THE PARADIGM AND PARADOX OF LIFE AI BR CYCLIC ORDER

Let’s start by examining the words Paradox & Paradigm which come into English from Greek.

Paradox: A statement or proposition that seems/is or signifies anything that is contradictory yet complimentary. Something that in nature/truth/reality, makes no sense. Polar opposites. A paradox is a thing, exhibiting a contradicting nature.

Paradigm: An example, serving as a pattern or model. A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any field of study. A cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.

Although I am not aware of these two terms being merged in the sense I am using, a plausible definition for paradoxical paradigm I would propose would go something like this: “Any set of assumptions constituting a way of interpreting reality that may seem self-contradictory, but which could express a possible truth.”“Paradoxical Paradigm”.

Paradox: A statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but in reality, expresses a possible truth. Any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently self-contradicting nature.

Paradigm: An example, serving as a pattern or model. A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any field of study. A cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.

Although I am not aware of these two terms being merged in the sense I am using, a plausible definition for paradoxical paradigm I would propose would go something like this: “Any set of assumptions constituting a way of interpreting reality that may seem self-contradictory, but which could express a possible truth.”

" Paradox vs Juxtaposition"

Paradox and juxtaposition are two figures of speech that involve two contradictory elements. Juxtaposing is a literary device in which two opposing or contrasting elements are placed side by side in order to highlight their similarities and differences. Paradox is a phrase or sentence where two contrasting ideas are used in order to reveal a hidden truth. Juxtaposition is a broad term and paradox can be viewed as a type of juxtaposition. This is the main difference between paradox and juxtaposition. 

A Paradox is a phrase or sentence where two contrasting ideas are used in order to reveal a hidden truth.

A Paradoxes occur as a result of the ambiguous nature of language arising from the interrelationships between all definitions of words. A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may reveal a hidden or unexpected truth or prove to be well founded or true. In simple logic the reverse ordering of this statement also describes a paradox. For example, Dead things cannot be alive or living things cannot be dead.

Life and death are mutually exclusive properties and since objects cannot possess both properties simultaneously. Life or a  living thing cannot be  dead and a dead thing alive.

So since Life and Death cannot be unified in any existential state.

Yes a living thing is dying in being but a thing cannot be both “Death and Life” both do not exist in coherent terms. Death is a paradox for death in life comes to everyone and nobody can communicate about death by drawing upon his or her own experience.

There is no way to resolve the paradox of time for time ends at moments called singularities, such as when matter reaches the center of a black hole or the universe collapses in a “big crunch.” Yet the theory also predicts that singular­ities are physically impossible.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that time ends at moments called singularities,  yet the theory also predicts that singular­ities are physically impossible. 

Einstein showed us that time can slow down, or stretch out. When we feel the force of gravity, like falling objects we are drawn to places where time passes more slowly. Time not only affects what matter does but also responds to what matter is doing. 

The moments known as singularities actually refers to any boundary of time, be it beginning or end. The best known paradoxical example of this is the big bang theory, the instant 13.7 billion years ago when our universe—and, with it, time—burst into existence and began expanding in time, waiting for an end theoretically bringing time crashing sudden halt.

It took physicists decades to accept that relativity theory would predict something so unsettling as death without rebirth. To this day, they aren’t quite sure what to make of it. Singularities are arguably the leading reason that physicists seek to create a unified theory of physics, which would merge Einstein’s brainchild with quantum mechanics to create a quantum theory of gravity. They do so partly in the hope they might explain singularities away. But you need to be careful what you wish for. Time’s end is hard to imagine, but time’s not ending may be equally paradoxical.

Immanuel Kant considered the issue to be an “antinomy”—something you could argue both ways, leaving you not knowing what to think.Although modern physicists do not feel quite the same aversion to infinity that Aristotle and Kant did, they still take it as a sign they have pushed a theory too far.

