道悖論 Tao Paradox #31
© Tao Paradox - bone structure of Daodejing #36 (English commas added).
Copyright ©2019-2021 — Updated May 09, 2021
On August 02, 2017 I had uploaded an article titled Pathological Science #5 Fermi's Paradox to one of my other websites. I had originally written this article in late June of 2019, but I decided to not upload the article because, to me, the topic felt to be missing an unknown angle that would help make the topic feel whole. A few days ago I happened to see David Gelernter's May 1, 2019 article Giving Up Darwin. I purposefully give effort to avoid all politically correct mythologies, but Gelernter's article had caught my eye because the title and first words exhibited a possible academic slant that did not bow to politically correct mythologies. Gelernter's article is well-written, quite good of presentation, and useful for it being an illustration of how unknown topics are reasoned by academicians whose specialties are in fields different than the topic. After reading Gelernter's article, I updated this article to include the missing angle.
A paradox commonly infers the presence of two ideas that are both true, but both ideas logically disagree and contradict the other.
A key element to a paradox is the concept 'believe to be true'. If an individual does not believe both ideas to be true, then the idea of a paradox changes to become a mere contradiction caused by faulty logic.
It is very useful to observe which things that people believe to be paradoxes, because, the beliefs lend evidence of  how well the individuals understand what the topic is,  what base of knowledge a person uses for reasoning, and  how well the individuals can reason unknowns.
Mathematical statistics strongly suggest, that, if there are about two-trillion galaxies in the observable universe, with each galaxy containing about a hundred-million stars on average, and if life pops into existence and then evolves as modern science claims, then of the approximated 200-million-trillion stars — some of which allegedly have planets billions of years older than Earth — then it is mathematically-statistically certain that there must also be planets of similar life-supporting features as Earth's.
According to mathematical statistics, within the Milky Way galaxy alone there ought to be around 1,000 to 100,000 intelligent alien civilizations that are similar or more advanced than humans. The reported problem, however, is that there is no evidence that civilized life exists beyond the planet Earth.
The paradox between the mathematical-based statistical 'true-truth' certainty, and the absence of true evidence, is often referred to as Fermi's paradox, named after the physicist Enrico Fermi who, during an alleged casual conversation about space aliens in 1950, allegedly asked 'where is everybody?' when asking why aliens are not on Earth.
Man's math-based science of statistics was incorrect, resulting in the Fermi paradox, and yet man still believes that his man-made mathematics is true truth that has no flaw. Man's mathematics is man-made, imaginary, it is a primitive man-made language that may work well enough for simplified closed systems, but even when the mathematics is shown to have flaws, humans still *believe* that their mathematics is true truth.
Most humans also believe that they are so highly evolved and intelligent, that galaxy-hopping space aliens would want to come speak to humans. Laughter is usually the best rational response to the belief...
Also, most humans sincerely do believe that 'evidence' of space alien civilizations can be found within the electromagnetic radiation emitted by space alien radios, television broadcast stations, and telephones. It often appears that most people do not realize that the use of electromagnetic radiation is itself indicative of a primitive species... most humans, and all or most all government-funded scientific searches for intelligent space aliens, assume (believe), that space aliens cannot possibly be more intelligent and higher evolved than the human animal.
Also, the modern belief of evolution is itself primitive, it relying upon imaginative two-dimensional thinking, and the believers somehow believing that the belief in the belief of evolution should also be a true truth that rules over all living beings on Earth as well as throughout the whole of the universe.
The Curry paradox applies to mathematics and various schools of logic. The alleged paradox is like: 'If C, then K'. The 'paradox' is likely most noted within calculus, but is also recognized by some individuals to flare strongly within all forms of algebra and mathematics itself.
The 'paradox' can only exist if an individual believes that C and K are real things within a man-made language. Saying an apple is 1, while also saying another apple is 1, and then saying both apples are 2, is a man-made language that does not relate to this Reality.
If 1 apple and another 1 apple are 7, then the '7' is usually interpreted to be a false statement, but the only 'falseness' of '7' is that '7' does not agree with an individual's belief in the man-made language of mathematics. 1+1=7 is not a paradox, nor any further wrong than any of the other numbers within the invented man-made language.
Similarly, the C and K do not relate to this Reality. The so-called 'paradox' is that the fictional C and K are believed by some individuals to be true things, but since the two things are not logical when placed next to the other, then the individuals believe that a paradox exists. The 'paradox' only exists within one's own imaginations.
Ship of Thesus Paradox
Dating back to around 500 B.C., a popular philosophical question has been to ask, that if a ship were to be repaired over a period of many years, until finally every piece of the ship were replaced, would the ship still be the same ship? The alleged 'paradox' is still being debated today.
