I still don't get it...diebane said:
OT:Lombard's Paradox: When rising to stand from a sitting or squatting position, both the hamstrings and quadriceps contract at the same time, despite their being antagonists to each other.
World's best suggested paradox
- Thread starter royohz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT:Lombard's Paradox: When rising to stand from a sitting or squatting position, both the hamstrings and quadriceps contract at the same time, despite their being antagonists to each other.
Depends on the length of the crosswalk and the distance traveled during the first step, and the time between steps. I think you told the question wrong. If you want the answer to be infinitive then you told the question wrong.Squidden said:
Duh, Rob Swire would win. It's his job to play a plastic guitar with buttons on it. OH SNAP!TerribleAssassin said:
"He sees!" said the mute man of the blind man to the deaf man who heard him.samuraiash1991 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
Although technically neither of these including the whole "Everything I say is a lie." aren't paradoxs. They're just incorrect. A mute man wouldn't be able to speak. So either he's speaking, and thus not mute, or he isn't. If he's speaking then he's still speaking, if he isn't then he isn't. The "Everything I say is a lie" statement can easily be called a lie without a paradox, all just because you are lying now doesn't mean that you always lie.
And while they are not paradoxes, its still fun as hell to think about they're impossibility.
A true paradox would be if you went back in time and killed yourself, thus causing you to cease existing in the future (this theoritical event subscribes to the idea that you can change the past without creating new timeline). Since you no longer exist in the future, you can't kill yourself in the past which means that you now exist in the future to kill yourself in the past causing yourself to not exist in the future thus rendering... See what I'm getting at when I say paradox?
Only if you're stuck in the mindset that something can only be burned by something hotter than itself.zfactor said:
Well if no one is around, but some recording equipment set up to record any sound, happens to be nearby. Would the tree make a sound?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:
There is an actual answer to that riddle.
Go to one of the men and ask:
"What would the other man say if I asked him which door leads to salvation?"
This way, it does not matter which one of them you ask. The answer will alway go through a lie.
Asking Truth-guy > getting the actual false answer from the other guy.
Asking Lying-guy > getting a lie about what the truth-guy would've said.
Therefore, it will not be the door either of them will say it is, but the other door.
Go to one of the men and ask:
"What would the other man say if I asked him which door leads to salvation?"
This way, it does not matter which one of them you ask. The answer will alway go through a lie.
Asking Truth-guy > getting the actual false answer from the other guy.
Asking Lying-guy > getting a lie about what the truth-guy would've said.
Therefore, it will not be the door either of them will say it is, but the other door.
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:
Ooh, I have one. Fans of Eight-Bit Theater might be able to help out.
So there's this Thief dude, right? When everyone around him levels up, he does, too - with the explanation that he stole it from the future. Fast forward a while and the Big Bad (Sarda) makes everyone de-level, at which point past-Thief rocks up and steals back the LVL.UP from present Thief.
But, in order for him to steal it from himself, he would need to have taken it in the first place, which means he -couldn't- steal from himself as he never had it, but Sarda didn't de-level him, so he -did- have it, but he'd need to have taken it from somewhere to begin with because he didn't start out with it, but he can go into the future to take it when he never had it-OW, F**K, MY BRAIN.
Here are the two links, so you can see for yourself. Kinda.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2006/01/21/episode-651-thief-of-time/
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/09/19/episode-1174-oh-thats-what/
So there's this Thief dude, right? When everyone around him levels up, he does, too - with the explanation that he stole it from the future. Fast forward a while and the Big Bad (Sarda) makes everyone de-level, at which point past-Thief rocks up and steals back the LVL.UP from present Thief.
But, in order for him to steal it from himself, he would need to have taken it in the first place, which means he -couldn't- steal from himself as he never had it, but Sarda didn't de-level him, so he -did- have it, but he'd need to have taken it from somewhere to begin with because he didn't start out with it, but he can go into the future to take it when he never had it-OW, F**K, MY BRAIN.
Here are the two links, so you can see for yourself. Kinda.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2006/01/21/episode-651-thief-of-time/
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/09/19/episode-1174-oh-thats-what/
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