By this thinking, time’s demise is no more paradoxical than the disintegration of any other complex system. One by one, time loses its features and passes through the twilight from existence to nonexistence.
The first to go might be its unidirectionality—its “arrow” pointing from past to future. Physicists have recognized since the mid-19th century that the arrow is a property not of time per se but of matter. Time is inherently bidirectional; the arrow we perceive is simply the natural degeneration of matter from order to chaos.

The bottom line is that physicists struggle with antinomy no less than philosophers have. The late John Archibald Wheeler, a pioneer of quantum gravity, wrote, “Einstein’s equation says ‘this is the end’ and physics says ‘there is no end.’ ” Faced with this dilemma, some people throw up their hands and conclude that science can never resolve whether time ends. For them, the boundaries of time are also the boundaries of reason and empirical observation. But others think the puzzle just requires some fresh thinking. “It is not outside the scope of physics,” says physicist Gary Horowitz of U.C. Santa Barbara. “Quantum gravity should be able to provide a definite answer.”

As physicists and philosophers struggle to grasp the end of time, many see parallels with the end of life. Just as life emerges out of lifeless molecules that organize themselves, time might emerge from some timeless stuff that brings itself to order [see “Is Time an Illusion?” by Craig Callender; Scientific American, June]. A temporal world is a highly structured one. Time tells us when events occur, for how long and in what order. Perhaps this structure was not imposed from the outside but arose from within. What can be made can be unmade. When the structure crumbles, time ends.

By this thinking, time’s demise is no more paradoxical than the disintegration of any other complex system. One by one, time loses its features and passes through the twilight from existence to nonexistence.

The first to go might be its unidirectionality—its “arrow” pointing from past to future. Physicists have recognized since the mid-19th century that the arrow is a property not of time per se but of matter. Time is inherently bidirectional; the arrow we perceive is simply the natural degeneration of matter from order to chaos, a syndrome that anyone who lives with pets or young children will recognize. (The original orderliness might owe itself to the geometric principles that McInnes conjectured.) If this trend keeps up, the universe will approach a state of equilibrium, or “heat death,” in which it cannot get possibly get any messier. Individual particles will continue to reshuffle themselves, but the universe as a whole will cease to change, any surviving clocks will jiggle in both directions and the future will become indistinguishable from the past [see “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” by Sean M. Carroll; Scientific American, June 2008]. A few physicists have speculated that the arrow might reverse, so that the universe sets about tidying itself up, but for mortal creatures whose very existence depends on a forward arrow of time, such a reversal would mark an end to time as surely as heat death would.

Losing Track of Time more recent research suggests that the arrow is not the only feature that time might lose as it suffers death by attrition. Another could be the concept of duration. Time as we know it comes in amounts: seconds, days, years. If it didn’t, we could tell that events occurred in chronological order but couldn’t tell how long they lasted. That scenario is what University of Oxford physicist Roger Penrose presents in a new book, Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe.
Only a cyclical order can give us a beginning and end of time?

In the ongoing socioeconomic and environmental debate the ultimate authority tends to define sustainability in ways that suit their particular application, and use the term with no explicit or exact meaning being implied. Sustainability is more of a political issue than a scientifically supported concept. It is especially hard to reconcile the concept of sustainability with such systemic categories as hierarchy and cycling.

The renewal cycle and the cyclic pattern is considered as an adaptive mechanism that serves the needs of evolution. Hegel's dialectic viewed development of systems as a cyclic process of change where negation of a system was a prerequisite of synthesis. This cyclic nature of development is a paradox and contradictory to the goal of sustainability, which is generally aimed at preservation, maintenance of a certain existing state. 

Sustainability is a human induced process, that is imposed on a system and all human activity is totally controlled and managed by humans in order to preserve the system in a state that is desirable. It is not recognized that within the complex hierarchical system sustainability is fundamentaly in conflict with highest hierarchical level. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to agree, with the hierarchical framework, that the biosphere as a whole is the only system which sustainability we are to seek. Finally for a hierarchical system to extend its existence, to be sustainable, its subsystems need to go through renewal cycles. In this way, death of subsystems contributes to sustainability of the supersystem.

