NationStates Jolt Archive

All I know are the following

"Is the answer to this question no?"
(that one is funny, because whether you say yes or no, the answer is no)
"This statement is false"
(This is an odd one, if it is false therefore it is true that it is false, yet if it is true that something is false than it must be false, therefore being true and false at the same time)
Then there are the ones that take a long time to tell,
"Can there truly be an omnipotent being? (Omnipotent=able to do anything) no, there cannot be an omnipotent being. why? can an omnipotent being microwave a borrito so hot that even he/she/it cannot eat it. if they can do this, they cannot eat it, as it is to hot for them to eat, if they cannot make this borrito, then this also disproves omnipotence, as it is another thing they cannot do."
(This one is very difficult to comprehend for most.)
then there is the barber paradox
"Imagine a town, in this town there is a barber, this barber has a rule that he can never break, he only shaves people who do not shave themselves. how does he shave himslef. think about it. if he shaves himself he is shaving someone who shaves themself, therefore breaking his rule, but if he doesn't shave himself he is breaking his rule by not shaving someone who doesn't shave themselves."
(no matter what he does he breaks his rule, once again, difficult, but true.)

anyone with any good paradoxes please post them, and if you find these at all interesting, you should visit this site....

www.wikipedia.org, then search for "paradox" or "paradoxes" there is one paradox here that disproves motion, whether you believe it or not is up to you!

I think you did indeed need to ask for any good paradoxes. And what a paradox actually is...

I think you did indeed need to ask for any good paradoxes. And what a paradox actually is...
are you saying I don't know what a paradox is? I'm very sorry, I know the definition.

I'm very sorry, I know the definition.
Then I'm very sorry as well. For you. (I apologise for the hostile nature of this post. It is just so tempting. It is thoroughly hyperbolic, so you know.)

...And I quote from webster's dictionary... "Paradox- a statement seemingly contradictory or absurd, but perhaps true"

Then I'm very sorry as well. For you. (I apologise for the hostile nature of this post. It is just so tempting. It is thoroughly hyperbolic, so you know.)
WTF do you mean, that wasn't hostile, yet I sense mockery in your tone...

www.wikipedia.org, then search for "paradox" or "paradoxes" there is one paradox here that disproves motion, whether you believe it or not is up to you!

Zeno does not "disprove" motion. First of all, a paradox is contradictory. Zeno's "paradoxes" are false paradoxes, because they are not really contradictory. The mistake in Zeno's logic is that he does not take into account instantaneous velocity (which not many people can blame him for, being from the 5th century BC and all, and physics entering its more modern from 2 millenia later).

WTF do you mean, that wasn't hostile, yet I sense mockery in your tone...
You can't sense tone ...because you can't see or hear him.

Gnosti --- a word especially in the english language could have a variety of meanings ---there are a more that a few different definitions of the word "paradox"

All I know are the following

"Is the answer to this question no?"
(that one is funny, because whether you say yes or no, the answer is no)
"This statement is false"
(This is an odd one, if it is false therefore it is true that it is false, yet if it is true that something is false than it must be false, therefore being true and false at the same time)
Then there are the ones that take a long time to tell,
"Can there truly be an omnipotent being? (Omnipotent=able to do anything) no, there cannot be an omnipotent being. why? can an omnipotent being microwave a borrito so hot that even he/she/it cannot eat it. if they can do this, they cannot eat it, as it is to hot for them to eat, if they cannot make this borrito, then this also disproves omnipotence, as it is another thing they cannot do."
(This one is very difficult to comprehend for most.)
then there is the barber paradox
"Imagine a town, in this town there is a barber, this barber has a rule that he can never break, he only shaves people who do not shave themselves. how does he shave himslef. think about it. if he shaves himself he is shaving someone who shaves themself, therefore breaking his rule, but if he doesn't shave himself he is breaking his rule by not shaving someone who doesn't shave themselves."
(no matter what he does he breaks his rule, once again, difficult, but true.)

anyone with any good paradoxes please post them, and if you find these at all interesting, you should visit this site....

I have always disagreed that the "barber paradox" is actually a paradox because there is nothing that states that the barber cannot shave himself. If you say that "he can never take a break" means he never has his own time does not mean that he can't be his own customer.

The following statement is a lie
The above statement is the truth

WTF do you mean, that wasn't hostile, yet I sense mockery in your tone...
Mockery typically envokes hostility from either party. I was just trying to avoid overly aggressive responses. And I'd much prefer to call it "saracasm". Since sarcasm is derived from the Greek sarkazein, "to tear flesh". Mockery is merely derived from the French mocquer, "to deride or jeer".

And I accept that on a certain level you understand it, but putting something like this seems to me that you don't quite understand the nature of paradoxical material:
"Is the answer to this question no?"
(that one is funny, because whether you say yes or no, the answer is no)Apparently you are not familiar with double negatives.

