If change is the only constant, is it really change? Paradox??

This along with a few other sayings have me wondering about absolutes. like saying there are no absolutes when the very saying is an absolute.

Back to change, what is change really? i understand that change can be anything from the day to the mood of a person to global ideologies. even entropy is a form of change as is chaos. so given all these forms of change all we are talking about is the transmutation of energy. which in and of itself is a self evident truism BUT if that transmutation as a homogeneous entity falls under the flag of change and change is the only constant then is there really anything changing apart from our perception of it.

This of course brings us back to relativistic realities and how people perceive things. So then is the only thing changing our perception of change because there really is no such thing as change???

I've either said, thought or heard that before... that change is the only constant making it paradoxal. It makes perfect sense.

The statement "nothing remains the same" is a paradox, because if "nothing" is always changing in some form (NOT remaining the same) then it could only be true that 'Everything is constantly changing".

Originally posted by MavRck
I've either said, thought or heard that before... that change is the only constant making it paradoxal. It makes perfect sense.

The statement "nothing remains the same" is a paradox, because if "nothing" is always changing in some form (NOT remaining the same) then it could only be true that 'Everything is constantly changing".

edit on 25-11-2010 by MavRck because: (no reason given)

yes so if nothing remains the same what is nothing? and why is this nothing the only thing that is unaffected by change?

You are unique, just like everybody else.

There are two constants.

1. The infinite "stationary".

2. Expansion (finite). This one has many different definitions, because this is where science work.

No two changes are ever the same so there cannot be a paradox here.

Changes (plural) are not constant and every change changes from any other change. That does make sense doesn't it?

but some changes can be the same

Change may be a constant but there may also another piece in the equation that controls it all.
This missing element must be something that is known as "randomness".
Kinda like a random number generator, only it doesn't just generate numbers.

"Nothing" is actually a "something" believe it or not.

reply to post by Mizzijr


Yes but MavRck's definition of "nothing" seemed to be 'that which does not exist'. Now of course we as humans cannot intelligently speak of 'that which does not exist' since 'that which does not exist' does not endure in time.

reply to post by tim3lord


For me, existence itself is linked with change.

This along with a few other sayings have me wondering about absolutes. like saying there are no absolutes when the very saying is an absolute.

To be bold, I will assert that because humans are themselves not absolute, humans cannot state what is and what is not absolute. Also, for humans to fathom an absolute would require an absolute perspective. Humans do not have an absolute perspective. Thus, cannot state an absolute.

I am pondering and will ponder this some more.

Thanks for the cool thread topic.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
"Nothing" is actually a "something" believe it or not.

Nothing is exactly that "Nothing". How can it be something at all, except a word!

Nothingness on the other hand is something.

It's not paradoxical is it?

Matter is in motion and whether changes take effect over microseconds or eons (or longer periods that make eons and epochs seem like microseconds), the changes are all measurable (or immeasurable to us) and happening all the time.

None of these changes are "constant". The fact that there are many different changes going on at any one time is not grasped by a universal label called "change" except as a label.

BTW how can I see any previous posts when I am typing in this text box? Is this inability to read previous posts while composing a constant or is it something I can change?

reply to post by spy66


From a Quantum Mechanics and Spiritual stand point "nothing" is "everything".

With "Nothing is constant", I can see that the concept of change necessitated by the statement would make that paradoxical, but when the statement is revised to "change is the only constant", change, regardless of variabilities in its nature, is allowed for, and so I fail to see how this is a paradox.

While it is further true that a statement of the absolute by any being that is not absolute is incautious, paradox does not, by definition, require even an iota of truth: paradox merely indicates opposition to existing understanding (which, in non-hypothetical cases, simply indicates that the understanding is flawed).

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities

'that which does not exist' does not endure in time.

Whoah.
I think you just blew all atheistic logic out of the water with that statement.
I wonder how many brains just imploded as a result?