Paradoxes: temporal, logical and otherwise.

[Kjakings]

Also, time travel theories: if we accept the concept of multiple universes, where each action we could possibly take branches off into another universe, then when you travel back in time and say, kill yourself, what you're doing is breaking off the time-line of your universe, and have essentially forcefully created a new universe: one where you are both dead and alive. You can never get back to your universe, you have killed your time-line and all the actions that could have taken.

No, there is no actual conclusion in that.

 

[Valkyrie101]

Also, time travel theories: if we accept the concept of multiple universes, where each action we could possibly take branches off into another universe, then when you travel back in time and say, kill yourself, what you're doing is breaking off the time-line of your universe, and have essentially forcefully created a new universe: one where you are both dead and alive. You can never get back to your universe, you have killed your time-line and all the actions that could have taken.

No, there is no actual conclusion in that.

Define action, though. In cosmic terms, what constitutes an action?

 

[greenflash]

Pi= the number of people in this room

 

[Halceon]

Russel's Paradox

Consider the set R the set containing all sets which do not hold themselves as an element. With this statement we find that R is in R but also R is not in R. Both are true, yet contradictory.

consider R in R then R does not qualify to be in R therefor R not in R. If R is not in R then R qualifies to be inside the set R, therefor R in R.

PARADOX

Ah, yes, that's currently the best one in the thread. All can add is catch-22, which is essentially the same thing.

 

[darthotaku]

Traveling backwards in time is my favorite.

Asuming that time is linear (and that time travel is possible), traveling back in time is a bit of a mind fuck. Because if you go back in time to do something, there won't be a reason for you to go back in time when you did because there is you already did what you did. So whatever you have done will not happen because it happened. Kinda. Confusing stuff.

after changing what you were going to change you go forward and tell yourself to go back and change it. if you do that then it makes perfect sense.

True. Moving on to the classic "kill your grandparrent" example, no shit would make sense. If you would kill say your grandpa before your parrents where born, you would have never been born to go back in time to prevent yourself from being born. Can't think of anything to make that make any sense at all (still assuming linear time and the possibility of time travel).

unless the act of killing your grandparents completely removed you from the flow of the space-time continuum, causing you to break appart and reappear at the point in space-time where went back right when you did. assuming that then you could kill your parents and still exist. a better one is the creation paradox, the best examp;e is from "Orcarina of Time" when you learn a song from a guy in the future and then teach it to him in the past. at no point can the song be said to have been written. therefore it is impossible for the song to exist in the first place.

 

[Kjakings]

Also, time travel theories: if we accept the concept of multiple universes, where each action we could possibly take branches off into another universe, then when you travel back in time and say, kill yourself, what you're doing is breaking off the time-line of your universe, and have essentially forcefully created a new universe: one where you are both dead and alive. You can never get back to your universe, you have killed your time-line and all the actions that could have taken.

No, there is no actual conclusion in that.

Define action, though. In cosmic terms, what constitutes an action?

It's generally accepted as the choice between walking left or walking right, talking to someone or ignoring them. Though, theoretically, it could extend hundreds of levels up and down in scale. I'm not too sure.

 

[rockera]

What would happen if you went back in time and killed your previous self?

batman would take you out of the universe I assume.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Zeno's Paradox

Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.

 

[Kjakings]

Traveling backwards in time is my favorite.

Asuming that time is linear (and that time travel is possible), traveling back in time is a bit of a mind fuck. Because if you go back in time to do something, there won't be a reason for you to go back in time when you did because there is you already did what you did. So whatever you have done will not happen because it happened. Kinda. Confusing stuff.

after changing what you were going to change you go forward and tell yourself to go back and change it. if you do that then it makes perfect sense.

True. Moving on to the classic "kill your grandparrent" example, no shit would make sense. If you would kill say your grandpa before your parrents where born, you would have never been born to go back in time to prevent yourself from being born. Can't think of anything to make that make any sense at all (still assuming linear time and the possibility of time travel).

unless the act of killing your grandparents completely removed you from the flow of the space-time continuum, causing you to break appart and reappear at the point in space-time where went back right when you did. assuming that then you could kill your parents and still exist. a better one is the creation paradox, the best examp;e is from "Orcarina of Time" when you learn a song from a guy in the future and then teach it to him in the past. at no point can the song be said to have been written. therefore it is impossible for the song to exist in the first place.

In the Doctor Who episode before Tennant died, he started dicking the time-line about. It broke for a bit, and then snapped back into place, the time-line resisting change and resetting things so that even with the altered actions of The Doctor, things still happened as they should. So, despite any truly world-shattering alterations (like sinking America), things could still happen.