A modern example might be of an individual restoring an old classic car... new frame, new engine, new tires, new paint, new body parts... over several years there may not exist any original part on the car. To the mechanic who firsthand replaced the parts, he may hold a concept that the car is the same car, while the mechanic simultaneously knows that the 'sameness' is only of appearances, personal familiarity, and legal ownership. To the car owner, he may not know nor care about the new parts, while self-inventing the imaginary belief that the restored car is the 'same' car.
The human body is composed of parts that are wholly or almost wholly replaced as a person ages. From the inside, the person firsthand interprets himself to be the same 'me'. Inside point of view, outsider point of view, each are infinitely different. If the ship and car had a mind, then their minds might think of themselves as being the 'same'.
Firsthand points of view are very different from the common outsider points of view. The Thesus paradox is similar within it inferring and relying upon the incorrect assumption that all humans have the identical same thoughts and experiences.
Of the estimated seven-billion humans on Earth, likely at least half of the humans believe in a belief that believing the belief will result in the believer attaining supernatural powers.
Based upon the alleged 'true truth' of mathematics' statistics, there should exist many millions of people walking through stone walls all day, tens of millions of people floating through the skies all day, tens of millions of people healing other people by touch all day, tens of millions of expert scholars without firsthand experience teaching true truth all day, and many millions more people doing other magical mystical supernatural stuff every day.
'Where is everybody?' Where are the people with supernatural powers? Most all humans on earth sincerely do believe that mathematics is true truth, and since mathematics states that there must be many millions of people exhibiting supernatural powers all day every day if the people's beliefs are true, then, where are they?
Similar are the ideologies of science and western philosophy, claiming to know everything about everything, but if that were true, then millions of the 'masters' of the ideologies could describe what an emotion is ... where are they?
Giving Up Darwin
Gelernter's brief article of about 5,400 words has numerous comments (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) that are excellent examples of the mythologies within modern science.
"Darwinian evolution ...it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life."
Very much agreed... if an individual does not bow to and profess belief in the identical same Darwinian evolution that the masses believe to be true, then the individual is hated-on by the masses. Observe the human animal's reaction towards any individual who does not follow the herd... the common human animal becomes violent, not for a reason of self-defense, but solely because of the hate for an individual who might actually be capable of thinking thoughts that the herd cannot think. The herd demands equality, and hates all that is not identically the same (which also illustrates that the common human animal denies the laws of Nature).
Immediately catching the eye is the comment "force being mass times acceleration". The topic of 'force' is important for this site because the idea of 'force' is spoken of within various Confucian texts. But, the article's mathematical formula for 'force' is not 'settled truth', not so much as close to being settled, but, popularly, the mathematical formula is indeed believed by most people to be an undeniable true truth. Mathematical formulas for kinetics are flat, two-dimensional, and only measure flat things. Nature is not flat, but mathematics is flat, yet people still believe that mathematics is more true truth than Nature itself.
"Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection."
Gelernter's statement touches upon numerous topics simultaneously, but important here is that the statement's ideas relate to  the false scientific belief in the binary creation of the universe, as well as  relate to the many ancient creation stories that claim that there was a flat two-dimensional sequence of events from 'first' to 'last'. Most individuals, whether naturally or by being trained (brain-washed) in schools, truly believe that Nature is flat with flat sequences. Belief in Darwinianism requires a flat mind that is unable to think beyond points A and B.
A note that I had made when reading the quote: 'Note the above, a common ancestor, smacks of religions, binary creation, Tao, and all other flat-land theories.'
"They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one."
Precisely. Darwinianism is as a worldview, a common belief, a shared belief, a cult of belief, a religion of belief, an ideology of unsubstantiated belief, a false belief believed by people who believe that Nature is flat.
"The engine that powers Neo-Darwinian evolution is pure chance and lots of time. By filling in the details of cellular life, molecular biology makes it possible to estimate the power of that simple mechanism."
And here we return to the false belief of mathematical chances. The Neo-Darwinian belief ultimately relies upon the false belief of mathematics being true truth. If Neo-Darwinianism were true truth, then there ought to be billions of billions of 'missing links' still walking around today all over the world. Where are they?
Gelernter enters into a nicely written glance at biological molecular structures from the normal politically correct point of view: "Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next." The politically correct point of view is flat, sequenced, and two-dimensional, which, obviously, cannot possibly be true.
