ah.. probably a more simple of the idea of paradox. i was watching robot chicken right. they had a guy trying to go through. he came across two doors. one was an 'exit', and the other said 'please use other door'.
*shakes head* :rock:
ah.. probably a more simple of the idea of paradox. i was watching robot chicken right. they had a guy trying to go through. he came across two doors. one was an 'exit', and the other said 'please use other door'.
*shakes head* :rock:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Hows about this one:
A being of unlimited power decides to play with a light. He plays with it for two minutes. He flicks the switch in half the time than he did before: He waits a minute and turns it on, then waits 30 seconds, then turns it off, then 15 seconds and turns it on again and so forth.
After two minutes, is the light on or off? Would it have made a difference if it was off instead of on to begin with?
Another one:
Everything I tell you is a lie.
Am I lying about that sentence?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you too
Yes you are. Everything you tell me is a lie except that sentance! Man, you stink! You big liar! >_<
You forgot the grandfather paradox.
I liked that episode of Futurama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox gave me more than I needed or even wanted to know about the grandfather paradox. Wikipedia's great like that.
edit: ok reading this stuff is giving me a headache. *head explodes*
I encourage people to read Barjavel's book, btw. It's good stuff.I liked that episode of Futurama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox gave me more than I needed or even wanted to know about the grandfather paradox. Wikipedia's great like that.
edit: ok reading this stuff is giving me a headache. *head explodes*
I disagree with the "not touching the ground" paradox, because it supposes any movement is logarithmic when it's not the case. If I punch you, I can guarantee I'll touch you at some point and that you'll feel it. xD
Otherwise, most paradoxes that have been said are the ones I could think of. I'd add Shrödinger's, but it gets a bit technical (yay quantum physics).
And then there is Death
That isn't a Paradox in my eyes. If you went and killed your Grandfather, he'd simply be dead and you'd still exist as far as I'm concerned.
wondering...
im not sure if this would fit in with the rest but i offten find myself thinking about this for long periods of time......ok here goes....we now know that it takes your brains a very short amount of time to process our senses right?...well since our sense are the only way in which we can judge what is "the present"(this exact point in time) then is there really a present because everthing we see is in the past by a very small amount of time.....
*if this hasnt already been said by any one then it is now "Tim Alexander's theory of time"lol
Let's assume there's an all-powerful God. For many people, this is a matter of belief; but for those of us who don't believe, let's just assume.
Now, let's assume God wants to make a rock that is so heavy, even he can't lift it. Can this be done?
God is infinitely powerful, so in theory God can make an infinitely heavy rock. But if there's a rock so heavy he can't lift it, then that'd mean he's not infinitely powerful... but if he can't make that rock, then he's not infinitely powerful either...
This one makes me dizzy.
Edit: This is similar to the popular Public Law question, "can a truly sovereign parliament limit its own powers?"
The idea is that your grandfather dies before your father was born. If your grandfather died before your father was born, you can't be born either, since your father never existed; and then, how can you exist if your father never exited? Since you never existed either, your grandfather never died.
And if I remember correctly, Barjavel's book is even worse about that because it involves multiple time loops where what someone does or knows in the present is the result of a person in the future telling/doing something to a past person.
And then there is Death
The answer to both of Big D's questions is 'yes, but he/it will then be finite in power'.
It's like the 'there is a travelling projectile that can smash through any surface and a shield capable of blocking any projectile. If the two were to collide, what would happen?'
The question itself is flawed as it asserts that there exists an object whose existence would negate the existence of the other object.
Likewise the nice wordplay: I am taller than you who is taller than me. Who is taller?
The sentence is english but makes no sense as it asserts ideas which are in contradiction with the other. Likewise to the God paradox, such a rock cannot exist in tandem with an omnipotent God.
Though all these problems assumes that time exists, is linear, and that even an omnipotent being/power is subject to it.
My idea about the grandfather paradox is this:
X travels back in time and kills his grandfather. X then returns to his own time and finds it is different: nobody knows who he is, because the relevant history has been altered, from the point of his father's death onward. His grandfather would be another unsolved murder case, and X would be really stuck because no-one would know who he is or where he came from - he'd be utterly 'orphaned', for want of a better description.
That's just my theory on how it'd work. I figure that if the grandfather paradox simply cannot occur, then all time travel would be impossible. My rationale? By fulfilling the paradox, you'd be altering history. Some people would say that you're theoretically able to travel through time, provided history is not altered, by an action such as this.
However, I contend that time travel does, by its very nature, alter history. By going back to some point in the past, you're altering many things that happened: air molecules, that would have existed where your body was, have been displaced. This changes air currents that make dust motes move and fall in different places. Different air molecules would collide and react with one another, compared to which ones 'really' interacted before. For the entire duration of your visit to the past, the universe is infinitessimally heavier, meaning there is more gravitational energy. The changes are minute, but myriad. Just because a dust mote can't notice that its position has been changed, does not affect the fact that it has been affected. An intrusion into the past changes things permanently, even if it's just the destiny of a few billion atoms that is altered. If you can't eliminate your own forbear, then you shouldn't be able to venture back at all.
Edit:[q=piepants]It's like the 'there is a travelling projectile that can smash through any surface and a shield capable of blocking any projectile. If the two were to collide, what would happen?'
[/q]Ah, "an irresistible force meets an immovable object". My theory is that such a collision would release infinite energy, thereby utterly destroying the universe, down to the most fundamental level. But the theological version of the question is still an interesting one - an omnipotent God, whose act of omnipotence challenges his omnipotence... hmm.
*implodes*
there was a picture here
What people fail to realize is that an omnipotent being could alter the nature of the universe as to allow such an affront to its omnipotence. Therefor, an omnipotent being could easily alter the laws of the universe so that said rock is at times too heavy, and at times not.
What is a more interesting paradox is the question of whether or not "God" could break his own promise. An omnipotent creator's word is inviolate, so if God promises that he won't do something, then it automatically becomes impossible for Him to do it. He can either break his own law, and thus disprove infallibility, or obey his words, and thus be incapable of a certain action.
Something like Dogma?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
