Paradoxes: temporal, logical and otherwise.

[the Dept of Science]

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).

If you consider time to be 2 dimensions (which the New Scientist says is a definate possibility), then killing your grandfather may just lead to a 2 divergent time lines, starting at the point when you go back. Essentially, in the universe where you go back in time, nothing changes or has changed, then when you arrive in the past, time splits up and starts going forward again, just in a slightly different direction.
Basically... its Back to the Future 2, not 12 Monkeys.

 

[DeadEy3]

what is written below is true
.
.
.
what is written above is a lie

 

[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.

Have you ever heard of sarcasm you stupid fuck?

Wow. Calm down. Seriously. You may give your tiny brain an aneurism due to over-use. Random flails of bitching is not helpful.

This xkcd is in this train:

 

[KingofLondonCalling]

The Epicurean Paradox: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

 

[shadyh8er]

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

\

The Joker and Batman keep fighting. (Assuming you've seen The Dark Knight here).

OT: I learned one in algebra (forgot what it was called) but it said something about how even though something is infinite, it still has a limit. Something like that.

 

[Kjakings]

The Epicurean Paradox: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

If you consider time to be 2 dimensions (which the New Scientist says is a definate possibility), then killing your grandfather may just lead to a 2 divergent time lines, starting at the point when you go back. Essentially, in the universe where you go back in time, nothing changes or has changed, then when you arrive in the past, time splits up and starts going forward again, just in a slightly different direction.
Basically... its Back to the Future 2, not 12 Monkeys.

That's essentially what I said but much more refined.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Zeno's Paradox
*Snip*

Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.

Not really a paradox. Just look at where their locations converge. 0.9 recurring is exactly one and all that.

It isn't though, is it? It just seems to be. If you increase the level at which you measure it, you could go on infinitely.

Wait, are you saying it isn't a paradox, or that 0.9 recurring isn't exactly 1?
Look at it like this. What's 1/3 as an exact decimal? 0.3 recurring. And what's 0.3 recurring as an exact fraction? 1/3. Whats 1/3 * 3? 3/3 = 1. What's 0.3 recurring * 3? 0.9 recurring, which thus equals one.
It's a convergent series, and there are others. Another one you can look at is the sum of the reciprocals of the powers of 2. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ... It comes out to exactly 2.
There are also some weirder ones. Like, the sum of (-1)^(n+1). It goes 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1...
Now, you can either look at that like (1 - 1 ) + ( 1 - 1 )... In which case it comes out at 0, or you can look at it like 1 + ( - 1 + 1) + (- 1 + 1)... which comes out at 1. I think the actual answer turns out to be 1/2, though I can't remember why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series

Have you looked at some of his other paradoxes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
They all have problems somewhere, but it's interesting to look at how each one looks differently at whether time and space are continuous or discrete.

Edit: Hey, it has it's own Wikipedia page. Their proof will be better than mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

 

[Lord Legion]

This one is a math paradox:

I have an apple, red, delicious, completely unharmed...

I take a bite.

According to our laws of math, everything is a probability, EVERYTHING that is what Aristotle imposed upon us, and so, my apple with a bite taken out of it is a 90% chance of a full apple to an eaten apple.

Another bite and its an 80% chance of a full apple to an eaten apple.

and so on and so on...thus technically the apple can exist, untouched until it is completely 0%, not before.
It's against intuition, but thats where we get binary logic from, everything in science and math's viewpoint is either 100% true or 100% false.

This spits in the face of what should be logic, and I may not have phrased it 100% correct (hahaha) but its close.

btw, it's only a paradox if you accept modern science's system as flawless. I don't, thus to me it ain't a paradox, but to peer reviewed scientists who must adhere to the "traditions" it is.

 

[Lauren Admire]

Turtles all the way down.

Or - the Unmoved Mover. Aristotle's philosophy on how the world was set into motion. Goes like this:

1.There exists movement in the world.
2.Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3.If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4.Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5.From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6.From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

The question is - can there be?

