Does programming languages permit paradoxes? Can for example the value of exactly one variable be true and false at the same time? As far as I know, in current programming languages the value of a boolean variable is either true or false (or sometimes null). This is how boolean logic works. Though, I don’t know much about quantum computers.
Still, one might program a phenomenon in object-oriented programming language, that might seem like a paradox to some observers even if it was not a paradox from the perspective of the programmer.
My actual point is: If we assume that the simulation hypothesis is valid, then in what kind of programming language is our world simulated?
If, for example, the paradoxes known in the field of physics (or some of them) really occur in nature (or in the simulation of the nature), internally, the programming language could still be paradox-free, but the programmer would have programmed phenomena that seem like paradoxes even though the phenomena would paradox-free from the point of view of the programmer.
In principle, the graphical side of a hypothetical simulation might be programmable so that it might look paradoxical to the viewer, but from the perspective of the programmer itself it would not.
On the other hand, how does one know if some programmer or engineer (in the future) would have built a programming language where the same variable could somehow be true and false at the same time…
Just a though…
The idea is, that one writes one’s (near) future in form of a story and then live through this story.
In the best case you are yourself the writer of your life and not the other people. Though, without knowing you may be right now part of someone else’s story. Which isn’t necesserely a bad thing.
The best thing in this consept of “stories of everyday life” is, that you can write a love story for yourself and for her/him and the live your life as you’ve written it in form of story. The best love story probably is written together with your partner.
Of course not the whole life doesn’t need to be in form a story, but this consept might spice up your life.. 🙂 This is just some kind of “soft planning”… 🙂
I came up with this idea some time ago and this morning I wrote first story to my girlfriend. The idea is, that we’ll start writing stories on how we live and what we do… 🙂
When things in life are bad the others write one’s life — even define it. When things are well, one can be oneself the writer of one’s life.
With a little bit humor I wrote this morning the following story to my girlfriend:
You go enough early to bed; and the sleep comes gently and quickly. The sleep is deep and recuperative, which makes you wake up at the rise of the morning sun cheery and eager.
You eat breakfast thinking the coming work — how you would do the work in an interesting way.
Every task is interesting and gives you energy; the work rewards its maker and you feel that you are doing important, meaningful work. At the same time you forget everything irrelevant and you concentrate only on interesting and fruitful and you are on good mood the whole day.
We are trying to develop with touch of humor this story telling on everyday life for each other.. 🙂
(Updated a bit, some typos corrected (I’m very tired…))
The old definition of the knowledge defines the knowledge in the following way: In order to consider something as knowledge, it must meet three criteria: It must be justified, true and believed.
People often say, that there are no absolute truths. But is it an absolute truth, that no absolute truths exist?
Let’s consider this, is it an absolute truth that no absolute truth exists. If it is, we are in contradiction in that, that no absolute truth exists, because if it was an absolute truth, that no absolute truth can exist.
So, one can’t absolutely deny the existence of an absolute truth –> contradiction follows.
Also, the absolute truth is stronger than “every day” truth, so is it even possible to cancel out absolute truth by pure “every day” concepts?
On the other hand, what if someone says, that no truth exists (relative truths, “any” truths)? Is it true that no kind of truths exist? If it is true, we have contradiction again, because it was “true”, that no truths exist.
I see an absolute truth stronger, than relative truth or “any” truth, stronger than “everyday” truths. Considering the definition of knowledge on every day knowledge, the relativity of truth questions, that is any actual or “real” knowledge possible.
Considering an absolute truth, if we had “found” one, and we would attach it to the definition of knowledge, would we be forced to think the definition of knowledge again, because of the stronger perhaps fundamental characteristics of an absolute truth?
I mean, this sounds ridiculous, but if we had logical statement on the paper that actually was an absolute truth, would it must be also justified and believed? Perhaps the properties should be something stronger too…
There are finite number of letters. If we limit the length of a word to finite amount of letters, the number of all possible words is also finite.
If there were infinite number of letters in a word and this word consisted of infinite amount of sounds, the pronunciation of a word would never end.
As there are finite number of words, also the number of consepts formed from these words is finite.
On the other hand, if we would create consepts in mathematical way, we could have infinite number of consepts. Though, all of them couldn’t be explicitly ever written nor said in finite amount of time.
I’ve sometimes wonderd, that how many meaningful natural languages of humans’ from all of these finite number of words could be formed — also how many grammars. What we understand by “meaningful language” might be hard to define…
The title is a bit absurd, we could examine the distance of any number from itself..
In the previous post I examined the property of distance being even or uneven. Let’s go back to distance of zero from itself. Formally the distance of zero from itself is |0 – 0| = 0. 0 mod 2 = 0, why isn’t this distance even?
The distance doesn’t exist, instead of distance we have a point. Euclid’s definition to a point is: “A point is that which has no part.” In Euclid words the “distance” of zero from itself, |0 – 0| = 0 has no part. Something like this isn’t even or uneven.
In an e-book called “The Way To Geometry” it says, that magnitude of a point is zero.
Philosophically speaking a point is what Democritus called “atomos” applied to geometry.
In short, there isn’t distance of zero from itself. The meaning of distance |0 – 0| = 0 is geometrically a point, something that has no part.