It is a matter of fact that life and death are inseparable phenomena in human existence. Both ensure an essential juxtaposition that seem to sustain mystical convictions across religions. Christianity traces the origins of life to God. Death is the end of all life’s cycle such as birth, puberty, marriage, old age, among others. Historically, questions pertaining to life and death have troubled the minds of humans. The mysteries of life and death are unarguably the most contested of all mysteries in the world.

As per Wittigenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, it is clear that the combination of semantic objects (Life and Death) can only be present in the Null Set. Only in some hypostatic union both can be co-present? No object possesses the properties of Life and Death except in the liminal space.

The trajectories of both are divergent, only paradoxically they are juxaposed or said to intersect repetitively in a cyclic order, in the “circle of life” which many people refer to without seeing the irony that such a concept unifies death and life such that both identities become meaningless.

The relationship between the states 'life and death, whicxh we consider definitive of our existence is a paradox that we mistakenly regard as consistent. In such erroneous logic life and death are inextricable from one another such that they become meaninglessly unified in a recurrent, transcendent figure of existential frustration.

In such a construction of thought not only is Nothing “Something” it is “Everything” since its bounds form the limits of all our experience.

Death in life and Life in death implies that it is a repeatable action, by the same subject. However, no living thing can live or die twice.
Dying is just the biological expression of something that every physical thing in the universe does: The subject life is something that starts from nothing and goes over time from order back to nothing. Null or Chaos is the mythological definition, a “primordial state of uniform non-differentiation. Or if you don’t like nothingness, you become a part of everything in the universe.

There are two strategies available to a living thing: mortality and immortality.

The symbol Y and the sound /ai/signify the liminal space of the unknown and unknowable as originally defined as a o u e i on a cyclic order which represents.

So the question is " Does the way that language was structured have anything to do with  the way we think, and if so how was it structured?”

Let’s start by examining the words Paradox & Paradigm which come into English from Greek.

Paradox: A statement or proposition that seems/is or signifies anything that is contradictory yet complimentary. Something that in nature/truth/reality, makes no sense. Polar opposites. A paradox is a thing, exhibiting a contradicting nature.

Paradigm: An example, serving as a pattern or model. A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any field of study. A cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.

Although I am not aware of these two terms being merged in the sense I am using, a plausible definition for paradoxical paradigm I would propose would go something like this: “Any set of assumptions constituting a way of interpreting reality that may seem self-contradictory, but which could express a possible truth.”“Paradoxical Paradigm”.

Paradox: A statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but in reality, expresses a possible truth. Any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently self-contradicting nature.

Paradigm: An example, serving as a pattern or model. A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any field of study. A cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.

Although I am not aware of these two terms being merged in the sense I am using, a plausible definition for paradoxical paradigm I would propose would go something like this: “Any set of assumptions constituting a way of interpreting reality that may seem self-contradictory, but which could express a possible truth.”

" Paradox vs Juxtaposition"

Paradox and juxtaposition are two figures of speech that involve two contradictory elements. Juxtaposing is a literary device in which two opposing or contrasting elements are placed side by side in order to highlight their similarities and differences. Paradox is a phrase or sentence where two contrasting ideas are used in order to reveal a hidden truth. Juxtaposition is a broad term and paradox can be viewed as a type of juxtaposition. This is the main difference between paradox and juxtaposition. 

A Paradox is a phrase or sentence where two contrasting ideas are used in order to reveal a hidden truth.

A Paradoxes occur as a result of the ambiguous nature of language arising from the interrelationships between all definitions of words. A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may reveal a hidden or unexpected truth or prove to be well founded or true. In simple logic the reverse ordering of this statement also describes a paradox. For example, Dead things cannot be alive or living things cannot be dead.

Life and death are mutually exclusive properties and since objects cannot possess both properties simultaneously. Life or a  living thing cannot be  dead and a dead thing alive.

So since Life and Death cannot be unified in any existential state.

Yes a living thing is dying in being but a thing cannot be both “Death and Life” both do not exist in coherent terms. Death is a paradox for death in life comes to everyone and nobody can communicate about death by drawing upon his or her own experience.