You go back in time and kill your Grandfather. Your Grandfather has a brother, who gets to know your grandmother through their shared grief. They get married, and your father is born. BAM, time-line self-repair complete.

 

[darthotaku]

Zeno's Paradox

Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.

not really, it works because apparently an infinite number of numbers can be added together for a finite sum.
don't ask me how it works though, I just know it does.

 

[RikSharp]

All can add is catch-22, which is essentially the same thing.

catch 22 is lame.
i must be insane to want to fly up there but if i'm insane, i cant fly up there. therefore i'm not insane and can fly up there, etc, etc
missing the obvious: you could fly up there and not want to, making you both fly and not insane.


On topic, i would say the chicken and the egg (HAH)

Edit: if anybody mentions the chicken and the egg, I'll be forced to kill you: evolution provides us with the answer: the creature we consider 'chicken' was obviously hatched out of an egg by its evolutionary ancestor divergant enough to NOT be considered 'chicken.' Therefore, the egg was first.

but the divergant ancestor was not a chicken, therefore it was not a chicken egg. the first chicken egg came from a chicken.

 

[Kjakings]

Zeno's Paradox

Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.

I cry bullshit. This is silly. You can quite clearly tell it is bullshit: by panel 5, Achilles is seemingly beside the Tortoise. He can therefore just step over it, BAM, silly paradox destroyed. However far ahead the tortoise starts, this will always be the case. Unless you split silly hairs by saying that the person would get tired eventually yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Sampler]

Traveling backwards in time is my favorite.

Asuming that time is linear (and that time travel is possible), traveling back in time is a bit of a mind fuck. Because if you go back in time to do something, there won't be a reason for you to go back in time when you did because there is you already did what you did. So whatever you have done will not happen because it happened. Kinda. Confusing stuff.

after changing what you were going to change you go forward and tell yourself to go back and change it. if you do that then it makes perfect sense.

True. Moving on to the classic "kill your grandparrent" example, no shit would make sense. If you would kill say your grandpa before your parrents where born, you would have never been born to go back in time to prevent yourself from being born. Can't think of anything to make that make any sense at all (still assuming linear time and the possibility of time travel).

You can't go back in time and kill your grandparents prior to the conception of your parent, you will be thwarted in any attempt assuming time is linear and time travel is possible then any actions in the past conducted by a future interloper have already occurred. Your grandparent didn't die prior to the conception of your parent therefore you will never go back and kill them.

In that sense the future is written aswell as the past - in which case, isn't everything inevitable - the future is written on the deeds of the past. I know some people will throw in "chaos theory" here but isn't that just a poor excuse of lack of knowledge in a Newtonian model, yes a butterfly flapping it's wings in one hemisphere could cause a hurricane in another but if we had all the relevant data up to that point we would be able to accurately predict it. A person will react in a given situation based upon the knowledge they've collected in their lifetime - whether that event happened ten years ago or ten minutes in the future the outcome is set. What has happened, happened and what will happen, will happen - just try to look surprised.

Assuming time is linear that is.

 

[Kjakings]

Edit: if anybody mentions the chicken and the egg, I'll be forced to kill you: evolution provides us with the answer: the creature we consider 'chicken' was obviously hatched out of an egg by its evolutionary ancestor divergant enough to NOT be considered 'chicken.' Therefore, the egg was first.

but the divergant ancestor was not a chicken, therefore it was not a chicken egg. the first chicken egg came from a chicken.

Only if you define a 'chicken egg' as something laid by a chicken, rather than an egg which hatches a chicken. I was speaking of the latter, though I recognise your logic.

 

[AceDefective]

Sorry i just had to

 

[Emurlahn]

What would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object?

 

[Mikester1290]

What happens if I open "Desktop" on the desktop, in a window, and then drop the recycle bin from that window into the recycle bin on the desktop? Will a paradoxical loop start making the universe implode, or will it be ok? (I'm not gunna do it, just in case)

 

[Czargent Sane]

Traveling backwards in time is my favorite.

Asuming that time is linear (and that time travel is possible), traveling back in time is a bit of a mind fuck. Because if you go back in time to do something, there won't be a reason for you to go back in time when you did because there is you already did what you did. So whatever you have done will not happen because it happened. Kinda. Confusing stuff.

time LINE? *sigh* time does not go in lines. it goes in circles. that is why clocks are ROUND

 

[Kjakings]

The computer will just be like 'You can't do that, eejit.' And ignore you for being an eejit. It's like when people say typing google into google will break the internet. No it won't.

 

[Ymbirtt]

http://faculty.uml.edu/jpropp/srat-Q.txt

Attempt to answer this without forming a paradox. Go on. I DARE you.