I have always disagreed that the "barber paradox" is actually a paradox because there is nothing that states that the barber cannot shave himself. If you say that "he can never take a break" means he never has his own time does not mean that he can't be his own customer.

He can't shave people who shave themselves....oy

then there is the barber paradox
"Imagine a town, in this town there is a barber, this barber has a rule that he can never break, he only shaves people who do not shave themselves. how does he shave himslef. think about it. if he shaves himself he is shaving someone who shaves themself, therefore breaking his rule, but if he doesn't shave himself he is breaking his rule by not shaving someone who doesn't shave themselves."
(no matter what he does he breaks his rule, once again, difficult, but true.)

Why can't someone else shave the barber? Why does he have to be shaved at all? It's not stated that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves.

Here's a classic:

Consider the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.

Does it contain itself?

(If it does, then it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it does.)

The following statement is a lie
The above statement is the truth
The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.

All I know are the following

"Is the answer to this question no?"
(that one is funny, because whether you say yes or no, the answer is no)
"This statement is false"
(This is an odd one, if it is false therefore it is true that it is false, yet if it is true that something is false than it must be false, therefore being true and false at the same time)
Then there are the ones that take a long time to tell,
"Can there truly be an omnipotent being? (Omnipotent=able to do anything) no, there cannot be an omnipotent being. why? can an omnipotent being microwave a borrito so hot that even he/she/it cannot eat it. if they can do this, they cannot eat it, as it is to hot for them to eat, if they cannot make this borrito, then this also disproves omnipotence, as it is another thing they cannot do."
(This one is very difficult to comprehend for most.)
then there is the barber paradox
"Imagine a town, in this town there is a barber, this barber has a rule that he can never break, he only shaves people who do not shave themselves. how does he shave himslef. think about it. if he shaves himself he is shaving someone who shaves themself, therefore breaking his rule, but if he doesn't shave himself he is breaking his rule by not shaving someone who doesn't shave themselves."
(no matter what he does he breaks his rule, once again, difficult, but true.)

anyone with any good paradoxes please post them, and if you find these at all interesting, you should visit this site....

Well, the first few are pretty standard, and the irrestistable force/immovable object restated with a really hot burrito is hilarious, but the last one isn't a true paradox, at least not the way you stated it. By saying he shaves "only" those who do not shave themselves you limit him to a certain class of people, of which he is necessarily a part, but you do not require him to shave every member of that class. In other words, the paradox should read "he shaves everyone who does not shave themself and no one who does," that way he can't escape the paradox by simply not shaving, or by having someone else shave him.

The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.

All Cretans are liars. - A Cretan.

All Cretans are liars. - A Cretan.

The problem with that paradox is that it is not really a paradox. That Cretan himself can be a liar while not neccessarily all the other Cretans are liars.

Most so-called "paradoxes" are purely semantic in nature ... they depend upon wording which contradicts itself or definitions which preclude other options.

How's this for a paradox?

I am a pathological liar.

I first thought to the existance of non-existance.

(If non-exhistance is real, then it exists. Therefore, if it exists, then it cannot be non-existance. Thus making non-existance non-existant. But then that would take us back to square one.)

How about if you invented a time machine to fix a mistake in your past. If you succeed in changing the past, then you would have no need of building the time machine in the future, ergo, you would not travel back in time. Ergo, you would not have corrected the mistake. Ergo, you would build the time machine. Making a full circle, no?

OR:

If your goal is to fail, and you succeed, are you a failure or a success?

anyone with any good paradoxes please post them
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/index.php

Why can't someone else shave the barber? Why does he have to be shaved at all? It's not stated that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves.

There is another flaw in the barber paradox

Is it an arbitrary rule that he chooses (or has forced upon him) that he cannot shave people who shave themselves or is it a more rational rule that he cannot shave those who shave themselves simply because there is nothing to shave?

If it's a rational rule then he can shave himself as much as he likes.

All I know are the following

[1]"Is the answer to this question no?"
(that one is funny, because whether you say yes or no, the answer is no)
[2]"This statement is false"
(This is an odd one, if it is false therefore it is true that it is false, yet if it is true that something is false than it must be false, therefore being true and false at the same time)
Then there are the ones that take a long time to tell,
[3]"Can there truly be an omnipotent being? (Omnipotent=able to do anything) no, there cannot be an omnipotent being. why? can an omnipotent being microwave a borrito so hot that even he/she/it cannot eat it. if they can do this, they cannot eat it, as it is to hot for them to eat, if they cannot make this borrito, then this also disproves omnipotence, as it is another thing they cannot do."
(This one is very difficult to comprehend for most.)
then there is the barber paradox


1) I could respond with something like "negative" or "negatory."
2) Good one
3) Omnipotence does not necessarily include the ability to do the logically impossible (draw a square circle, etc.). Also, truly omnipotent beings may not be bound by logic (no idea how that would work, but who knows?).

