Yeah, it was these types of issues that spurred efforts at formalizing logic in last century, my understanding. Language like this, when not more carefully built up, can do all sorts of self referential tricks. Even when you do make the efforts to make it concrete, you gave issues as Gödel famously showed a bit later. Just kinda cool to trip out on imo

Replies (1)

yeah, paradoxes are real enough though. even though they by definition don't make sense. but sense itself couldn't exist alone. it has to have a spooky slanted upside down inside out back to front, and reverse form. like what i was saying about imaginary numbers. what exactly says that multiplying negative numbers should lead to an inversion of the sign? that would imply that it's actually a number itself, like one and zero, and the multiplication is *addition* but when you multiply *negative* numbers you XOR the "sign" bit. which is how it's implemented, also. why does it have to be XOR on the sign? it could be AND or OR, so you can only get a negative answer if both are negative, or that any negative and both are negative, instead of the flip-flop of repeated multiplication with a negative does. my point being that it's not a scale, it's a vector, and the vector is time and space. the fact that these spooks have utility tells you that the vectors relate to the "sense" of things as much as the nonsense.