NationStates Jolt Archive

I've recently become fascinated with pardoxes and ironies. This thread will hopefully be a discussion thread where people post, comment on, and refine ironies and paradoxes. I'll start by defining each and giving an example.

Irony:
-my definition: A situation, event, or phrase in which the very thing one is trying to prevent happens because one tried to prevent it.
-dictionary definition: A method of humorous or subtly sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words is the direct opposite of their usual sense.
-Examples: "Sarcasm is the crudest form of irony." (literary saying.) "Someone is driving down the street and sees a sign that says 'Watch for pedestrians.' That person hits a pedestrian because he or she was looking at the sign and not watching the road." (The latter follows my definition.)

Paradox:
-my definition: A statement that contradicts itself; two or more statements that contradict each other.
-dictionary definition: A statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but is in fact true. OR A statement that is self-contradictory and, hence, false. (I don't agree that it must be false because it contradicts itself; the best paradoxes are "true.")
-Examples: "A blank piece of paper that says 'This page left intentionally blank' on it. (In this example, the fact that there is writing on the page means that it isn't blank, but the writing only indicates that the page is blank, so it contradicts itself.) Another example is the famous 'Paradox of Identity:'

We have two statements:
(1) Hesperus = Hesperus and
(2) Hesperus = Phosphorus.
It is obvious that these statements are not the same. Now here's the paradox: if (2) is true, then (2) and (1) are the same; in fact, they aren't. It helps to let go of all math with these statements and think of the = signs as the word "is." That helps some people understand this better. For a more complete discussion, visit: http://www.structuredindividuals.com/paradox/1.html

So, to recap, please respond to these paradoxes, post your own, help write new ones... Thank you.

Why can't Hesperus also be Phosphorus?

Suppose you found out the most boring speaker in the world was speaking near you. Wouldn't you find it interesting to listen and see why he was so boring.

Suppose you found out the most boring speaker in the world was speaking near you. Wouldn't you find it interesting to listen and see why he was so boring.

That is why I came to this thread, again.

Suppose you found out the most boring speaker in the world was speaking near you. Wouldn't you find it interesting to listen and see why he was so boring.

That's actually a legitamate tactic. I keep telling my brother that if he has to watch a ballet performance, he should analyze why he doesn't like it instead of sitting there annoying the rest of us.

I am a pathological liar. :D

I am a pathological liar. :D

Then how do we know that's true :D.

Does this count as either irony or paradox? "He is only useful for proving his uselessness".

Then how do we know that's true :D.

**ultimate spaz face**

Then how do we know that's true :D.
You don't. :D

He's out to prove he has nothing to prove.I hate Napoleon Dynamite.If Jesus died to save humanity from its sins, what happened when he came back?

I am a pathological liar. :D

Actually, that doesn't really work. Pathological liars can tell the truth at times. Much better would be

This statement is a lie.

Actually, that doesn't really work. Pathological liars can tell the truth at times. Much better would be

This statement is a lie.
Picky, picky! Tsk! :p

I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Picky, picky! Tsk! :p

That's me!

My favourite comes from the Simpsons (although it's not paticularly deep):

"God is all powerful."
"Can God microwave a Burito so hot that he can't eat it?"

An irresistable force meets an immovable object. Paradox?

From Zeno of Elea: "An arrow in flight is really at rest. For at every point in its flight, the arrow must occupy a length of space exactly equal to its own length. After all, it cannot occupy a greater length, nor a lesser one. But the arrow cannot move within this length it occupies. It would need extra space in which to move, and it of course has none. So at every point in its flight, the arrow is at rest. And if it is at rest at every moment in its flight, then it follows that it is at rest during the entire flight."

Ok, then what is this classic example?


I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car.

Ok, then what is this classic example?


I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car.
Um ... Buddy Holly? :D

I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car.

It doesn't work. It needs to be a loop. And thats not a paradox or irony.

Anyway - theirs no such thing as the present. Any moment is either in the past, or in the future.

The Two-Envelope Paradox:

Suppose you're on a gameshow where you can choose either of two sealed envelopes, A or B, both containing money. The host doesn't say how much money is in each, but he does let you know that one envelope contains twice as much as the other.

You pick envelope A, open it and see that it contains $100. The host then makes the following offer: you can either keep the $100, or you can trade it for whatever is in envelope B.

You might reason as follows: since one envelope has twice what the other one has, envelope B either has 200 dollars or 50 dollars, with equal probability. If you switch, then, you stand to either win $100 or to lose $50. Since you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should switch.

