UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Paradoxes
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 06:39:11
This thread is to post/think about paradoxes and thought experiments. I find this to be a very fun way to exercise my brain :) (though sometimes I just get headaches haha) The one that is stuck in my head today is the hangman's paradox, I'll present it like this: "My professor told me there would be a surprise quiz last week, and it would occur some random weekday and I wouldn't know which day it would be on. Being logical as I am, I knew it couldn't be on Friday, because after Thursday's lecture I would know it was coming, and it would no longer be a surprise. Since it couldn't possibly be Friday, I surmised that it also couldn't be on Thursday, for the same reason. Using this logic I reasoned that it couldn't come on ANY day, because of his stipulation that it would be a surprise. I confidently came into every class knowing there could be no quiz. Wouldn't you know it, he gave us a quiz on Wednesday, and it was a surprise to me. I guess he was right." Obviously the original wasn't about a quiz but about a man who was told he'd be hanged on a random day, but I thought I'd give it a modern twist :P What do you guys think?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 08:10:45
genius! :P I love this sentince: "I know that I know nothing at all." -------------------------------------
-------------------------------------- -
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 08:14:17
i dont get it... oh, i get it now =D
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 12:33:24
Imma old boy:O
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 13:08:13
well, the line saying: "I confidently came to class knowing that there would be no quiz" was a mistake. There was a quiz. The teacher told you about the quiz. Either way, the person made a seemingly 'true' statement through his logic. But his logic was a contradiction to reality. There would BE a quiz. no matter what. Also, it wouldn't technically be a surprise if the teacher told you abt surprise quiz. He told you there would be a quiz. Does it really matter when? Just be prepared for it or if you are like me, screw it. Its a QUIZ... :/
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 13:36:18
Does a set of all sets contain itself? New mission: refuse this mission. This sentence is false. Woohoo Portal 2.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 13:50:29
Isnt this like the tiger one where there tiger is behind one of the doors and the guy logically determines that there is no tiger, then he opens it and gets eaten? The problem is the fact that he said you'd be surprised, the justification of it not being on a day immediately creates the ability for surprise. So by eliminating the day or the door you create the surprise yourself. Let's say you use your logic and apply it just to friday, you would be surprised it was on friday because thats when you least expected it! And sense he said you wouldn't know what day it was on, using your logic, you would assume there would be no test, coming to school proudly announcing that there really was no quiz. Only to be surprised that in fact, there was a test that day. I hope I explained it clearly... the logic the student/prince/man uses inherently leads to their failure.A better way to "beat the system" so to speak is to assume the quiz is going to be everyday. Every day coming to cool proudly proclaiming the quiz was that day. When it does occur you won't be suprised because you knew itd be that day. And if it doesnt occur, you were never suprised. :) So instead of assuming their wouldnt be a test take it in the reverse, it must be monday, if itisnt monday it must be tuesday, if not tuesday it must be wednesday etc. No suprise quiz. By assuming their wasnt a quiz you got your suprise. The professor is a liar. The reason this paradox "works" is because the professor gives you two contradicting pieces of information. His postulation that itll be a suprise is false, its not possible for it not to be, unless you yourself decide the professor is lieing about the quiz. it's not the quiz he's lying about it's the suprising nature of it. Either deduction your professor must be lieing about something, only problem is you chose the wrong lie. You went for the physical rather than the emotional nature of it. You were focused on the test itself rather than the response associated with it. You were trying to logically deduce when the test would be in the first place, and you did. Instead of assuming the professors statement that the suprise is a lie you go with the quiz. There's really no other conclusion if you take the suprise for absolute truth. But in fact you DID figure out when the quiz would be, logically, you just mind pooped on the last few feet of the race. No matter what, it CANT be a suprise, even if you just guessed which day it'd be on you'd have a probability of being correct, and it wouldnt be a suprise. The problem is, by assuming there is no test because of this you falsify this comment instead of the obvious one, it's not a suprise and you know what day it is now... I