Proofs That Ipu Does Not Exist

What is Ipu?

Invisible Pink Unicorn, an omnipotent, omniscient entity at the center of the universe. -- FalkBruegmann (but not my idea)

Invisible things have no color, therefore IPU is self-contradictory and does not exist. On the other hand, the VHTSPU (very-hard-to-see pink unicorn) may well exist. But I haven't seen it.

This assumes that self-contradictory things do not exist, however self-contradictory things do exist ( like the statement "I am lying" ), therefore IPU may also exist.

The statement "I am lying" is referentially opaque. That is, there is a dichotomy between a truth and the language it takes to phrase it. Thus, when you saw the statement "I am lying" exists you are correct. However, when you claim it is self-contradictory you are not. (A thing has no truth value; what is the truth value of a rock?)

The statement "invisible pink unicorn" is referentially opaque. There is, however, a dichotomy between a truth and the language it takes to phrase it. Thus, the statement "invisible pink unicorn" is self-contradictory, but the IPU itself is not. A thing has no truth value; what is the truth value of an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Clearly IPU exists, viz: White horses exist. However,

  IPU := 
    lim(hornSize := 0 -> 18 inches) 
      lim(color := white -> (red + white)/2) 
        lim(opacity := 1 -> 0)
          horse

Handling the location is left to the reader.

The statement "I am lying" contradicts itself. That doesn't stop it existing; it just stops it being meaningful.

An invisible pink unicorn doesn't contradict itself. What contradicts itself is the phrase "invisible pink unicorn". The phrase is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless, and it therefore doesn't denote anything. In particular, it doesn't denote invisible pink unicorns. Nor does anything else.

I'm oversimplifying, of course. Self-contradictory phrases can often denote things, because we interpret them charitably and take some or all of the phrase as metaphorical or exaggerated or whatever. I don't see any useful way of doing this with "invisible pink unicorn".

It's possible that the contradiction is deliberate; it may be intended to insinuate that the idea of God is internally inconsistent, just like the idea of an invisible pink unicorn.

Oxygen is invisible, therefore oxygen doesn't exist. What on earth does visibility have to do with existence?

But oxygen is not pink. It is the state of being simultaneously invisible and pink that is contradictory.

In the LAB color scheme, something can indeed be invisible and pink (it can also be white or black and pink). Perhaps, in the higher-dimensional universe of the IPU, all colors are LAB. --mt

Oxygen actually has a slight blue tinge (in liquid form), I think if something is said to be invisible it also needs qualifiers, i.e. a pink unicorn that is invisible to non-virgins or invisible in the far X-Ray spectrum. -- AndrewMcMeikan

If we can't see it, we can call it any color we like. In fact we can call it any thing we like. All undetectable things exist. Plainly this includes the absence of undetectable things, so all undetectable things also don't exist.

Existence itself is paradoxical. Does a wave exist, or is it merely an accretion of ripples? Do the ripples exist, or are they merely a statistical approximation of the motion of atoms? Do the atoms exist, or are they merely non-local quantum interference between existent entities scattered across the universe? Do all those scattered entities exist, or is existence merely a bad metaphor for what happens - like a streetmap for a forest, or a recipe for snow? We humans like to take reality in human sized gulps, but reality rolls on regardless. -- PeterMerel, not talking about that subject he promised not to talk about, honest.

A phrase is only self-contradictory if you assume it describes a closed system. What if the pink unicorn is invisible because it's in a pink room? Or "I'm 400 feet tall and 1000 years old. I'm lying of course." Nothing tangible is a closed system, except the universe itself and even that depends on your idea of God. -- NeilGall

God? I thought we were discussing Ipu...

CategoryLogic CategoryWhimsy CategoryProof