But just before you tell the host you would like to switch, another thought might occur to you. If you had picked envelope B, you would have come to exactly the same conclusion. So if the above argument is valid, you should switch no matter which envelope you choose. But that can't be right. Can it? :D

... there's no such thing as the present. Any moment is either in the past, or in the future.
Your proof? ;)

Ok, then what is this classic example?


I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car.

That'd be a Catch-22, not a paradox, yeh? The difference is.. (inaudible). :p

An irresistable force meets an immovable object. Paradox?The irresistable force goes through the immovable object.

Once, in a game of MTG, a stole a creature temporarily so I could steal it permanently.

The irresistable force goes through the immovable object.
The statement presupposes no interpermiability of either the force or the object. :p

yeah I always have trouble thinking of paradoxes that don't involve time travel.

for example if you went back in time to intentionally do "prevent" something from happening and are sucessful then when you are in the present time you don't have anything to go back and prevent.....

yeah nevermind that is confusing me again.....:confused:

as far as irony your definition isn't the same as mine so no luck there

Irony-the difference between how you might expect something to be and how it actually is. or something that happens that you wouldn't expect to happen.

with that definition there are many things that I find ironic, like my husband has a cousin that was killed by an EMT. (because you would expect an EMT to save lives not cause death)

Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" always bothered me because with the definition that I learned (see above) none of the things she mentions are actually ironic (at least not for me as Murphy's law beats down on me daily)

I can think of a lot of catch 22's most of them I have actually lived through

for example to enroll my daughter in school I needed a her ss card, to get a replacement ss card I needed her birth certificate, to get her birth certificate I needed her ss card.......

Suppose you are teleported by having your body disintegrated in one place and reassembled in another from new materials. Are you still "you"? Your body is made of different atoms, but it is still you as far as your mind is concerned, right? But what if instead of having your original body disintegrated you merely have a copy made? Then is the copy still you?

I have always liked the saying: "It's bad luck to be superstitious."

I have always liked the saying: "It's bad luck to be superstitious."

I am an agnostic(Thank God!) and definately not superstitious(Knock Wood!).

I am an agnostic(Thank God!) and definately not superstitious(Knock Wood!).

:D

Well, this thread got a great response (don't let me jinx you, superstitious people).

I like the two-envelope one. Except I don't agree that if you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should take the chance. For the purpose of the paradox, it works out well, though.

"I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car."
As Holy Sheep said, this doesn't work. For it to loop, the last statement would have to be, "But I can't get a job 'cause I don't have a girl." That doesn't make sense, but the form is correct and could be used in another paradox later on.

Eutrusca's "irresistible force-immovable object" is a good one. It's hard to figure out, though. It's obvious neither would win, and assuming the force can't "go through" the object, I have no idea what would happen. Maybe it's just a problem, not a paradox, but good anyway.

E2Fencer has a "gem" with the "speaker-listening" paradox. It's easy to understand and it's realistic. Well done.

To Vegas-Rex, the issue is not whether each statement is true, it's whether the two statements are the same.

Here's an interesting question: is the "chicken and the egg" question a paradox? Think about it - if the chicken came first, what did it come from? The egg. If the egg came first, it must have been laid by a chicken. I'm really just embellishing this; it's full of holes. For instance, one could argue that God made the chicken (or egg), or that the chicken evolved from something else that has no connection whatsoever to the egg.

Well, this thread got a great response (don't let me jinx you, superstitious people).

I like the two-envelope one. Except I don't agree that if you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should take the chance. For the purpose of the paradox, it works out well, though.

"I can't get a girl cause I don't have a car.
I can't get a car because I don't have a job.
But I can't get a job cause I don't have a car."
As Holy Sheep said, this doesn't work. For it to loop, the last statement would have to be, "But I can't get a job 'cause I don't have a girl." That doesn't make sense, but the form is correct and could be used in another paradox later on.

Eutrusca's "irresistible force-immovable object" is a good one. It's hard to figure out, though. It's obvious neither would win, and assuming the force can't "go through" the object, I have no idea what would happen. Maybe it's just a problem, not a paradox, but good anyway.

E2Fencer has a "gem" with the "speaker-listening" paradox. It's easy to understand and it's realistic. Well done.

To Vegas-Rex, the issue is not whether each statement is true, it's whether the two statements are the same.

Here's an interesting question: is the "chicken and the egg" question a paradox? Think about it - if the chicken came first, what did it come from? The egg. If the egg came first, it must have been laid by a chicken. I'm really just embellishing this; it's full of holes. For instance, one could argue that God made the chicken (or egg), or that the chicken evolved from something else that has no connection whatsoever to the egg.
"Proto-chickens?" :eek: LOL!