Very much true is the statement: "...DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule." A humorous example is of a known individual who has a German surname, both parents had German surnames, all grandparents except for a Cherokee grandmother had German surnames, great-grandparents had German surnames, and except for some ancestors having married English, Irish, and Native Americans, hundreds of years of documentation proves that the individual is predominately German. The documentation would hold-up in a court of law that the individual is predominately German. However, the individual paid an online scam (ancestry dot com) to do a test of the individual's own personal DNA. The true truth scientific DNA results said that the individual's ancestors were African and of several other regions, but had absolutely no German and no Native American blood. Another individual also paid the online scam for a DNA test, and the results came back that the individual's ancestry was from the nationalities of the person's in-laws', and not of the documented nationalities of all known ancestors.
People today believe in science and DNA so deeply that the people will deny documented — and visible — evidence if the evidence does not support the belief. People today deny Nature's laws, while claiming that DNA is not only true truth, but that scientists know everything about everything about DNA.
And the previous leads up to the expected: "...DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense." Tonsils used to be cut-out with a knife from children because doctors believed that tonsils were nonsense vestigial organs. Doctors did similarly for other 'vestigial organs' that were — and still are — nonsense to doctors. There is no such thing as a nonsense created by Nature... the alleged 'nonsense' is merely the result of the observers not being intelligent enough to recognize what they are looking at. 'True truth DNA science' is riddled with false beliefs that render the whole of science itself to be a false religion.
"Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? ...yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against..."
And there again we are brought back to the false belief that mathematics is true truth, so very true that apparently no scientist has cross-linked basic arithmetic with the myths of Darwinianism. About thirteen years ago I publicly wrote that if evolution through DNA mutation were true fact, then from the first bacteria to today, there would have had to have been numerous successful 'chance' mutations daily before there could have been enough mutations to have created an ant or a human.
If so many chance mutations occur every day as Neo-Darwinism claims and believes, then, where are they? Where are the space aliens? Where are the people floating through the skies? Where are the supernatural powers? Where are the billions of 'missing links' walking the earth today?
I had marked numerous statements in Gelernter's article as being important enough — and interesting enough — to look at again, but I will conclude the quotes with only one more: "There is a general principle here, similar to the earlier principle that the number of useless polypeptides crushes the number of useful ones. ...McDonald calls this one a "great Darwinian paradox.""
The common scientific approach to Darwinianism is to  ignore everything that is unknown (call the unknown "nonsense"),  invent horrifically horrible religious rites of sacrificing one's children to the science gods for vivisection (cutting-out tonsils, etc.),  loudly insist that the false god of flat 'mathematics' is true truth,  to first not possess any firsthand experience whatsoever of the topic (failing all five of the core principles of logic) and  to then continue believing (and loudly demanding) that thinking within two-dimensional sequences is able to measure the origins of life.
There is no Darwinian paradox... the 'facts' are merely made-up inventions enforced by ad hoc excuses blended within the circular reasonings of flat mathematics. I want to hear about real things, things that relate to the real Nature, things like curvatures, durations, transductances, dilations, and all of the other variables that influence everything related to the topic of 'evolution by DNA', but no, of the hundreds of papers that I have read by the alleged 'expert Darwinianists', none spoke of anything beyond flat two-dimensional sequences, with the papers not so much as hinting of possessing the competence of a first semester high school level of electrical theory. Darwinianism is all about ignorance, contradictions (dementia), and religiosity, not about the study of the origins of life.
Similar to all other cults, Darwinianism does not permit anyone to disagree with the cult's doctrines of faith, and I normally would not so much as waste a breath speaking about Darwinianism, but the topic does have value in how it mirrors the ancient superstitions that were written about in Tao-related texts.
Contradictions and Absurdities
Which is the error within the above paradoxes? The belief in mathematics, or the belief in supernatural powers and other myths like Darwinianism? Might all be of error?
Most all people ignore Nature... the people are not able to be conscious of Nature... the people, their every step dwells within the laws of Nature, of the individuals' unconscious minds reasoning Nature's gravity, reasoning sensory perceptions that judge Nature's lengths and heights and weights, reasoning the sensory perceptions of sights of Nature for the individual to judge where to walk, reasoning the sensory perceptions of hearing and smelling and tasting Nature, the people also inventing imaginary numbers and statistics while consciously ignoring that the numbers and statics do not relate to Nature's way, and the people sincerely do believe that they are not bound by Nature's way... the people already believing — but not knowing that they believe — that they are supernatural.
Many people sincerely do believe the belief that people can attain supernatural powers by eliminating all sensory perceptions... and yet, the individuals have claimed of themselves to possess the supernatural powers by having eliminated all sensory perceptions, while, of course, the individuals can still walk, talk, eat, follow a path, mentally discern male from female, judge a rock from a tree, vocally teach their teachings about supernatural powers, and all the other acts that all people rely upon sensory perceptions to do.
