World's best suggested paradox
- Thread starter royohz
- Start date
If you have eternity, you'll make it eventually.Silent observer said:You'll never make itSquidden said:
OT: Gimme a coupla minutes...I'll come up with something...
Most of these statements are just plays on words...there is no necessary contradiction if you are using two different concepts under the same word and so forth.
Here's one: All objects are simultaneously immanent and transcendent. No matter what angle you view something from, there is always some portion of it you cannot see. -(Formulated by French philosopher Merleau-Ponty).
There actually is an exception to the paradox, but seemingly no way to break it for objects upon which it applies.
Edit: here's a good one attributed to Bertrand Russell:
"Suppose that every public library has to compile a catalog of all its books. The catalog is itself one of the library's books, but while some librarians include it in the catalog for completeness, others leave it out, as being self-evident.
Now imagine that all these catalogs are sent to the national library. Some of them include themselves in their listings, others do not. The national librarian compiles two master catalogs - one of all the catalogs that list themselves, and one of all those that don't.
The question is now, should these catalogs list themselves? The 'Catalog of all catalogs that list themselves' is no problem. If the librarian doesn't include it in its own listing, it is still a true catalog of those catalogs that do include themselves. If he does include it, it remains a true catalog of those that list themselves.
However, just as the librarian cannot go wrong with the first master catalog, he is doomed to fail with the second. When it comes to the 'Catalog of all catalogs that don't list themselves', the librarian cannot include it in its own listing, because then it would belong in the other catalog, that of catalogs that do include themselves. However, if the librarian leaves it out, the catalog is incomplete. Either way, it can never be a true catalog of catalogs that do not list themselves." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
Here's one: All objects are simultaneously immanent and transcendent. No matter what angle you view something from, there is always some portion of it you cannot see. -(Formulated by French philosopher Merleau-Ponty).
There actually is an exception to the paradox, but seemingly no way to break it for objects upon which it applies.
Edit: here's a good one attributed to Bertrand Russell:
"Suppose that every public library has to compile a catalog of all its books. The catalog is itself one of the library's books, but while some librarians include it in the catalog for completeness, others leave it out, as being self-evident.
Now imagine that all these catalogs are sent to the national library. Some of them include themselves in their listings, others do not. The national librarian compiles two master catalogs - one of all the catalogs that list themselves, and one of all those that don't.
The question is now, should these catalogs list themselves? The 'Catalog of all catalogs that list themselves' is no problem. If the librarian doesn't include it in its own listing, it is still a true catalog of those catalogs that do include themselves. If he does include it, it remains a true catalog of those that list themselves.
However, just as the librarian cannot go wrong with the first master catalog, he is doomed to fail with the second. When it comes to the 'Catalog of all catalogs that don't list themselves', the librarian cannot include it in its own listing, because then it would belong in the other catalog, that of catalogs that do include themselves. However, if the librarian leaves it out, the catalog is incomplete. Either way, it can never be a true catalog of catalogs that do not list themselves." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
Silly, Zombies don't fight each other, they hunt for BRAINZ!! :3samuraiash1991 said:One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight, back to back they faced eachover, drew the swords and shot eachover.
best paradox story i know
First off this is a thought experiment, not a paradox, as someone else pointed out.blalien said:Sorry, the scientific definition of sound is the oscillation itself. Pretty much any professional scientist in the field will agree with that.Piflik said:Actually oscillation of air-pressure is just that, until it is interpreted by an observer...his brain will turn the pressure oscillations into sound...the oscillations will be generated without an observer, too, but it will not be soundblalien said:
Second, the debate here is purely semantic. If you're talking about whether sound exists by the scientific definition, then of course the answer is "yes, there will be a sound."
If you're talking about where a sound will be perceived (assuming there is no one around to perceive it) then the answer is "no."
Not a paradox, but...
1+1=1.
You have one pile of dirt here, and one pile of dirt there. You push them together, and you still have one, bigger pile.
1+1=1.
You have one pile of dirt here, and one pile of dirt there. You push them together, and you still have one, bigger pile.
But asking a question about reality and then not using science to answer it is lazy. That's what science is there for, to analyze the world and solve the tough problems.TWRule said:First off this is a thought experiment, not a paradox, as someone else pointed out.blalien said:Sorry, the scientific definition of sound is the oscillation itself. Pretty much any professional scientist in the field will agree with that.Piflik said:Actually oscillation of air-pressure is just that, until it is interpreted by an observer...his brain will turn the pressure oscillations into sound...the oscillations will be generated without an observer, too, but it will not be soundblalien said:
Second, the debate here is purely semantic. If you're talking about whether sound exists by the scientific definition, then of course the answer is "yes, there will be a sound."
If you're talking about where a sound will be perceived (assuming there is no one around to perceive it) then the answer is "no."
And of course the sound wouldn't be perceived. That's kind of the whole point. But sound doesn't only affect living things, either.
Surely that'd be the other way round, unless purple is ultraviolet and infrared at the same time...Piflik said:
Best paradox? Here you go.
Oh, and on the subject of irresistable force VS an immovable object? The universe moves instead...
Oh, and on the subject of irresistable force VS an immovable object? The universe moves instead...
Here's one that's a few hundred years old:
Can an omnipotent God create a stone He cannot lift?
Can an omnipotent God create a stone He cannot lift?
If you're talking about the intent of the croc, then he should us that as a basis (i.e.: if he originally intended not to return the child, he should return them, and if he originally intended to return the child, he should not). If you're talking purely about the actions of the croc, he must ultimately return the child, because he could not start to leave without breaking his word, or he'd have to return the child anyway.GWarface said:
