The Hotel doesn't derive a contradiction, it's not technically a paradox as such.
But it does derive counter-intuitive implications.
Oddly enough perhaps, some finites also derive counter-intuitive implications.
WL Craig and JP Moreland use terms like absurd about an infinite temporal past in particular.
(I'm guessing intuition is sometimes more or less the principle of sufficient reason.)

Bears noticing: ∞ ∉ R
No, infinites aren't just more numbers (apparently this keeps escaping many folk); you don't add subtract compare them all and call it a day; some rigor is required here, and we already know this.

Capitalism is all about profit-maximization.
For a company, that's often in the scope of the sitting board and shareholders, so a bunch of (living) humans. I guess incentives toward broader concerns and ethics can be put in place, like with giving heavy fines/sentences for money laundering, or rewarding something.
Related to the tragedy of the commons. Might increase the risk of oil spills. :sad:

I guess, technically, in logic/mathematics, proof is truth-preserving reasoning.
But otherwise, a strong justification of something, perhaps meeting some epistemic standard.
A proof to the contrary, i.e. disproof, could be a counter-example.
So, proofs are usually supposed to give knowledge in some context.

Yet, it molded culture in a way that the two of them were intertwined. — Gus Lamarch

Or culture molded Christianity.

Christianity is as brutal as Islam. — Gregory

And yet, here you are, living on the world it helped build... — Gus Lamarch

Shaivism and Christianity are cultural phenomena. Culture isn't a Christian phenomenon.

Incidentally, some time ago, I was trying to do an analysis of some common mind-verbiage, like

subjective - objective
fictional - real
voluntary - involuntary
invented - discovered

Too lazy to transform the original html to forum markup, so I'll just attach an image instead.
Not done though, quickly became a bit wishy-washy, isn't argumentative, more summarizing.
Anyone have suggestions, see errors, clarifications, ...?

You tell me (everyone), , it's your story.
Last time: show your alleged contradiction or move on.

People know about liar's, unrestricted comprehension, curry's, principle of explosion, presuppositional error, what-have-you, . Once more:

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, 3017amen? — jorndoe

The "atemporal god"?

You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox? — 3017amen

Nope, this:

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

You keep bringing your car thing up.

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, ?

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

intentionally crash — 3017amen

= suicidal tendencies, yes?

intentionally — 3017amen

?

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention — jorndoe

Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!? — 3017amen

Suicide, then. Unfortunate either way, but not the alleged contradiction.

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention.

The Bible does say things about slavery, @Gus Lamarch, just not the right thing.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this.

Also, , there seems to be overlap between Ronald Hanko, Thomas Aquinas (← mentioned earlier), Ephesians 5:21-22 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, for example.
I suppose a relevant question then is: would you go by the Bible as the truth of the matter (by definition), maybe try to make excuses for the Bible, or do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)?

[...] which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself... — Gus Lamarch

historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity — Gus Lamarch

:D You misunderstand. There's no desperation revisionism tantrum. There are a few historical facts that you (seem to intentionally) omit and now downplay (with a bit of raving). I'm not passing judgment in particular, but pointing out a few things your preaching missed; I can post more if you like.
By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4, for example.
What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway?

Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ​​still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. — Gus Lamarch

Oh dump the blinders already.

History tells those who dare to study it [...] — Gus Lamarch

• Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
• during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, that's like 19 on a street with 20 people (Wikipedia), give that some thought
• Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led to Holocaust, landmark Church of England report concludes (Gabriella Swerling; The Telegraph; Nov 2019)
• Victims of the Christian Faith (Kelsos via Church and State; Aug 2002)
• Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (Simon Whitechapel; Apr 2003)
• Racism in Watchtower publications (John Cedars; Aug 2019)
• America’s Biggest Christian Charity Funnels Tens of Millions to Hate Groups (Alex Kotch; Sludge; Mar 2019)
• Are All Men Created Equal? (Ronald Hanko; Protestant Reformed Churches in America), apparently not, and, with such reasons, discrimination, and worse, are justified
  "femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (woman is defective and misbegotten)
  — Summa Theologiae (1274), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
• Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom” (Hemant Mehta; Dec 2019)
• Onward, Christian fascists (Chris Hedges; Jan 2020)

Counterfeit/fake refers to it having been made illegally moreso than its molecular arrangement, yes?

Been watching Good Girls, ? :)

Real is sometimes contrasted by fictional, illusory, or erroneous.
Other times, real versus not real is used like discovered versus invented.
Other times still, real just means exists.
Then there are some cases that overlap with objective/subjective.
All seems very contextual (and Englitch is my 2nd language).

(y)

:

CDC 6% COVID Death Rate?? | A Doctor Explains _{Here's how to actually interpret those CDC #COVID19 mortality numbers.} (8m:53s facebook av) ← a trained medical professional explains

False claim shared by President Trump that only 6% of CDC-reported deaths are from COVID-19 is based on flawed reasoning (Pablo Rougerie; Health Feedback; Aug 2020) ← fact check

Misrepresentation is this → ← close to lying (or it's bullshitting).

I'd say there are at least some grounds for positing noumena...

1. you cannot experience another's self-awareness, since then you'd be them instead ^{(self-awarenesses are indexical)}
2. so there are things you cannot experience, always just over the horizon, noumena
3. you are not everything, self-identity, individuation, self versus other
4. but you can know thereof by interaction, be it the rubble in the driveway or others

(Could likely be expressed better.)

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin:

But ostriches still use their wings for other purposes like mating displays. — Harry Hindu

Hence when purpose is just use.

We often use things for which the object wasnt initially, or primarily, designed to do, but something in that design permits one to use the object in some other way but not in every way. — Harry Hindu

Surely you're not suggesting that there was a bad blueprint for ostriches, but it just so happened that ostriches found a different use for their wings?

I question the distinction and the conceit of ‘apparent’ purpose. I think it all goes back to the abandonment of Aristotle’s fourfold causation as an aspect a consequence of the scientific revolution. This wants to see literally everything in terms of the non-intentional causation that can be understood through the paradigm of physics.

Note also the implications for the nature of reason. Whereas in the Aristotelian attitude, ‘things happen for a reason’, in the modern view, things are determined by material causes - for no reason, in the classical sense. — Wayfarer

Conceit? Nah, that's ↑ just (primitive) personification, "seeing faces in the clouds", magical thinking, ... If you want to assert such intelligent pre-planning, then you have the usual burden of proof. Which is fine of course, just have to justify. Or, I suppose you could go down a semiotic sort of path like @apokrisis.

, I was thinking whether this stuff would be a better fit over in the language section.

Purpose is a language game we play to try to make sense of the world. It's useful, and it's value extends only as far as it's usefulness. — Voyeur

Maybe something similar could be said for causation...

In the house example, we start from purpose, have no hesitation to assign purpose, including when the house is not used or built yet.
In the wings example, we come to speak of purpose from observed plain use, what they do, then suppose or impose. In an alternate universe, ostrich wings have turned out used for deterring and combating predators, and so their purpose might be said to be weapons.
My heart pumps blood around the body, so we say that's its purpose, because that's what it's doing; but the purpose of an artificial heart is to replace the heart.
Some might go as far as to say that a purpose of trees is oxygen production from carbon dioxide.

Houses, wings, photosynthesis, etc are along for the ride; houses are ours at least.
Is there a faint residue of sufficient reason in such thinking, in seeing teleology via purposes (that are plain use), like the principle accidentally betrayed us?

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one? — Punshhh

See here, here, here, here, here in a parallel thread (you can likely find others).

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity. — 3017amen

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real)

That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy.

Mr Smith agrees. :)

Agent Smith - Humans Are Virus (1m:18s youtube)

My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. — Marco Colombini

A bit like The Emperor's New Clothes?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443851
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443873
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443892
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443895
...

(your responses have to be on point and adequate to be of much consequence)

By Jove, , you brought up necessary (possible worlds, modal logic, the usual).
If you know what you're commenting about, then you ought to be able to understand the argument in that comment.
This comment lists some of the claims it applies to.
If you're still confused, then maybe read up on it?

is that your way of saying [...] — 3017amen

Nope.
It's observing that you didn't address the argument in that comment; heck, you didn't really respond to it, just went off on your own. The argument pertains to some number of claims of yours.
_{(I suppose it's understandable that you'd rather just reiterate your own narrative, but this is a discussion, and not just anything goes, especially bare assertions shown to not hold water.)}
Furthermore, this isn't about me (at all), it's about the propositions. Not about you or me, but about the statements. (Hit the bar if you want to get down and personal. :wink:) Hence, please address what it's about.

None of which addresses the (simple) deductive argument, . :)
There's not even any reference thereto or mention thereof, instead you run seem to with a script that you could have posted as a response to more or less anything.
In fact, it follows logically that your (relatively) lengthier commentary has errors, I'll just say non-sequiturs (take it as an exercise to spot them).

Bit of backpedalling there, , ?
The modal logic — possible, necessary — aren't about you, I, homo sapiens, the universe we know of, in particular.
Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. And that's intuitive as well. Why on Earth would anyone think that consciousness figures in all possible worlds, must be? There's an element of self-elevation, of conceit in that.
What may or may not be necessary specifically for us, Earth, the observable galaxies, this (no hypotheticals, skip modal logic), is another matter. And, either way, the rubble in the driveway is evidently not conscious. In the case of a human life (like us), we can track things from start to end, what was involved, needed, etc.
These claims ...

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

... are hence overstated as shown.
I suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? Why Yahweh and not Shiva? Why Shiva and not panpsychism? Why ... and not The Force? ...? And, technically, the modal logic dispenses with most postulates of something necessary. Not consistency though.

, I'm guessing it was due to repetition, but that's just conjecture on my part.
Maybe if something new and cool was added...? (Or just something different...?)

consciousness is not necessary for existence — EricH

This assertion fails — Punshhh

Why? It certainly fails no less than

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

Rather

1. necessity = holds in all possible (self-consistent) worlds
2. say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory
3. consciousness does not figure in (the boring) R³
4. consciousness is not necessary

@EricH's assertion is therefore justified moreso than @3017amen's.

Right, .
Bridging the gap seems a bit out still.
Supposing we could, could we then also disprove solipsism? (Vice versa?)
There seems to be a relation of sorts anyway; implications of "a bridge" might shed light on other things.

My red is an occurrence. A part of me when occurring.
Seems nonsensical that my red could be your red exactly.
Though, when occurring as a consequence of interaction with something extra-self, you might partake in a similar interaction with that.
Et voilà, we can use verbiage like "red" when talking about those experiences of those things. (y)
So, it's not so much that "my red is the same as yours", more that there's enough interactional stability that we can find coherent ways to talk about it.

_{• we can correlate such experiences with wavelengths/frequencies of light to a fair extent
• synesthesia is when such interaction triggers additional, uncommon experiences
• color blindness is when someone can't differentiate colors that others commonly can, opposite tetrachromacy}

So still nutn' then, . Just raising a whole lot of ignorance, pretending it entails ... Jesus.

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

Still nothing? Here's the exercise again. And an earlier one:

Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love — jorndoe

"TRUMP INTERVIEW" — A Bad Lip Reading (5m:2s youtube)

:D