think that's a valid way to look at the problem, tell me if I missed anything. Now what I think would make this more interesting is if the professor said their MAY be a suprise quiz... This gets rid of the lieing portion of quiz, and would mean the only lie would be if it wasn't a suprise. In which case by taking his statement to be truthful you are forced into suprise. As the only way to not be suprised is assuming the professor is lieing about the suprise, which he can't be. So you HAVE to make the choice to assume there is no quiz (there's no other logical deduction if it must be a suprise) If you assume there is a quiz you won't be suprised, so by being forced into this you have to be suprised.... ( make sense?) @strat1227 Does a set of all sets contain itself? <- Does infinity exist? These are both the same type of paradox where one statement nulls the other. v New mission: refuse this mission. This sentence is false.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:08:16
"You are the cause for this car accident!" As you can see, an accident means that no one is at fault, but someone is accusing you for something that's no ones fault :D
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:12:41
light is both a particle and a wave.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:18:29
Pick a single real number between 0 and 1 The probabilities of picking that number are zero, given the infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:43:09
Lol shoeman the paradox isn't about the human part, it can be written out in logistical fashion and it's still a paradox, I believe it's still unresolved actually, there are a few proposed solutions but no one universally accepted resolution as for the liar paradox that's really easy, it's the same as saying "S =/= S" where S is the statement. Obviously that's where the fallacy is, you're saying "This statement is not this statement" which is obviously a contradiction Actually my favorite paradoxes are "veridical paradoxes" which are ones that are easily provable, but still make no sense at first, or ever. Like "There are 3 doors. 2 of them have donkeys behind them and 1 has a car. You pick one, and the host who knows what's behind every door opens another one and reveals a donkey. He then asks you if you want to switch between the 2 remaining doors. Should you?" You'd think that the chance of it being in the 2 doors is 50/50, but it's actually 1/3 likely to be in your door and 2/3 likely to be in the other one, so you should always switch. Also the birthday paradox, that when there are 23 people in a room, there is a 50% chance that 2 of them have the exact same birthday, even though there are 366 possible birthdays
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:50:35
@fusion, that's just an oxymoron @strat1227, I guess I don't understand the paradox then, the student assumes that the teacher lies about even having a quiz, wouldn't the correct assumption be that the teacher lied about the quiz being a surprise?... If you assume the quiz isn't a surprise, all is accounted for, and it's equal to the student making the assumption that there will not be a quiz...
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 17:52:45
@shoeman6 that part is all just added in to make the story sound good lol do you understand logical nomenclature? all this stuff http://www.indiana.edu/~aptac/glossary/atisNomenclature.pdf
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:08:16
@strat1227, the problem is the quiz and the surprise are two contradicting notions. If the quiz exists, it wouldn't be a surprise, as the student proved himself, if the surprise exists there cannot be a quiz (aka the student has to assume there is no quiz), they can't co exist. Since the student assumes there is no quiz he is surprsied that there is. Had he kept to his logic, and decided monday, the quiz would occur, and if it didnt tuesday it would occur, he wouldnt have been surprised...Or let's bring this out of the human world. If the student assumes the exam will happen every day, he will be correct the day it occurs. If he assumes there is no quiz at all, he will be wrong at least once. ` If you use doors however, where a tiger is hidden behind a door and the prince has to choose one, but he will be suprised which one really holds the tiger ( coming to he conclusion there is no tiger!, using the same logic as before.), he opens the door to find a tiger who eats him. He cannot correctly logically deduce where the tiger is; but the conditions are differen't. Similair paradoxes, but I feel like using an exam is a poor example 0 _ o. Because he doesn't have to be surprised, he chooses to be... Suppose the man in the tiger paradox assumed there was a tiger behind every door, that does him no good, as that means he will die no matter what, no way! But suppose the student assumed that the quiz was every proceeding day, then he WOULD know when it occurred before it did occur, it's not a matter of figuring it out, but a matter of having prior knowledge to the quiz. It does the man no good to simply know theres a tiger behind the door, he needs to find the one without the tiger, if he was simply looking for the tiger and say, could defeat it if he was prepared, by assuming every door held a tiger he would succeed. Maybe the wording is just throwing me off :)
