How was that which did not exist?

Lilla Czigány

Do things that only live in our thoughts really not exist? What makes an object real, what guarantees this certainty, and on what basis? How can we determine whether a piece of information is credible? These often self-contradictory questions were the focus of the fifth semester assignment of an Architecture BA course in Budapest.

Definition of paradox: noun; an inference or an error of inference based on a statement that contradicts itself and/or common sense. It has various types: if the statement is true (a seemingly absurd conclusion which is nevertheless true), the paradox can be classified as physical / logical / set-theoretic, mathematical / geometric / probabilistic, psychological / philosophical; false paradox, which is the wrongful proof of a logical conclusion, a false assumption; real contradiction (flawed system). Paradoxes are typically based on a circular logic, they manipulate with the infinite, and are ambiguous, often self-referential systems.

Fall Term 2021, Experimental Workshop 5, assignment: “chidder-puller”. Creating the identity and history of a nonexistent object, placing it in time and space, and then materially realizing it. The creator can draw freely from stories, written accounts, scientific research or their own fantasy. The final product: fourteen fictitious objects, which are different but also the same, real and invented at the same time – each of them a distorted piece of the past.

But why would posterity invent an object used in the past, especially if the historical background, circumstances, functions justifying its existence are themselves fictive? Can fiction be considered a fact? The base of this uncertainty is the impossibility to verify the veritable nature of a piece of information. How can an object, which had no reason to exist, because its function was fulfilled in a different way, or the problem in question did not exist at all, gain meaning and make sense in hindsight?

The paradox is simple: an object with a past, which was used in its time, which is however not real. The statement builds upon a false assumption (invention) supported by real facts (past events) – false paradox. But how can the real be supported by the nonexistent, when their positions are seemingly different, like skew lines which never intersect? Perhaps this is where the absurdity of the assignment lies. Can a fake object fulfill a real function? Doesn’t this make the function fake as well? The dilemma, in this case, is the function’s validity, upon which the existence of the chidder-puller depends, since fulfilling a specific and concrete function is what would make the object real. But if there is no function, there is nothing to fulfill, thus its instrument ceases to exist – logical paradox.

On the contrary, if we are talking about a real, and therefore fulfilled function, the chidder-puller, by performing that function, could become real. In this case the paradox seems to end, as the contradiction dissolves in the realm of reality: the chidder-puller is the alternative form of an existing object. Nevertheless the conflict turns back into itself, into its own circle of logic, right there, as in the paradox of the Ship of Theseus. The ship, which had all its elements replaced at least once, is not the same ship anymore. Just like the chidder-puller, which cannot be the same object of which it provides an alternative. According to this logic, it could be proven that the chidder-puller has always existed, while being a nonexistent object: its existence could only be proven by the need for it to fulfill a function, which won’t happen, since the function has been fulfilled already.

The paradox enters an infinite cycle in the realm of the made object. If the existence of the chidder-puller is proven by previous facts, the question remains, what indicates that the “facts” are trustworthy? If every fact is proven by another, the chain is endless. Constantly searching for more and more facts to legitimize a piece of information, we won’t be able to reach an immovable starting point – conclusive paradox. So to say we face ourselves with a situation similar to that of the stone thrown against a tree: for the stone to reach the tree, first it has to go half the way, and then the half of that and so on. The distance exponentially decreases, but as the exponential function never intercepts the X-axis, the stone can never reach the tree – logical paradox.

Let’s go back to the original thought, which depends on secure knowledge that we ought to prove with another certainty. How far could or should we go back in the mass of facts and certainty until we reach the undoubtable? Is there a point too compelling? This cycle could go on forever. The statement refers back to itself, the logical system turns in on itself, therefore it cannot be verified. In a word, it is a paradox.

After all, the assertion seems right: there is no such thing as a fact. By extension, it can be stated that everything which can be justified by something else (object, term or need, etc.) creates a paradox. More specifically a false paradox, since the notion of a fact supporting another is based on a hypothesis, which can be the result of an incorrect or false assumption.

In conclusion it can be stated that the project of the chidder-puller reveals a multi-layered paradox, which at times seems to dissolve, yet forms a never-ending circular line, destined to be the proof of itself.