the experience of though free sensation is true
and
the reading the statement and thinking about it is also true.

You haven't, so far, demonstrated that think is necessarily false. Just that it would be, if your argument holds, in that specific situation with that paradoxical sentence.

Also it is unclear if you consider collapsing the wavefront a metaphor or literal here. Merely sensing/observing can collapse the wavefront. You don't have to be thinking. Even other particles can collapse wavefronts.

It's not like non-verbal animals are running to undifferentiated quantum foam.

[roydop]

There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

So the same can be said of: "This statement is false.", which is what spurred Godel to discover the most profound revelation about logical systems.

Dopson's paradox doesn't mean anything to you because you don't want to know what it means. If you are intellectually incapable of understanding what the statement is relating, then you are either an idiot or in denial/delusion.

I've read the statement and I don't know what it means, not because I don't want to know, but because the statement does not provide enough information to determine what is true or false about it. WHAT about the statement is false? What would make it either true or false - more information. Without that information, it is a meaningless string of scribbles.

"This statement is not written in English" at least provides more information about what could be false or true about it.

Instead of making odd assumptions about my willingness to understand, how about trying to help me understand? If you have something to teach, I'm all ears.

What makes 2+2=4 true or false? Don't you have to know what the scribbles refer to to know what makes it true or false? What does 2 refer to? What does + and = refer to? There must be some meaning to the scribbles for it to be defined as true or false. This is how language and math works. Without some real-world meaning behind the scribbles, they are just scribbles.

How would you determine the truth value of the statement, "Sarah is black and white." The statement follows the rules of the English language, but what does it mean? What is it referring to, and how would you determine what it means and whether it is true or not if not by making some kind of observation (using your senses) of Sarah?

One can make a logical hypothesis or theory, but if that hypothesis or theory does not fit observations, it is false. So logic alone, and observation alone does not make one true or false. What is true or false is confirmed by both logic AND observation.

2+2=4 makes no sense to me.

https://www.nonconceptuality.org/post/t ... -and-logic

[Trajk Logik]

So the same can be said of: "This statement is false.", which is what spurred Godel to discover the most profound revelation about logical systems.

Dopson's paradox doesn't mean anything to you because you don't want to know what it means. If you are intellectually incapable of understanding what the statement is relating, then you are either an idiot or in denial/delusion.

I've read the statement and I don't know what it means, not because I don't want to know, but because the statement does not provide enough information to determine what is true or false about it. WHAT about the statement is false? What would make it either true or false - more information. Without that information, it is a meaningless string of scribbles.

"This statement is not written in English" at least provides more information about what could be false or true about it.

Instead of making odd assumptions about my willingness to understand, how about trying to help me understand? If you have something to teach, I'm all ears.

What makes 2+2=4 true or false? Don't you have to know what the scribbles refer to to know what makes it true or false? What does 2 refer to? What does + and = refer to? There must be some meaning to the scribbles for it to be defined as true or false. This is how language and math works. Without some real-world meaning behind the scribbles, they are just scribbles.

How would you determine the truth value of the statement, "Sarah is black and white." The statement follows the rules of the English language, but what does it mean? What is it referring to, and how would you determine what it means and whether it is true or not if not by making some kind of observation (using your senses) of Sarah?

One can make a logical hypothesis or theory, but if that hypothesis or theory does not fit observations, it is false. So logic alone, and observation alone does not make one true or false. What is true or false is confirmed by both logic AND observation.

2+2=4 makes no sense to me.

https://www.nonconceptuality.org/post/t ... -and-logic

You're contradicting yourself. Is it a lie or does it not make sense to you? It cannot be both. Either it does make sense in which case you can call it a lie, or it makes no sense, as in it is just a string of scribbles on the screen.

What you seem to be misunderstanding is logic alone is meaningless when de-coupled from the state of the world and your perceptions of it. You need eyes to see a logical string of scribbles. You had to learn by observations what the scribbles refer to in the world. 2+2=4 is meaningless without some state of affairs in the world that the scribbles refer to. Two what? Four what?

