2

Consider this statement:

“Everything has an end”

I think many of you here can agree with this. But that means that the claim in this above statement also has an end. So one day, there might be some things that don’t have an end. Is my logic correct, or can it be refuted?

As a note, I am a layman to Philosophy (I come from a Mathematical background), so please include the definition of advanced words if you need to.

Kamal Saleh
  • 131
  • 5
  • 1
    For large values of 'Everything'. – Scott Rowe Apr 25 '23 at 00:02
  • 3
    “Everything has an end” is a vague atmospheric sentiment with intentionally loose scope of "everything" and intentionally obscure meaning of "end". Taking it as subject to logic is missing the point. – Conifold Apr 25 '23 at 00:25
  • 1
    There's no issue here. You are challenging your premise rule with a rule that will break it, and this leads to a contradiction, that's like stating 1) C=True 2) C=False (breaks Identity Law). If you want your premise to hold, sustain it with logically consistent rules. Otherwise, nobody will agree to the proposition, even for physical things: most physical bodies might have an end on the X dimension (e.g. Length) but also has an infinite perimeter (=perimeter has no end; see the Coastline Paradox). – RodolfoAP Apr 25 '23 at 00:31
  • 1
    Coastline paradox is not paradox. Perimeter of the coast line can't be more then sum all the perimeters of the particles of the coast dust, but even easier it depends on the division price you ll use for the measurement. but the mistake of this imagine because space and time are connected together, and to measure coast with the dust particles it is the same how to calculate time with the electron's spin period. – άνθρωπος Apr 25 '23 at 01:29
  • 2
    The problem is that "everything," is not well-defined. In math terms, this would be like trying to talk about the set of all sets (which does not exist). – Sandejo Apr 25 '23 at 06:05
  • 1
    I would say "everything has an end" (as intended) is an example of either a paradoxical statement (eg "this statement is false") or a self-refuting statement (eg "this is not a statement"). Leaving aside scope of "end" and "everything", assuming they can be applied in the intended meaning. – Nikos M. Apr 25 '23 at 13:03
  • 2
    Additionaly to all the logic and definition above, "everything has an end" is at best an axiom, a premise that is not proven and that people must grant you. I for one would disagree, since i don't know everything it's just common sense that i can't grant you that everything has an end. – armand Apr 25 '23 at 14:03
  • Do _endless_ things have an end? It it true that the term "endless" applies to nothing at all? Is the set of endless things the empty set? Seems odd to have an adjective that can be rightly applied to nothing. I bet you can come up with one satisfyingly endless thing and disprove it by counterexample. Some candidates: _Space_? _Time_? _Imagination_? _Possibilities_? _Infinity_? _Love_? – Wyck Apr 28 '23 at 14:07

3 Answers3

3

Sure. We can say everything has an end and then immediately realize that this statement contradicts itself. Since antiquity philosophers grappled with contradictions like this. First Heraclitus, Parmenides, and sophists, then Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles tried to save philosophy from self-contradictions. They all failed in one way or other. In the modern period, this question was first taken by Kant, who concluded that metaphysics was impossible because of contradictions. Then it was answered by Hegel who showed us a systematic way to avoid contradictions. The path Hegel took was to face the contradiction head-on and overcome it in a higher abstraction level. This was the core of his dialectical method. For example: “Everything has an end”, which lead us to “Everything has no end”. So the things are always such that they both have an end and no end at the same time. How is this possible? Because things are not fixed but dynamic and changing. Their fixedness is illusory. It destroys itself at another point. Introducing the time element allows us to overcome any contradiction. So not only physical things but concepts, ideas also move and change in time.

This is all well but it isn’t really satisfactory from a meta-philosophical view point. Because the contradiction establishes itself again at the higher abstraction level as well. So what Hegel does is just postponing the contradiction and creating a circle that closes itself on itself and hope that the contradiction solves itself in this self-enclosing loop.

In the 20th century, we saw that the contradictions are not just philosophical or even logical but they enter mathematics as well. First shown by Russell and then Gödel. Ways were found to avoid them of course but the questions remain.

