On one of the articles I read that was posted on this site, I’d like to borrow the following 2 paragraphs as “food of thoughts”.
Nature appears to contradict itself with the utmost rarity, and so a paradox can be opportunity for us to lay bare our cherished assumptions, and discover which of them we must let go. But a good paradox can take us farther, to reveal that the not just the assumptions but the very modes of thinking we employed in creating the paradox must be replaced. Particles and waves? Not truth, just convenient models. The same number of integers as perfect squares of integers? Not crazy, though you might be if you invent cardinality. This sentence is false. And so, says Godel, might be the foundations of any formal system that can refer to itself. The list goes on.
What next? I’ve got a few big ones I’m wrestling with. How can thermodynamics’ second law arise unless cosmological initial conditions are fine-tuned in a way we would never accept in any other theory or explanation of anything? How do we do science if the universe is infinite, and every outcome of every experiment occurs infinitely many times? ...” <I forgot the name of the author and I could not find it, the author is a professor in the University of California>
Any comment relevant to the above excerpt will be most welcomed.
Paradoxes happen in logic. I don’t understand what a paradox in nature could be.