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:10:27
strat1227 wrote: Also the birthday paradox, that when there are 23 people in a room, there is a 50% chance that 2 of them have the exact same birthday, even though there are 366 possible birthdays
Let P(B ) the chance of at least 2 people having the same birthday P(B ) = 1 - P(Bbar) = 1 - 23!*(365 nCr 23)/(365^23) = roughly 0.5 I don't understand the paradox? -
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:12:04
Biji did you read my post lol
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:17:32
But if it's provable with accepted axioms then it's correct Then it's not really a paradox is it? It's more like..."common conceptions are wrong"-dox isn't it?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:24:00
@Biji go to wikipedia page paradoxes it's called a veridical paradox
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:36:23
Oh Okay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus This is so interesting
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:39:50
@Biji yeah that applies very very strongly to pen spinning if you take individual pieces from pens, does that make what you build a pen? etc I was thinking about writing an article about that as a supplement to Zombo's metaphysics of PS but I dunno if it's worth it lol
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:43:48
"This is my grandfather's axe. My father replaced the head when it got dull, and I replaced the handle when it splintered" lol axe is only made up of a head and a handle, so is that still his grandfather's axe?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:46:11
@strat1227 In the context of pen spinning, mods are an acceptable analogy to pens, and therefore can be considered as such Only in the context of pen spinning, though And that's good enough for me But only for me Therefore I find the stick vs pen argument moot
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 18:52:10
@strat, do it, it's worth it.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 19:04:45
Hmm ok, I'll start outlining it and see what I have, I'll post stuff in the RD when i get a good start on it
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 19:49:29
God is all powerful and can do anything. But can God create an object he cant lift?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 20:29:38
strat1227;102613]"My professor told me there would be a surprise quiz last week, and it would occur some random weekday and I wouldn't know which day it would be on. Being logical as I am, I knew it couldn't be on Friday, because after Thursday's lecture I would know it was coming, and it would no longer be a surprise. Since it couldn't possibly be Friday, I surmised that it also couldn't be on Thursday, for the same reason. What do you guys think?[/QUOTE] IMO, the prof made a statement that was true when he made it. The quiz could be on a Friday and you wouldn't know it at the time. Once Thursday passed and no quiz was given, you would know for sure and the prof would appear to contradict himself. But maybe he was just making an observation based on the conditions present at the time. I see the paradox, though. If he wanted his statement to remain true, all he would have to do is give the quiz on any other day than Friday. But then "some random weekday" isn't exactly true because Friday has already been excluded. [QUOTE=FusionX wrote: "You are the cause for this car accident!" As you can see, an accident means that no one is at fault, but someone is accusing you for something that's no ones fault :D
You can do something unintentionally and still be at fault. It's called an "accident" because (presumably) nobody intentionally tries to collide with something/someone else while driving. More paradoxes I find interesting: 1. In the 20th century and later, technology advanced and made previously arduous and time-consuming tasks easier for humans. However, with this advance in technology we are actually working harder than generations before us. (In effect, instead of working less, we are using the extra time to fit in even more work and racing to keep up the feverish pace.) 2. Simpson's paradox 3. Missing square puzzle -
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 20:46:28
@strat1227 lol my mainstream dubstep inspired u to think of this topic?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 4 2011 21:21:23
I would never ever say that we're working harder than before the 20th century ... In the 1800's you had to work 14 hours a day just to survive, much less make a living. Lol missing square puzzle is fun for people who don't know the answer but once you know it's kind of boring Simpson's paradox is cool, i really like game logic/set theory paradoxes like that
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 00:10:21
I love paradoxes. My favorite: "I am a liar."
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 00:49:57
If God already knows what we're going to do, how is there free will?