Here's a classic:

Consider the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.

Does it contain itself?

(If it does, then it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it does.)

The set of all sets that do not contain themselves would be the empty set, since all sets contain themselves. They empty set contains itself, so the answer is yes (unless im missing something).

then there is the barber paradox
"Imagine a town, in this town there is a barber, this barber has a rule that he can never break, he only shaves people who do not shave themselves. how does he shave himslef. think about it. if he shaves himself he is shaving someone who shaves themself, therefore breaking his rule, but if he doesn't shave himself he is breaking his rule by not shaving someone who doesn't shave themselves."
(no matter what he does he breaks his rule, once again, difficult, but true.)


Your statement of the paradox is deeply flawed if you want it to remain paradoxical. The way you have stated it is that the barber shaves only people who do not shave themselves. Thus the barber can grow a beard and escape the supposed paradox.


In order for the paradox to work the baraber has to shave all the people who do not shave themselves.

How's this for a paradox?

I am a pathological liar.

Not. Saying. Anything.

(someone had to say something :D )

EDIT:

Oooh! I think I accidently created a paradox. I said I wasn't gonna say anything but I went ahead and said something :p

EDIT EDIT:

Or was that irony?

HELP! MY BRAIN HURTS!

The set of all sets that do not contain themselves would be the empty set, since all sets contain themselves. They empty set contains itself, so the answer is yes (unless im missing something).

Try it again with these two words:

autologous - describing a word which refers to itself (eg. 'wee' is a wee word and is therefore autologous)

heterologous - describing a word which does not refer to itself (eg. 'long' is not a long word and is therefore heterologous)

Does the word heterologous refer to itself or not?

"Can there truly be an omnipotent being? (Omnipotent=able to do anything) no, there cannot be an omnipotent being. why? can an omnipotent being microwave a borrito so hot that even he/she/it cannot eat it. if they can do this, they cannot eat it, as it is to hot for them to eat, if they cannot make this borrito, then this also disproves omnipotence, as it is another thing they cannot do."
(This one is very difficult to comprehend for most.)

Didn't you post this paradox before? And wasn't it shown to not be a true paradox by many, many people?

Not sure if this is what you want, but it always makes me laugh!

"Expect the unexpected."
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
^this really does make sense, trust me^

I'm surprised no one has posted the classic paradoxes, of Zeno.

For example, suppose you wanted to move from point A to point B. In order to do so, you need to get to the halfway point C. But in order to get to C, you need to get to the point halfway between A and C, and so on. So you have an infinite number of points to cross in a finite amount of time. So motion is impossible.

Makes you wonder what Zeno thought when he stubbed his toe.

Granted, there is a flaw in the above paradox, and I'll give Brownie points to whoever finds it first.

apparently, someone wrote a scientific paper about a paradox

http://ccdb3fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?

Power corrupts, and absolute power is actually pretty neat.

I heard that it was a quote from one of Nixon's aides, but it could be apocryphal.

I always liked this one: Theseus' ship - paradox of identity.
"According to Greek legend, Theseus was a famous sailor who had a ship. The ship was well known and had 30 oars. When Theseus died, the ship was put up for public display. Over the years as the various planks and boards rotted out, the local caretakers would replace them with new, matching boards.

Over time, of course, ALL of the planks had rotted at one time or another, and had been replaced. So nothing remained of the actual "original" ship - and yet the ship was still called Theseus' ship and considered to be the authentic original."

To take the paradox further, the individual planks, instead of rotting, were used to build a new ship. Which is the 'true' ship of Theseus?

I always liked this one: Theseus' ship - paradox of identity.
"According to Greek legend, Theseus was a famous sailor who had a ship. The ship was well known and had 30 oars. When Theseus died, the ship was put up for public display. Over the years as the various planks and boards rotted out, the local caretakers would replace them with new, matching boards.

Over time, of course, ALL of the planks had rotted at one time or another, and had been replaced. So nothing remained of the actual "original" ship - and yet the ship was still called Theseus' ship and considered to be the authentic original."

To take the paradox further, the individual planks, instead of rotting, were used to build a new ship. Which is the 'true' ship of Theseus?

The ship in the harbor with the replacement parts is the original ship. I have the proof here, but I'm too tired to type it all out again. We spent about a month on that particular problem in my metaphysics class this last semester. I know it inside and out.

Power corrupts, and absolute power is actually pretty neat.

I heard that it was a quote from one of Nixon's aides, but it could be apocryphal.

Is it not actually "power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"?

Isn't it a wee bit paradoxical the way some Christians will tell me that it was a miracle that saved the life of an eighty year old guy when he fell in the sea and was rescued by a dolphin and yet, in seas where millions of dolphins swim not one of them was directed by god to save even a few of the many thousands who died on boxing day?



[sits back and awaits the flames]

The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.

Everything I'm about to tell you is a lie.

I'm lying.