 

[HK_01]

The Epicurean Paradox: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

That's only a paradox if you believe in God.

Turtles all the way down.

Or - the Unmoved Mover. Aristotle's philosophy on how the world was set into motion. Goes like this:

1.There exists movement in the world.
2.Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3.If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4.Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5.From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6.From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

The question is - can there be?

E=MC[sup]2[/sup]

Therefore, if you rearrange it, mass can create energy (in the form of movement). At least I think so. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wait, are you saying it isn't a paradox, or that 0.9 recurring isn't exactly 1?

Convergent series never actually converge, they just reach the point where measurement is no longer possible therefore they are assumed to be equal. Mathematically that's what we know as an asymptote, or a "fudge".

 

[Urgh76]

When Pinnochio says "My nose will grow now"

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The Epicurean Paradox: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

The Epicurean Paradox also fails because good and evil are inventions of Man.

 

[man-man]

To the post at the very beginning, a straight line is equivalent to a circle of infinite radius, so they aren't mutually exclusive.

Introducing a portal means we're not working with Euclidean space in the first place, so it's probably neither. Or both. Ask a mathematician.

Zeno's Paradox
*Snip*

Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.

Not really a paradox. Just look at where their locations converge. 0.9 recurring is exactly one and all that.

It isn't though, is it? It just seems to be. If you increase the level at which you measure it, you could go on infinitely.

If you were to continue infinitely, they are equal; 0.999 may not equal one, but 0.999... where the ... implies an infinite continuation of the 9s, that really _is_ equal to 1.

Proof: Let x = 0.999...
10*x = 9.999...
10*x - x = 9*x and 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
9*x = 9 so x = 1
x = 0.999... and x = 1
Therefore 0.999 = 1

Second proof: If two numbers are distinct, there is another number that is between them.
There is no number between 0.999... and 1
Therefore 0.999... = 1
(and don't say 0.999...5, because there is no end to the 9s onto which you could put a 5)

Third proof: 1/3 = 0.333...
3 * 1/3 = 1 and 3 * 0.333... = 0.999...
Therefore 0.999... = 1

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

Those two things can't both exist in the same universe. If a truly unstoppable force exists, then there cannot possibly be any immovable objects. If a truly immovable object exists then there cannot possibly be such a thing as an unstoppable force. The question is thus self-contradictory and meaningless.

It's logically equivalent to the old "This is a lie" self-contradiction by the way. Most "paradoxes" are... the answer to all of them is that the question posed is meaningless because it's inconsistent.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Turtles all the way down.

Or - the Unmoved Mover. Aristotle's philosophy on how the world was set into motion. Goes like this:

1.There exists movement in the world.
2.Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3.If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4.Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5.From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6.From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

The question is - can there be?

Peee-Hat explosion. Total momentum before and after is zero. Like with all other situations, explosions will solve your problem here.

Also, I consider 3 and 4 to be unjustified assumptions.

 

[Quaxar]

What happens when a particle with an unstoppable momentum collides with an immovable object?

It goes straight through it.
What? It's immovable, not indistructable!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Proof:
Second proof:
Third proof:

Finite number lines proving infinite number series? You've got more chance dividing by zero.

It's assumed for ease - it's a working theoreum, not a proof.

Saying that, integers are completely unreal anyway.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Wait, are you saying it isn't a paradox, or that 0.9 recurring isn't exactly 1?

Convergent series never actually converge, they just reach the point where measurement is no longer possible therefore they are assumed to be equal. Mathematically that's what we know as an asymptote, or a "fudge".

Yes they do. As you go into infinite detail, your number gets infinitely close. If somethign is infinitely close to something, the distance is zero.

The Epicurean Paradox: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

The Epicurean Paradox also fails because good and evil are inventions of Man.

That's not an excuse. He still should have seen this crap coming.

 

[lacktheknack]

If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned?

Return the child. He never said he WOULDN'T return the child if the father guessed wrong.

 

[rossable]

is that a gordian knot in the middle?