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 01:19:11
strat1227 wrote: Actually my favorite paradoxes are "veridical paradoxes" which are ones that are easily provable, but still make no sense at first, or ever. Like "There are 3 doors. 2 of them have donkeys behind them and 1 has a car. You pick one, and the host who knows what's behind every door opens another one and reveals a donkey. He then asks you if you want to switch between the 2 remaining doors. Should you?" You'd think that the chance of it being in the 2 doors is 50/50, but it's actually 1/3 likely to be in your door and 2/3 likely to be in the other one, so you should always switch.
Can you explain? I'm sure it has something to do with conditional probability, which I never really understood. (Like this kinda stuff: there are two jars, one with 1 chocolate chip and 4 oatmeal cookies, the other with 2 chocolate and two oatmeal, given that the cookie picked is an oatmeal one, what is the chance it came from jar 1) -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 01:28:54
Night Fury wrote: If God already knows what we're going to do, how is there free will?
I think it's just a misconception that is limited to us. Most likely free will only applies to the universe. We think we have free will when in fact it's already planned by God. The act of thinking we have free will is already somehow planned. Am I making sense? -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 03:01:02
blahblahting wrote: Can you explain? I'm sure it has something to do with conditional probability, which I never really understood. (Like this kinda stuff: there are two jars, one with 1 chocolate chip and 4 oatmeal cookies, the other with 2 chocolate and two oatmeal, given that the cookie picked is an oatmeal one, what is the chance it came from jar 1)
Think of the chances of guessing the door with the car the first time; 33%. We can say that statistically this time, you're probably wrong. That means that the car is in one of the other doors. When we get rid of one of them, that means the certainty moves to the one door. The entire 66% that the car was in one of the other two doors moves to the door that's left. A lot of paradoxes are stupid though. They create a paradox that only work within itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinker_paradox like this one. Maybe it's that I just don't understand it fully. -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 03:51:05
itzDaKine wrote: God is all powerful and can do anything. But can God create an object he cant lift?
Saying "God can't" makes no sense, therefore your question is moot. -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 04:10:53
blahblahting wrote: Can you explain? I'm sure it has something to do with conditional probability, which I never really understood. (Like this kinda stuff: there are two jars, one with 1 chocolate chip and 4 oatmeal cookies, the other with 2 chocolate and two oatmeal, given that the cookie picked is an oatmeal one, what is the chance it came from jar 1)
You assume you will only be given the option to switch if you were wrong the first time. If the option to switch is always given though it doesn't hold. -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 04:18:46
Awesome wrote: You assume you will only be given the option to switch if you were wrong the first time. If the option to switch is always given though it doesn't hold.
You pick a door Odds : 1/3 that car is behind door you picked 2/3 that car is behind one of the other doors Show host reveals one of the doors you didn't pick Your door still has 1/3 Other door therefore has 2/3 -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 04:21:41
You have taught me to read before answering :P
Biji wrote: You pick a door Odds : 1/3 that car is behind door you picked 2/3 that car is behind one of the other doors Show host reveals one of the doors you didn't pick Your door still has 1/3 Other door therefore has 2/3
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 04:34:11
blahblahting wrote: Can you explain? I'm sure it has something to do with conditional probability, which I never really understood. (Like this kinda stuff: there are two jars, one with 1 chocolate chip and 4 oatmeal cookies, the other with 2 chocolate and two oatmeal, given that the cookie picked is an oatmeal one, what is the chance it came from jar 1)
Pretend the O is subscript PO(1) = P(1interO) / P(O) = 4/6 -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 22:31:41
blahblahting;102849]Can you explain? I'm sure it has something to do with conditional probability, which I never really understood. (Like this kinda stuff: there are two jars, one with 1 chocolate chip and 4 oatmeal cookies, the other with 2 chocolate and two oatmeal, given that the cookie picked is an oatmeal one, what is the chance it came from jar 1)[/QUOTE] There are several different ways to visualize the solution. Check here: Monty Hall problem I remember first reading about this paradox in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which provides a neat solution to the problem. [QUOTE=Night Fury;102844]If God already knows what we're going to do, how is there free will?[/QUOTE] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZDywTNHAQ#t=10m42s [QUOTE=itzDaKine wrote: God is all powerful and can do anything. But can God create an object he cant lift?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZDywTNHAQ#t=2m10s -
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 22:34:54
Uhh... can a mod (admin?) approve all my posts pending approval so that non-mod members and I can see them? Thx.
