"All things Change but Change Itself" - Really?

[James_S_Saint]

Does the truth of that statement change?

If not, then that makes 2 things that never change. But the statement says that only one thing doesn’t change.

If the truth of the statement changes, as the statement itself requires, then the statement is false.

"What something is cannot also be what it isn’t"

That is something that never changes. The truth of that statement never changes either. But the truth of that statement says that “All things change but change itself” is not a true statement because it cannot be that only one thing never changes and also that the truth of such a statement never changes.

Welcome back to the world of things that Never Change(ed).

 

[sidbrown]

Does the truth of that statement change?

If not, then that makes 2 things that never change. But the statement says that only one thing doesn’t change.

If the truth of the statement changes, as the statement itself requires, then the statement is false.

"What something is cannot also be what it isn’t"

That is something that never changes. The truth of that statement never changes either. But the truth of that statement says that “All things change but change itself” is not a true statement because it cannot be that only one thing never changes and also that the truth of such a statement never changes.

Welcome back to the world of things that Never Change(ed).

There is a problem with contradictory self-referential statements.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is a problem with contradictory self-referential statements.

Only if you’re logical, which seems to be a rarity these days… sigh

I can’t believe some of the arguments I have had on some other sites, “Some people are actually God but don’t know it”… sheesh. :yukonjoe:

 

[sidbrown]

Only if you’re logical, which seems to be a rarity these days… sigh

I can’t believe some of the arguments I have had on some other sites, “Some people are actually God but don’t know it”… sheesh. :yukonjoe:

In the sense that each one of us has an immortal soul and is made in the image and likeness of God, it can be said that to some small extent we share in a dvine ligth.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

It’s called a paradox which is different than a contradiction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. The term is also used for an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. kōan, Catuskoti). Typically, the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. Often, mistakenly, it is used to describe situations that are ironic.

The statement reminds me of the Rush song Tom Sawyer which contains the following verse:

He knows changes aren’t permanent
But change is

 

[James_S_Saint]

It’s called a paradox which is different than a contradiction.

I’m not sure which you are getting at.

A paradox is an argument that seems to propose a contradiction, but is only a mental game.

The thought that “nothing changes but change itself” proposes that 2 things never change,

1. Change itself
2. The truth of that statement

But the truth of the statement, being a second thing that never changes, means that the statement, requiring that only change itself never changes, must be a false statement.

 

[Oreoracle]

The thought that “nothing changes but change itself” proposes that 2 things never change,

1. Change itself
2. The truth of that statement

This is one reason why I prefer to discuss many things in one thread instead of creating new threads every time a tangent forms; you end up taking someone’s quote out of context like you have here. As you know, the “things” I was referring to were only physical things. In other words, the only certainty you can have in regard to the physical world is that it won’t be the same tomorrow. Perpetual uncertainty is the only certainty. I wasn’t speaking of anything conceptual except for my abstraction of “change”; no concepts, truth values, laws, principles, or whatever were being referenced by this adage I’ve proposed.

I think you can do better than taking cheap shots at simple statements when you know full well what the other person means.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is one reason why I prefer to discuss many things in one thread instead of creating new threads every time a tangent forms; you end up taking someone’s quote out of context like you have here. As you know, the “things” I was referring to were only physical things. In other words, the only certainty you can have in regard to the physical world is that it won’t be the same tomorrow. Perpetual uncertainty is the only certainty. I wasn’t speaking of anything conceptual except for my abstraction of “change”; no concepts, truth values, laws, principles, or whatever were being referenced by this adage I’ve proposed.

I think you can do better than taking cheap shots at simple statements when you know full well what the other person means.

Wow,

This is one reason why I prefer that people think more before they presume…and presume…and presume. :dts:

This thread had nothing at all to do you, Oreo. And actually was inspired from a different site altogether.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

But the truth of the statement, being a second thing that never changes, means that the statement, requiring that only change itself never changes, must be a false statement.

It only goes to show you that anyone can take a statement that is in fact true and be convinced that it is false by twisting the meaning of the statement.

Two and two is four.

That statement is true when you add them or when you multiply them. But which is it? As two and two “change” and become three and three, does it become six or nine? If you conclude that the answer is six but someone else deducts that it ought to be nine, you would need further evidence to support the meaning of two and two is four.

What I’m getting at is that you need to look into what is meant by the statement itself because even the statement itself may be inadequate to explain what is meant by it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It only goes to show you that anyone can take a statement that is in fact true and be convinced that it is false by twisting the meaning of the statement.

Two and two is four.

That statement is true when you add them or when you multiply them. But which is it? As two and two “change” and become three and three, does it become six or nine? If you conclude that the answer is six but someone else deducts that it ought to be nine, you would need further evidence to support the meaning of two and two is four.

What I’m getting at is that you need to look into what is meant by the statement itself because even the statement itself may be inadequate to explain what is meant by it.

Surely that isn’t the height of your ability to reason. Your example doesn’t fit the scenario.

If I said that two and two is eight, would I have to go through such an exercise?

To discover the falsity of a statement only one valid example of it not being true is needed. To discover the truth of a statement all invalidity must be eliminated.

And in any scenario, substituting the meanings/definitions of the words is not a valid means of analysis. Deciding that the word “and” in your example “might mean” “multiply” is not valid.

In the OP, no word meanings were altered. Yet the statement was still false.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Surely that isn’t the height of your ability to reason. Your example doesn’t fit the scenario.

But it does. Just because you aren’t able to see the connection doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
James S Saint:

If I said that two and two is eight, would I have to go through such an exercise?

Of course not. You clearly can not see the connection.
James S Saint:

In the OP, no word meanings were altered. Yet the statement was still false.

You see it as false because you can not see the truth in it. Neither were there word meanings altered in my example. Two and two is four - that is fact and always is fact.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You see it as false because you can not see the truth in it.

Well, emm, yeah. :ehh:

Neither were there word meanings altered in my example. Two and two is four - that is fact and always is fact.

Your example wasn’t just that statement. Your example was a scenario wherein you proposed that “anyone could see it a different way” and then proposed they might see it as two times two and so on.

Playing semantics games is a cheap political ploy and a bit distasteful to me.:dts: