>>11169233I thought of something like that but it still has issues, like "existing and not existing" is still a trait. It could potentially have non traits, or be on a smear between existence and nonexistence so its trait is undefinable and thus isnt effected by definite logic.
One thing that really bugs me though is, im unsure if this object even matters. I dont know a way to phrase this without upsetting its definition, but... just cause it contradicts itself, why does itself have to be extant in the first place. I have some thought about, since it perturbs the system of my mind and now yours, its "attempted to exist," but the truth is, at least with just logic, any attempted perturbation of the mind is something other than it - a confusion, error, or string of text. And so it never perturbs my mind. Yet, how am i talking about it?
One insight I had was I can say, "object A does not perturb any system". In that case, the paradox is deleted from existence because it never perturbed my mind to begin with
Yet, still theres the intuition that its something extant, and the definition for object A prevents it from not perturbing my mind, because it cant have the trait of not perturbing my mind (or not perturbing any sentient/existence generating system). But I wonder, what is the weight of a definition anyway
I also feel like a better comprehension of ontology and the nature of words like existence, reality, nonexistence would help