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 22:50:39
@Tialys why do you have posts with approval? I'll check it out, but I dont understand why you'd need it
-
Date: Sun, Jun 5 2011 22:54:14
@Tialys ok I did it, I guess you have to PM zombo about why it's like that, I didn't see any option that your posts need to be validated
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 00:33:30
Biji wrote: Saying "God can't" makes no sense, therefore your question is moot.
This is a completely legitimate question. Can God create something he cannot control? If yes, then God is not Omnipotent. If no, then God is not Omnipotent. -
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 00:47:49
Mike wrote: This is a completely legitimate question. Can God create something he cannot control? If yes, then God is not Omnipotent. If no, then God is not Omnipotent.
therefore your assumption of omnipotence is false? If an assumption leads to a paradox the assumption is bunk to my knowledge of formal logic. EDIT: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbxrvcK4pk1qbylvso1_400.png not a paradox, but why is it wrong? -
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 01:42:44
Lol yeah that whole line of reasoning was fresh and meaningful 1500 years ago, but anyone with deep theological knowledge knows it's not legit
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 01:48:37
strat1227 wrote: Lol yeah that whole line of reasoning was fresh and meaningful 1500 years ago, but anyone with deep theological knowledge knows it's not legit
The question is designed to lead to a paradox and its a bit absurd; but what deep theological knowledge lets them dismiss that reasoning? -
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 01:57:08
I mean clearly i'm not a theologian but the fundamental concept is flawed. "Lifting" is something that physical beings do. God isn't some jacked dude on World's Strongest Man contest or something, weight wouldn't apply to him. So obviously that foundation is drastically flawed, but it still leaves the general idea of "Can God make something that he can't do" or something like that. Like make a puzzle he can't solve or something, though even that doesn't really apply. From my understanding, that's resolved simply by saying there's nothing God can't do or solve or whatever verb you want to use there. It's not that He "can't create it" or whatever, it's that the existence of something he can't _____ is impossible, so like if it were possible for a rock God can't lift to exist, he'd be able to create it, but that thing simply can't possibly exist So it's not a limitation on what God can or can't do, it's a limit on what can or cannot exist From there people might say "Can God make something that can't exist" but from there it's not theological anymore it's just proof/logic analysis. You're saying essentially "Can God make exist something that can't exist" or "does A =/= A" which is just logically flawed question So like I said I'm not a theologian or anything but that's my understanding of the analysis of that question
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 02:09:28
So the error lies in the understanding of omnipotence? omnipotent doesn't mean I can do anything, but rather there is nothing I can't do is my take on what you're saying. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbxrvcK4pk1qbylvso1_400.png and wheres the error in that? I edited it in right at the time you made your other post :P
strat1227 wrote: I mean clearly i'm not a theologian but the fundamental concept is flawed. "Lifting" is something that physical beings do. God isn't some jacked dude on World's Strongest Man contest or something, weight wouldn't apply to him. So obviously that foundation is drastically flawed, but it still leaves the general idea of "Can God make something that he can't do" or something like that. Like make a puzzle he can't solve or something, though even that doesn't really apply. From my understanding, that's resolved simply by saying there's nothing God can't do or solve or whatever verb you want to use there. It's not that He "can't create it" or whatever, it's that the existence of something he can't _____ is impossible, so like if it were possible for a rock God can't lift to exist, he'd be able to create it, but that thing simply can't possibly exist So it's not a limitation on what God can or can't do, it's a limit on what can or cannot exist From there people might say "Can God make something that can't exist" but from there it's not theological anymore it's just proof/logic analysis. You're saying essentially "Can God make exist something that can't exist" or "does A =/= A" which is just logically flawed question So like I said I'm not a theologian or anything but that's my understanding of the analysis of that question
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 03:02:26
You couldn't get down to a circle with that process, it leaves too much area on either side of the squares you're taking out
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 03:04:33
And as to your question, the error is a combination of misunderstanding omnipotent, misunderstanding God's capabilities and how it relates to human capabilities, and inability to fathom what omnipotence really is. There are obviously no Earthy examples of it, so it's hard to wrap your mind around or understand what it really means
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 03:12:45
strat1227 wrote: I mean clearly i'm not a theologian but the fundamental concept is flawed. "Lifting" is something that physical beings do. God isn't some jacked dude on World's Strongest Man contest or something, weight wouldn't apply to him. So obviously that foundation is drastically flawed, but it still leaves the general idea of "Can God make something that he can't do" or something like that. Like make a puzzle he can't solve or something, though even that doesn't really apply. From my understanding, that's resolved simply by saying there's nothing God can't do or solve or whatever verb you want to use there. It's not that He "can't create it" or whatever, it's that the existence of something he can't _____ is impossible, so like if it were possible for a rock God can't lift to exist, he'd be able to create it, but that thing simply can't possibly exist So it's not a limitation on what God can or can't do, it's a limit on what can or cannot exist From there people might say "Can God make something that can't exist" but from there it's not theological anymore it's just proof/logic analysis. You're saying essentially "Can God make exist something that can't exist" or "does A =/= A" which is just logically flawed question So like I said I'm not a theologian or anything but that's my understanding of the analysis of that question
I was being sarcastic with what I said. This is why. So many philosophical arguments. -
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 03:15:00
Lol Mike I actually did know that, but I think awesome actually did want to hear
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 03:20:00
yeah I did, its cool being able to say why something like that is wrong imo regardless of the philosophical and logical arguments it needs
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 04:13:37
Capt.: Dont obey my orders Shipmates: ???
-
Date: Mon, Jun 6 2011 08:08:27
I'm a liar I'm telling the truth that I'm lying I'm honest that I'm lying why is god in this discussion -.-
-
Date: Sat, Jun 11 2011 21:29:30
strat1227 wrote: @Tialys ok I did it, I guess you have to PM zombo about why it's like that, I didn't see any option that your posts need to be validated
Thanks. I did ask Zombo about it but he doesn't know why my posts require approval. I noticed that only happens when I post external links, so my guess is that it's an anti-spam feature, given that I'm in the New Members group. Maybe Z-bo can make me a Member cuz I don't want to spam the PS/board-related sections. If not, I'll refrain from posting links. A few more paradoxes (in the broad sense of the term) I remembered: 1. The no-work/no-experience paradox. Really annoying when applying for jobs. 2. Self-fulfilling prophecy: A prediction that sets events in motion that make the prediction become true, whether or not the prognostication was true to begin with. 3. The same emotion can be both the cause and effect of a particular behaviour or activity. E.g. You drink when you are depressed. It feels good at first but eventually you feel more depressed for drinking in the first place. 4. Time travel. What happens if you go back in time and kill your past self? Is it possible to tamper with fate? -
Date: Sun, Jun 12 2011 00:58:42
Tialys wrote: Thanks. I did ask Zombo about it but he doesn't know why my posts require approval. I noticed that only happens when I post external links, so my guess is that it's an anti-spam feature, given that I'm in the New Members group. Maybe Z-bo can make me a Member cuz I don't want to spam the PS/board-related sections. If not, I'll refrain from posting links. A few more paradoxes (in the broad sense of the term) I remembered: 1. The no-work/no-experience paradox. Really annoying when applying for jobs. 2. Self-fulfilling prophecy: A prediction that sets events in motion that make the prediction become true, whether or not the prognostication was true to begin with. 3. The same emotion can be both the cause and effect of a particular behaviour or activity. E.g. You drink when you are depressed. It feels good at first but eventually you feel more depressed for drinking in the first place. [B]4. Time travel. What happens if you go back in time and kill your past self? Is it possible to tamper with fate?[/B]
I think if you were to do this, something like what happened in Back to the Future would occur. Where a separate timeline is created parallel to the one that you originally came from. I could have sworn I heard this somewhere, and it was real. Either that, or I'm on some good crack. -
Date: Mon, Jun 13 2011 01:55:34
nature or nurture, what determines your thoughts?
-
Date: Mon, Jun 13 2011 19:14:13
@Awesome my opinion on that changes about once a week lol, that's one that's always baffled me
-
Date: Thu, Jun 16 2011 09:54:05
i hate time travel movies / anime / cartoon..they don't do it correctly...shouldn't it be that if you are from the present, and you went to the past, when you go back to the "present", you should actually be in history and find another you/be in history and still be yourself and loop and loop with people claiming you came from the past?(similar to the situation in which you are in the present and you go to the future and people would say you are from the past)...DBZ did it incorrectly...or maybe I just misunderstood it...because if future Trunks allegedly "fixed" the "present" which is the "past" in his timeline, his timeline wouldn't have occurred...right? if the future Trunks went back to the past which is cyber Freeza saga, if he goes back to his present timeline which is the "future", then he wouldn't be in a disastrous world anymore? he would be in Cell Saga or Buu Saga...but from what I know after Future Trunks cured Goku, he went back to his present timeline(future),and returned to the present(cell saga; his past)...and died? so it means in the future(his present)he's dead, and when "Baby Trunks" is born, the same fate doesn't happen anymore since "Future Trunks" already fixed it, right? idk
-
Date: Fri, Oct 14 2011 09:52:46
SOuth park" I dont get it, i get it tolken!
-
Date: Sat, Oct 15 2011 00:14:51
I really like Zeno’s Paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles
The Tortoise challenged Achilles to a race, claiming that he would win as long as Achilles gave him a small head start. Achilles laughed at this, for of course he was a mighty warrior and swift of foot, whereas the Tortoise was heavy and slow. “How big a head start do you need?” he asked the Tortoise with a smile. “Ten meters,” the latter replied. Achilles laughed louder than ever. “You will surely lose, my friend, in that case,” he told the Tortoise, “but let us race, if you wish it.” “On the contrary,” said the Tortoise, “I will win, and I can prove it to you by a simple argument.” “Go on then,” Achilles replied, with less confidence than he felt before. He knew he was the superior athlete, but he also knew the Tortoise had the sharper wits, and he had lost many a bewildering argument with him before this. “Suppose,” began the Tortoise, “that you give me a 10-meter head start. Would you say that you could cover that 10 meters between us very quickly?” “Very quickly,” Achilles affirmed. “And in that time, how far should I have gone, do you think?” “Perhaps a meter – no more,” said Achilles after a moment's thought. “Very well,” replied the Tortoise, “so now there is a meter between us. And you would catch up that distance very quickly?” “Very quickly indeed!” “And yet, in that time I shall have gone a little way farther, so that now you must catch that distance up, yes?” “Ye-es,” said Achilles slowly. “And while you are doing so, I shall have gone a little way farther, so that you must then catch up the new distance,” the Tortoise continued smoothly. Achilles said nothing. “And so you see, in each moment you must be catching up the distance between us, and yet I – at the same time – will be adding a new distance, however small, for you to catch up again.” “Indeed, it must be so,” said Achilles wearily. “And so you can never catch up,” the Tortoise concluded sympathetically. “You are right, as always,” said Achilles sadly – and conceded the race.
-
Date: Sat, Oct 15 2011 00:21:34
Yeah that's Zeno's paradox, the same one that "It's impossible to cross a road because you'd have to get halfway across first, and to do that you'd have to get 1/4 of the way, and to do that you'd have to get 1/8 of the way" on to infinity
-
Date: Sat, Oct 15 2011 08:00:42
strat1227 wrote: Yeah that's Zeno's paradox, the same one that "It's impossible to cross a road because you'd have to get halfway across first, and to do that you'd have to get 1/4 of the way, and to do that you'd have to get 1/8 of the way" on to infinity
Well, but each of those actions gotta take shorter and shorter time, so in the limit you get across the road. And you know, in the real world the road isn't infinitely divisible, eventually you will get down to the Planck length, where the series stops. Either you traverse the Plack length or you don't, you can't do it half way. -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 03:23:50
Here's a fun one
-
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 03:28:30
Wow that's really annoying.