So I would argue thar we can avoid contradictions while we conduct good philosophy, logic, maths, science and in our daily life but they in fact stay unresolved on a deeper level.

hegel1806
  • 46
  • 3
  • 1
    This is an amazing answer! I learned a lot from just reading it. – Kamal Saleh Apr 26 '23 at 15:21
  • Contradictions also enter logic. There are multiple logics, with the options very plausibly being infinite. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 That leaves us with no closed form method of evaluating the validity of any particular logic. And with no certain method of determining if a logic applies to the physical or conscious worlds. Pragmatically, we default to classical logic, but we know it is not applicable to many cases. Pragmatism, and pragmatic "truth" is the only path out of this. – Dcleve Apr 27 '23 at 15:14
  • This is a really great answer. I was a philosophy major in college and I gained a new context for understanding Hegel (whom I studied) from your answer. That said, I think there is harm in avoiding intellectual contradictions in daily life - it tends to lead to dogmatic views - and on the flipside, I think we can use the contradictions inherent in all things to open our mind to many new possibilities. This is more like an aside, because I don't think you intended your last sentence as a negation of abstract thinking. Cheers – dgo Apr 27 '23 at 16:14
0

"Everything has an end, a sausage has two." -German proverb

We think space and time began with the Big Bang. So, where and when did the Big Bang come from..? A compelling theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology developed by Nobel winner Roger Penrose, suggests our universe will cease to experience time once only photons are left (for slightly technical reasons, photons don't exerience time, see Does light experience time?

A great deal of our language depends on comparisons, and 'end' is one of those things, see: Life and Death as one and the same?

It's quite a common thing for people to use a statement that aims to move a discussion forward, and say, in the terms of the old debate, the new statement is self-contradictory. And indeed, that's why the debate hadn't moved on. An example is when people say Postmodernism is the metanarrative of not having metanarratives, the philosophy of not expecting one final unified philosophy - but in it's own terms, it describes skepticism or incredulity towards metanarratives, rather than an assertion of being the final one.

So another example, the ancient wisdom-tradition saying, This too shall pass. Shall that also pass? Once there are only photons left, who will know..? And yet, it expresses something even more timeless, that it's in the nature of things that arise, to be time-bound, and to pass, whether we wish it or not, and there is comfort knowing it applies to the good and the bad.

A core job of philosophy is investigating definitions, and especially edge-cases or where terms seem to start fraying and breaking down.

What does it mean to stand outside of time, in a place where ending has ended? Well, surely it would be unbegun also, timeless. An example might be the E8 mathematical structure, which seems to represent all possible sets of fundamental physical. To not pass away is also to not arise, which means to have always been.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • In CCC, where did the whole cycle come from? Why is it there in the first place? – user4894 Apr 25 '23 at 20:48
  • @user4894: Infinite. It's pretty much an Abrahamic conceit to assume there was a Creation. Egyptians, Buddhists, & many others assumed cyclical rise & fall. In physics, I would say all you need is the Uncertainty Principle, & complex consequences for very unlikely events. Basically feedback from simple cycles of the Cosmos, to increasingly more complex, gets us to what we see. – CriglCragl Apr 25 '23 at 22:30
  • Where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the uncertainty principle come from? A cyclic universe does not answer any of these metaphysical questions. Answering the question "Was the universe always here?" by saying, "No, but the cycle of universes was always here," adds zero new information. It tells us nothing. – user4894 Apr 26 '23 at 01:25
  • @user4894: 'In the beginning was total uncertainty, which having absolutely no way to determine what it was, exploded.' – CriglCragl Apr 26 '23 at 12:55
  • Are you proposing that as an explanation of something? What, exactly? And how? Are you making a joke? Do you believe you wrote something meaningful? – user4894 Apr 26 '23 at 18:07
  • @user4894: It was a quip. More serious answers: 'How can time have a beginning when a beginning needs time?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/82382/how-can-time-have-a-beginning-when-a-beginning-needs-time/82407#82407 'Would it be logically possible that the Universe has a beginning in time but an infinite amount of time has elapsed since this beginning?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70910/would-it-be-logically-possible-that-the-universe-has-a-beginning-in-time-but-an/70912#70912 – CriglCragl Apr 26 '23 at 20:22
  • 'Is there a logical reason to default to a certain type of first cause?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/87395/is-there-a-logical-reason-to-default-to-a-certain-type-of-first-cause/87408#87408 'What exactly is incoherent about an infinite regress of contingent universes?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86410/what-exactly-is-incoherent-about-an-infinite-regress-of-contingent-universes/86412#86412 'Why should there be nothing rather than something?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50104/why-should-there-be-nothing-rather-than-something/50144#50144 – CriglCragl Apr 26 '23 at 20:24
  • 'Why does the universe need an origin?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91182/why-does-the-universe-need-an-origin/91197#91197 Clearly you have strong opinions, by all means engage with the issues, by formulating your own answer, to the relevant questions. – CriglCragl Apr 26 '23 at 20:29
0