The fact is that math is useless without categorization. You need to group objects into categories to then say that there is more than one of them, to then go on and add or subtract from them. Is it two cows, two mammals, two organisms, two photons, two atoms, two molecules, or what? Without categories, there is only one of everything.

You seem to understand what some scribbles on this screen mean, but not others. You expect us to make sense of your scribbles. Please explain that discrepancy. Are you deceiving us?

[roydop]

All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering.

Humanity is in this state of delusion due to it being mesmerized by thought and language. In order to contact someone in delusion they must be contacted in the delusion. This is the purpose of MESSAGE. I have correctly interpreted the messages that have been implanted within consciousness in an attempt to break it out of its delusion. So symbol and language, which is the system that projects the delusion, is used only insomuch as to deliver the message.

If you don't SEE or "GET" the message, I can't make it any more succinct or obvious. Either one is ready for Reality or one isn't

https://www.nonconceptuality.org/1-fund ... of-reality

[Trajk Logik]

All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering.

Humanity is in this state of delusion due to it being mesmerized by thought and language. In order to contact someone in delusion they must be contacted in the delusion. This is the purpose of MESSAGE. I have correctly interpreted the messages that have been implanted within consciousness in an attempt to break it out of its delusion. So symbol and language, which is the system that projects the delusion, is used only insomuch as to deliver the message.

If you don't SEE or "GET" the message, I can't make it any more succinct or obvious. Either one is ready for Reality or one isn't

https://www.nonconceptuality.org/1-fund ... of-reality

So, your statement, "All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering." is a lie? If language is a deception, then how can you use language to inform me that it's use is deception?

Are you not communicating your thoughts about reality using language? Are your thoughts of the state of reality that you are relaying to us a delusion?

How do you expect me to SEE or GET the message when your message is written in the English language that you are telling me is a deception? How do you expect me to understand what you are saying if my thoughts about what you are saying is a delusion?

All you are doing is pulling the rug out from under yourself.

Truth/falsity is the relationship between language use and some state of affairs in the world.

[Iwannaplato]

So, your statement, "All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering." is a lie? If language is a deception, then how can you use language to inform me that it's use is deception?

It parallels his framing of Godel as saying that all systems of thought are false. Which is not what Godel showed or said.
It also contrasts with traditions that are critical of the effects of language on us, and who use non-verbal means to extricate people from the way thought functions in them. Not by arguing that it's all lies or false - which is, as you point out, self-contradictory - but by trying to give people experiences that are different from the ones they get when they relate to language and thought in the ways they currently do. Zen Buddhism, for example, with meditation, Koans and using language to point rather than to contain. I'm not arguing for Zen Buddhism, but it seems to understand or at least avoids the problems of arguing that language is all lies in a series of videos with all sorts of assertions in language about reality, what we should do, what is going on, what the problem is, what's coming in the world (if we don't listen to him also for us) and so on.

[Trajk Logik]

So, your statement, "All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering." is a lie? If language is a deception, then how can you use language to inform me that it's use is deception?

It parallels his framing of Godel as saying that all systems of thought are false. Which is not what Godel showed or said.
It also contrasts with traditions that are critical of the effects of language on us, and who use non-verbal means to extricate people from the way thought functions in them. Not by arguing that it's all lies or false - which is, as you point out, self-contradictory - but by trying to give people experiences that are different from the ones they get when they relate to language and thought in the ways they currently do. Zen Buddhism, for example, with meditation, Koans and using language to point rather than to contain. I'm not arguing for Zen Buddhism, but it seems to understand or at least avoids the problems of arguing that language is all lies in a series of videos with all sorts of assertions in language about reality, what we should do, what is going on, what the problem is, what's coming in the world (if we don't listen to him also for us) and so on.

But how can you point to something in your imagination, or to something experienced before you could tell someone else about it? You cannot do any of that without using language to contain. Everyday language use does not only contain, but points as well. Having language that enables you to do both point and contain would be more useful than a language that only does one.

Language and math are approximations. Not lies or deceptions.