[subversion]

The paradox you present in your theory reminds me of how I discovered the Law of Laws and how I delt with it's paradox. The Law of Laws says that no law can be specifically formulated to tell you something is impossible. The only problem is that the Law of Law is in violation of itself. So I rectified the problem by saying that no Law except this one may be specifically formulated to say something is impossible. Now the law is still inconsistent but it states itself to be so and thus it is consistent in it's inconsistency which is considered to be complete according to my interpretation of the incompleteness theorem by Kurt Godel.

This means I would rectify your theory by saying that everything that exists according to this theory exists according to this theory except for a disproof of this theory which states that, and then state the theory. It's a dubious trick but it works and it makes the theory correct unto itself. Hope that helps,

SubVersion

[dustin_archibald]

Upon further investigation (and reading the thread over) I believe there is no paradox. The paradox is based on the idea that an entity could create something, in the reality/universe/Everything this theory seeks to explain, just by conceiving it. An entity with such an ability would not only have the ability to mess with the theory, it would have the ability to undo or change all we know to be true. In that case there would be no concern that the theory was fallible since it wouldn't matter at that point; nothing could really be predicted.

Just because a person thinks "there is a disproof for this theory" it doesn't mean they create it. The concept, or idea, of a disproof exists but an item that can affect the theory does not.

Does that make sense?

[Guille]

Dustin,

Something I find very paradoxical is that non-existence or non-existing things should actually simply not-exist, not even be non-existence for the are not there, but in contrary, what really happens, is that non-existence exists (paradox 1) in existence (paradox 2) as what doesn't exist (paradox 3) in it (paradox 4), non-existence exists (paradox 5) in non-existence (paradox 6) as all that exists (paradox 7) in it (the non-existence) (paradox 8 ), and non-existence exists (paradox 9) in reality (the set of all existences) (paradox 10) as that which doesn't exist (paradox 11) in all that exists (paradox 12) but exists (paradox 13) as everything in non-existence (paradox 14).

Crazy, but true.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

Upon further investigation (and reading the thread over) I believe there is no paradox. The paradox is based on the idea that an entity could create something, in the reality/universe/Everything this theory seeks to explain, just by conceiving it. An entity with such an ability would not only have the ability to mess with the theory, it would have the ability to undo or change all we know to be true. In that case there would be no concern that the theory was fallible since it wouldn't matter at that point; nothing could really be predicted.

Just because a person thinks "there is a disproof for this theory" it doesn't mean they create it. The concept, or idea, of a disproof exists but an item that can affect the theory does not.

Does that make sense?

the only problem though is that the theory does effect itself because the theory disproves itself according to it's own terms. Right? Therefore you have to introduce inconsistency as part of the theory to make it consistent. This would effectively make your theory complete. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong though.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Dustin,

Something I find very paradoxical is that non-existence or non-existing things should actually simply not-exist, not even be non-existence for the are not there, but in contrary, what really happens, is that non-existence exists (paradox 1) in existence (paradox 2) as what doesn't exist (paradox 3) in it (paradox 4), non-existence exists (paradox 5) in non-existence (paradox 6) as all that exists (paradox 7) in it (the non-existence) (paradox 8 ), and non-existence exists (paradox 9) in reality (the set of all existences) (paradox 10) as that which doesn't exist (paradox 11) in all that exists (paradox 12) but exists (paradox 13) as everything in non-existence (paradox 14).

Crazy, but true.

That is certainly a lot of paradoxes. I tend to think that non-existence doesn't exist so we don't have to worry about it because it's irrelevant. Therefore some of the paradoxes above may be irrelevant if they deal with non-existence.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by subversion

the only problem though is that the theory does effect itself because the theory disproves itself according to it's own terms. Right?

At first I thought the Theory of Existence did disprove itself: If I, or someone else, thought [along the lines] "there is a disproof for the Theory of Existence" then the disproof would exist (according to the properties defined in the Theory of Existence). But in actuality the disproof did not come into existence by thinking of it, only the concept or idea of it.

For example: If I think/conceive "there are 500 pink rhinos sitting in my car" the idea exists but that doesn't mean there are suddenly 500 pink rhinos sitting in my car.

I recognize the value of completeness/incompleteness but if possible I would like to avoid that resolution. It seems icky

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Dustin,

Something I find very paradoxical is that non-existence or non-existing things should actually simply not-exist, not even be non-existence for the are not there, but in contrary, what really happens, is that non-existence exists (paradox 1) in existence (paradox 2) as what doesn't exist (paradox 3) in it (paradox 4), non-existence exists (paradox 5) in non-existence (paradox 6) as all that exists (paradox 7) in it (the non-existence) (paradox 8 ), and non-existence exists (paradox 9) in reality (the set of all existences) (paradox 10) as that which doesn't exist (paradox 11) in all that exists (paradox 12) but exists (paradox 13) as everything in non-existence (paradox 14).

Crazy, but true.

Non-existing things simply don't exist, this is true. However, the idea or concept of non-existing things does exist. The real question is can we find a non-existing thing that has the properties of existence? Can we find an item (or any number of items) that meets the criteria for non-existence as well as existence?

[baudrunner]

I wonder if anyone's claimed these theories yet. Maybe I can get rich off them

I think the guy who came up with, "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?"

He's long since retired from the rewards of this momentous insight and has built himself a cabin amongst the trees from which he cannot see the forest.

[michellemfry]

Oh Baudrunner, you make me laugh out loud, you crack me up, and whatever else the kids have made up to express the sentiment.

[harmonygirl]

hahaha. Ditto.