-
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 03:43:20
There are no absolutes.
-
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 04:18:14
Biji wrote: Saying "God can't" makes no sense, therefore your question is moot.
god isnt real. its just a idea people feed from cause they have a weak will and cannot draw strength from with in them self. -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 04:35:00
funnky wrote: god isnt real. its just a idea people feed from cause they have a weak will and cannot draw strength from with in them self.
I'm only explaining why it isn't contradicting based on the assumption that god is real no need to go all atheist asshole on me -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 04:46:54
strat1227 wrote: Here's a fun one http://i.imgur.com/qvzU4.jpg
Yeeee! Russell's Paradox. :D -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 04:54:12
JackyMacky wrote: Yeeee! Russell's Paradox. :D
I don't know if that really applies, but it's definitely related -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 05:07:26
@strat1227 25% chance of getting an answer correct. But since there are two options of 25%, 50% works. That's what I thought at first. :/
-
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 05:11:31
JackyMacky wrote: @strat1227 25% chance of getting an answer correct. But since there are two options of 25%, 50% works. That's what I thought at first. :/
Hmm well Russell's paradox is about sets that contain themselves, and I guess in this case you could call the answers a set that contain themselves, if not completely. I'd say it "uses" Russell's Paradox, but it's not the same thing IMO -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 16:07:59
Biji wrote: I'm only explaining why it isn't contradicting based on the assumption that god is real no need to go all atheist asshole on me
way to get offended by just a few words. -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 19:58:55
funnky wrote: way to get offended by just a few words.
I'm not offended, just surprised by how much you're willing to attack a belief based on actually 0 proof, while at the same time going completely off topic The same way some christians attack other religions and atheists because of their belief with no proof Can you say irony? -
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 21:47:52
There's already a religion thread elsewhere, let's leave the religious debate there
-
Date: Fri, Oct 28 2011 23:22:45
-
Date: Mon, Aug 13 2012 19:46:44
"Anything is possible." But if everything is possible then it is possible for something to be impossible.
-
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2012 18:47:13
strat1227 wrote: This thread is to post/think about paradoxes and thought experiments. I find this to be a very fun way to exercise my brain :) (though sometimes I just get headaches haha) The one that is stuck in my head today is the hangman's paradox, I'll present it like this: "My professor told me there would be a surprise quiz last week, and it would occur some random weekday and I wouldn't know which day it would be on. Being logical as I am, I knew it couldn't be on Friday, because after Thursday's lecture I would know it was coming, and it would no longer be a surprise. Since it couldn't possibly be Friday, I surmised that it also couldn't be on Thursday, for the same reason. Using this logic I reasoned that it couldn't come on ANY day, because of his stipulation that it would be a surprise. I confidently came into every class knowing there could be no quiz. Wouldn't you know it, he gave us a quiz on Wednesday, and it was a surprise to me. I guess he was right." Obviously the original wasn't about a quiz but about a man who was told he'd be hanged on a random day, but I thought I'd give it a modern twist :P What do you guys think?
Excerpt from The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law: You should assume two things for this paradox to work: that the students can be pretty sure there will be an exam (otherwise even on Friday the exam might be unexpected: they might believe the teacher to have forgotten all about it, and when she doesn't forget that might come as a surprise), and that the students are rational and have good memories (they won't simply forget about the exam, or get confused, so that it does come as a surprise). -
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2012 20:15:01
Just because one assumes that the exam doesn't take place on any day it will [B]always[/B] come as a surprise to the person, because the person never expected a test to take place. But if the person is ready for the test every day the logic doesn't work, because in that case the test will never be a surprise, because you were always expecting it to take place. That means the teacher knew his/her students in that they would think logically about this... to a certain point at least.