P: P exists

In rereading an essay I wrote several years ago for my paradoxes class, I noticed that I was marked off for assuming that the universe existed.

“A universe is a necessary being?!!”

My teacher said.

Allow me to defend my A- several years after the fact.

*ahem*

I do not believe that the universe is a necessary being, nor necessary in any way. However, since all of our analyses of anything (with the possible concept of abstractions and laws of logic) seem to be contained entirely within the universe, I argue that it is necessary for intelligibility to assume the Universe for the sake of argument.

To illustrate this in the least illustrative fashion ever, take the statement P:

“Statement P exists.”

It seems almost redundant that this is true, after all P only claims what is obvious by the very fact that P is able to claim it.

Take statement Q:

“Statement Q does not exist.”

This is prima facie false, although there can be some objections here as to whether abstract entities such as propositions and statements exist.  The Universe, on the other hand, is not an abstract entity.  The Universe is the concrete entity and by nature of being contained within it, it makes the universe a necessary prerequisite for asking about the universe.

Therefore, you’re justified in assuming the Universe exists.  Just like a person in a box is justified in assuming the box exists (No, you’re not getting out!).  It’s a bit like when Descartes claimed he knew he existed because he could ask the question.  I, too, can ask the question.

I understand that this gets us into set theory which gets us into self-referential paradoxes and all that hoo-ah  :sad: , but this should suffice for now. :neutral:

| 1 Comment

Pavlov had too much time on his hands

Apparently, it’s hard to classically condition people.

For a while now I’ve been trying to condition people to check my blog regularly like malnourished orphans hoping that the lady who runs the bread line will get over her hangover soon. To do this, I took a page out of Pavlov’s book and started posting regularly (see June/July… no seriously) with regular intervals of positive reinforcement (in the case of jabby dialogues, quick witticisms, hot topics, interesting history and insightful arguments).

Because I want a high degree of resiliency to deconditioning in case I don’t blog regularly for a year (see 2006/2007… but not really), the ideal training period is one in which neither the time nor the amount of positive reinforcement is fixed. This is perfect for me, because I have no idea what I’m going to write, think, or say from day to day.

However, I haven’t blogged in two days and, rather than my classical conditioning paying off, the amount of people that checked the second day dropped off by 80 percent. This suggests to me that my audience deserves an F for docility. I’ll even write a note in the report card saying “Needs to learn to have high, and false, expectations”

Thanks to my little vacation, I’ve definitively decided not to kill myself, which was always one of my top three possible actions.

I just read the most excellent poem by Jorge Luis Borges. If you get the chance to learn Spanish and read “Aprendiendo” I heartily recommend it… I mean, you can use Spanish everywhere! And in some places other people actually understand it!

| 2 Comments