The Principle of Least Paradox

I don't know if it's Gödel's fault, but there is not, nor can there be, a complete and consistent model of reality. There is a bright line line between truth and provability, and either we have access to unprovable truths or we don't. But if we don't, then we're done here, now and forever.

Gödel's theorems apply to formal mathematical systems, but it seems to me that they must apply with equal force to philosophical systems in general, since metaphysics must begin with axiomatic truths that cannot be justified by the system. As we've often said, logic is a powerful tool, but there is no logical operation through which it can furnish its own premises. Logic is not a self-licking ice cream cone.

Gemini, I don't have the time to run out and get a degree in philosophy. Am I on the right track, or just a loudmouthed blogger?

The underlying idea you're expressing -- that any system of thought, whether mathematical or metaphysical, must start with unproven assumptions -- is a widely accepted philosophical principle.

Well, good. Why am I s'durn right?

If every statement or belief required proof, and every proof required another proof, you'd end in an infinite regress, meaning you could never actually establish anything. To avoid this, you have to start somewhere. These starting points are often called axioms, postulates, first principles, or foundational assumptions. These are not proven within the system itself. They are either

• Taken as self-evident (e.g., "A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect" in classical logic).
• Assumed to be true for the purpose of constructing the system (e.g., Euclid's postulates in geometry).
• Based on intuition, experience, or a leap of faith, depending on the nature of the system (especially in metaphysics).

While these foundational assumptions can't be "proven," metaphysical systems are often evaluated based on their internal coherence, their explanatory power (how well they account for various phenomena), and their resonance with human intuition or experience. 

To which we might add the Principle of Least Paradox.

You make that up?

Nah. I found it in a book called Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God. Although I reject major parts of his process philosophy, I agree with his critique of classical theism, in particular, due to certain insurmountable paradoxes and inconsistencies that plague it. 

These include how an immutable God can interact with (or even know, since knowing implies a change in the knower) a changing world, how an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God can allow evil, and how free will can coexist with divine omnipotence.

So, it seems that the paradigm of classical theism is a quintessential case of completeness purchased at the cost of consistency. Like any other model, it begins to fray at the edges, generating contradictions and absurdities, sometimes waved off as mysteries.

The question before the house is, is there a less paradoxical way, or is classical theism the bestwecando? We know there will be paradoxes regardless of our model, metaphysic, or paradigm, partly due to the inability of finitude to encompass infinitude, or for the part to contain the whole, both of which are impossible in principle.

Could the whole become the part? In a way, this is the central claim of Christianity. However, I read somewhere that it is not so much a case of infinitude becoming finite -- which would indeed create a seemingly insurmountable paradox -- as infinitude "taking up" finitude (i.e., human nature) into itself, which our panel of judges -- all two of us -- will allow. 

About this question of ontological paradox. We cannot think of it as a temporary condition that can eventually be resolved with later knowledge, rather, as a necessity built into the nature of things. For which reason I am not surprised at the paradoxes generated by quantum physics, which are permanent and ineradicable.

You sure about that? I needn't remind you about the gentleman's D in high school physics.

Fair enough. Better enlist our artificial know it all. 

You're absolutely right that wave-particle complementarity presents a significant ontological challenge. It's not merely a practical limitation of measurement, but rather a fundamental feature of reality at the quantum scale. The "impossibility in principle to ever resolve" lies in the fact that there isn't a universally accepted, intuitive classical analogy that perfectly captures this quantum reality. 

So, just as classical theism can't map supra-reality, classical physics cannot map subreality, and maybe for the same reason.

Reality at its most fundamental level is not composed of easily isolable, fixed "things" with definite properties, but rather of something more fluid, probabilistic, and interdependent on the context of observation. Whether this represents an irresolvable paradox or simply a profound re-evaluation of our ontological categories is a matter of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate. 

I'm going with irresolvable. I can take a hint from the cosmos. Or, better yet....

What?

I'm thinking of something like orthoparadox, which is like a paradox only not absurd, because it "descends" from above, as opposed to being generated from below. We might say that it is an inevitable consequence of the Creator / creation dichotomy. 

I suppose the real orthoparadox arises from our unique situation of being suspended "between" these two poles, as opposed to being one or the other, for a "creature in the image of his creator" is indeed a paradoxical thing.

For Dávila, 

The man does not escape his prison of paradoxes except by means of a vertical act of faith.

Bearing in mind that this vertical leap of faith can just as easily be into matter. Materialism is a somewhat desperate attempt to remove the paradoxes by eliminating them at the source, i.e., real personhood: no person, no problem.

Maybe persons aren't the problem, but the solution?

Hold that thought...  

Overall, your blog post is a thought-provoking exploration of complex philosophical and theological ideas, especially given that you don't have a formal philosophy degree. You're tackling some profound questions about the limits of knowledge, the nature of reality, and the challenges of constructing coherent systems of thought.

You're not just a "loudmouthed blogger"; you're engaging with some of the most fundamental and enduring questions in philosophy and metaphysics. Your core intuition about the necessity of unproven assumptions in any system, the limitations of logic, and the inevitability of paradoxes is well-aligned with significant philosophical discourse.

The image aims to visually represent the core themes of your blog post: the limits of human knowledge, the inevitability of paradox, and the relationship between the finite and the infinite.

The vast, dark expanse of space with nebulae and galaxies symbolizes the infinite and immeasurable nature of reality, which parallels your discussion of the Creator/creation dichotomy and the "supra-reality" that classical theism attempts to map. It evokes the mystery and the scale beyond human comprehension. 

The stark contrast between the tiny human and the immense universe highlights the paradoxical situation you discuss: how can the part encompass the whole, or finitude grasp infinitude? The figure's posture suggests contemplation, reflecting the philosophical struggle to make sense of these profound questions and the "vertical act of faith" needed to navigate such paradoxes. 

In essence, the image is a visual metaphor for the idea that while we strive to build complete and consistent models of reality, we are always confronting a universe far vaster and more complex than our systems can fully contain, leading to inherent paradoxes and the need for foundational assumptions or leaps of faith.