The contradictions exist... one clique believes in statistics... a second clique believes in supernatural powers... a third clique believes in chance evolution... but none of the cliques' beliefs can be found to be real... all three, not conscious of Nature, nor conscious of their own selves.
Statistics are wrong, beliefs in Darwinian evolution are wrong, beliefs in human-observable evidences of space aliens are wrong... the three wrongs do not make any one belief right, nor make a paradox... all three beliefs are merely wrong. Similarly, statistics are wrong, the belief in not having sensory perceptions is wrong, and beliefs in supernatural powers are wrong... the three wrongs do not make any of the beliefs right, nor make a paradox... all three of the beliefs are merely wrong.
The following are seven translations of the last sentence within Daodejing's section #78:
"Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical." (James Legge 1891)
"These are words of truth, Though they seem paradoxical." (Ch'u Ta-Kao 1904)
"The truest sayings are paradoxical." (Lionel Giles 1905)
"Truth, when expressed in speech, appears paradoxical." (Spurgeon Medhurst 1905)
"True words seem paradoxical." (D.T. Suzuki & Paul Carus 1913)
"True words in paradox." (Isabella Mears 1916)
"True words are often paradoxical." (Dwight Goddard 1919)
The last two words of the sentence are 若 (ruo), implying 'as, choose, comparable, like, seem, similar' and 反 (fan) implying 'contrary, counter, instead, like-this, rebel, revolt, turn-over, wrong side out, wrong side up', creating a concept like 'seem contrary' as in contradicting or conflicting one nature as compared to a different nature of the same thing.
Section 78's previous sentences contained concepts that are obvious... water is weak of itself, but water is strong enough to erode away a mountain... today water is used at high pressure to cut through thick steel... therefore weak can be victorious over the powerful, and gentle can be victorious over the strong... (rock, scissors, paper). There are no contradictions in the sentences themselves, the sentences merely pointed at obvious things that all healthy people can observe in Nature... therefore, the last words point to the idea of 'like-this contrary', a mutual-like reality of a thing's nature as related to other things.
Some individuals are said to have used the Daodejing writings to be an excuse to revolt and rebel against the people's governments. The last four words, could, feasibly, be fringe-interpreted to be saying something like 'Zheng say: like-this rebel-revolt'. However, for an individual's mind to land upon such an interpretation, it must also rely on the individual's mind not being bright enough to cross-light and connect the last sentence with the previous sentences.
Similarly could be said for interpretations that use the 'paradox' word... there was no paradox, not so much as a vague inference... the previous sentences were very straight-forward, no contradictions, and no logical reason to interpret the weaknesses and strengths of water as being a 'paradox'.
Regardless of howsoever an individual might choose to interpret the original words, the obvious fact remains... if the stories of the 'masters' of 'tao awareness' repeatedly claimed that 'tao awareness' is supposed to imply an absence of sensory perceptions and an absence of conscious reasoning, then why did the author give importance to his own conscious reasoning of words? Why did the author apply conscious reasoning to recognize that other people ought to see similar natures of water, weak, and gentle? The author's claims within #78 were not a paradox, but rather the very simplistic claims were of tiny things that all healthy minds can easily reason to be valid of Nature.
But still the author's own words contradicted the author's other words about nothing-consciousness, and of nothing-sensory, which resulted in the present section being a contradiction against the whole of the author's philosophy of Tao.
It is common within some philosophies for the 'masters' to make similar claims of supernatural powers, absence of sensory perceptions, absence of reasoning, reliance upon intuition, paradoxes, etc., but always it is obvious that the claims are not true.
Powers Without Effort
Thousands of years ago, a virtuous man wrote of a self-experience... the man interpreted the self-experience to be tranquil, and to be a self-observation of how his own thoughts arose... the man, spoke of virtue as being among the first things.
Believers believe that they themselves can attain the identical same state of tranquility through the use of greed and force sans virtue. There is no paradox... the belief is simply wrong, the behavior is wrong, and the outcome is wrong.
Self-thinking... if all known men who spoke of similar things as the virtuous man's self-experience, also spoke of the prerequisite being virtue, then an individual ought to be capable of sufficient self-reasoning that the virtuous man's self-experience was made possible through the state of virtue. However, where are they? Why are there not tens of millions of extremely virtuous people walking the streets and shopping malls all day every day?
Billions of people believing that they will attain some sort of supernatural powers, while the people themselves will not exert the self-effort and a self-participation to first strive to attain inner virtue... the behavior is not paradoxical, it is simply wrong.
Nature-based reasoning, is that it is more likely to unknowingly meet a space alien on Earth than to knowingly meet a truly virtuous human.