Phase is not definitely correct.

Everything has borders. If a thing has no borders you can't identify where/when this thing is - thing without borders is not determinate in some area/set/time.

Also it is not correct that "Everything has an end, a sausage has two". A sausage has two border sides but are they are either ends or beginnings, depending on the context. So, the context determines what is the cause and what is the consequence (effect). Cause is similar to beginning, and consequence is for end of the thing.

And a third point. All things have a context of interaction. If a thing has no effect you can't say anything about it; there are no facts of its existing. But whether it is a beginning or an end is based on specific facts. Without the facts this discussion is meaningless.

About facts and coastline problem. When i tell about "facts" i mean not particle individuals cases like complexity or confusion of the coastline fractal images. This is not a 'the facts' i mean, this facts have a place to be, but this facts doesn't create the continuity picture, but fragmented kaleidoscope images. So if think about borders, you ll get multiple magnification of the similar structures contained borders. So this analysis will give you system complication, but analysis wouldn't be ever final result of something, only synthesis can be a result, so we need to collect all fragments in holistic image. And when i told about border facts, i told about holistic borders their facts, not about fragments. Fragments can be, all things are consist of particles, but the END of everything thing always IT's holistic form.

So, the answer your question: everything has the END in it's holistic completed form. Only unbroken things have the end.

Also as only broken things have the beginning.

άνθρωπος
  • 527
  • 2
  • 9
  • When investigated, 'cause' is a pretty problematic term. See: 'Is the idea of a causal chain physical (or even scientific)?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70930/is-the-idea-of-a-causal-chain-physical-or-even-scientific/72055#72055 My point with the proverb, was that 'end' has different meanings in different contexts – CriglCragl Apr 25 '23 at 13:03
  • @CriglCragl Im not sure that cause is definitely that word i mean, you can change it's meaning for something for the beginning of the thing. the begin and the end is more then cause and consequence. Cause logic is possible only when you d set the begin and the end of something - when you d determinated the borders of something. When you are talking about sausage with two ends - it is fun joke calembour. – άνθρωπος Apr 25 '23 at 13:13
  • @CriglCragl maybe you should to set a locii of the cause? I don't know why, but in rus( im russian) "cause" have two words причинно-следственная, but in eng it is only one word - причинная(?), so im not sure that is equal concepts. When you have only one word for describing something, you can't determinate the thing, only to refer on another signifier - so you ll got term-word, not name of the thing. But when you have two words you have triple effect: you have begin, end and you have a context bond - the connect vector that set the first and the second - what is the begin and what is the end. – άνθρωπος Apr 25 '23 at 13:35
  • @CriglCragl and what it gives? for example Lie question. Did you thought that lie can be different? Lie about future and lie about past. You can prevent future lie with correct contract, but if the lie in past - you contract will include the lie inside already. That mean the contract will not work. Because you set the rules already on lie base. Here is the problem with aletheia - you can't conclude a true contract with liar. But you got another trick, you make double lie contract, because double lie in logic mean 'truth' - so you become call the 'truth' this double lie. Is this still truth? – άνθρωπος Apr 25 '23 at 13:44