Actually, the immovable object - irresistable force paradox is really a paradox of defintion. By definition, you cannot have both exist in the same universe. :D

How about this, 3 men on a business trip check into a hotel. The clerk tells them it will be $10.00 each for the night for a total of $30.00. Each man forks over a $10 bill and heads to their room. A bit later, the clerk notes he has made a mistake and that 3 people get a discount and the total price for the 3 men should only have been $25.00. He hands $5.00 to the bellhop and tells him to take it to the 3. On his way upstairs, the bellhop thinks "how are 3 guys going to divide $5.00, they didn't tip me anyway." So the bellhop sticks $2.00 into his pocket and when he gets to the room, he says there was a mistake on the charge and he gives each of the men a dollar bill back.

Now, each man is out $9.00. $9.00 X 3 men = $27.00 plus the $2.00 the bellhop took = $29.00, where is the other $1.00?

Eutrusca, that's an excellent point. If there's an irresistible force, then no object can resist it, hence no immovable objects. So is this really a paradox or just an impossible situation?

Actually, I heard the one about the three men before. I couldn't figure it out. Someone told me the answer, and I still didn't understand it. It's a great word problem.

How about this, 3 men on a business trip check into a hotel. The clerk tells them it will be $10.00 each for the night for a total of $30.00. Each man forks over a $10 bill and heads to their room. A bit later, the clerk notes he has made a mistake and that 3 people get a discount and the total price for the 3 men should only have been $25.00. He hands $5.00 to the bellhop and tells him to take it to the 3. On his way upstairs, the bellhop thinks "how are 3 guys going to divide $5.00, they didn't tip me anyway." So the bellhop sticks $2.00 into his pocket and when he gets to the room, he says there was a mistake on the charge and he gives each of the men a dollar bill back.

Now, each man is out $9.00. $9.00 X 3 men = $27.00 plus the $2.00 the bellhop took = $29.00, where is the other $1.00?

That's calculated wrong. You shouldn't be adding the $2.00 that the bellhop took, you should be subtracting it. Then you come out with $25, which is what it should be after $5 is removed from the original $30.

Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" always bothered me because with the definition that I learned (see above) none of the things she mentions are actually ironic

Is that not ironic?

An irresistable force meets an immovable object. Paradox?
irresistable force + immovable object = inconceivable disaster
:D

Literacy irony:

A book entitled "Teach Yourself How To Read"

warning sign: "Do not read this sign under penalty of law"

computer irony:

"Keyboard not detected. Press F1 to continue."

"pkunzip.zip"

Is that not ironic?
you know what? you are right. I would expect a song called "ironic" to be about ironic things, so if it isn't about what I expect it to be about then it is ironic
wow. that is creepy. (the fact that I hadn't figured it out yet.):eek:

One more thought - Ironic organizations:

"Lighthouse for the Blind"

PasturePastry, those are some good ironies.

In response to the word problem, at first I thought that was the solution (to subtract the $2 because you're trying to get down to $25, not up to $30). I was told that it wasn't, although it seems to make sense to me. The answer I was given was: "You can't have zero dollars." I'm not very good at this type of problem, but I think that answer means that there is one person in the problem that always has $1. Who it is or why that's true, I have no idea...

Can anyone define catch-22? Not looking at a dictionary, using what I remember from reading the book and looking at Smunkeeville's post, it's a situation in which one needs something (an action to be taken, a thing...) to get something. To get the original thing, one needs the second thing that can only be had when one has the original.

Is this correct? And doesn't that make a catch-22 a paradox?

-my definition: A situation, event, or phrase in which the very thing one is trying to prevent happens because one tried to prevent it.
Your view is based on an extention of the proper definition. It comes from "the irony of life/living" - things are "ironic" in this sense (and others) because of destiny playing cruel practical jokes.
I remember this with Alanis Morissette's song we all know by now - linguists were very upset that she was using a narrow, extrapolated version of the word.

-my definition: A statement that contradicts itself; two or more statements that contradict each other.
Still, very common. But false.
A plastic definition of the word (that I've seen in an otherwise crappy film): "an infinite force acting on an unmovable object".

Can anyone define catch-22? Not looking at a dictionary, using what I remember from reading the book and looking at Smunkeeville's post, it's a situation in which one needs something (an action to be taken, a thing...) to get something. To get the original thing, one needs the second thing that can only be had when one has the original.

catch 22 is basically something that you can't get out of no matter what you do.

The example that my dad gave was like if you were in the military and your commanding officer told you to go on a suicide mission and if you didn't he would kill you

either way you are going to die so you don't really have a way out of that.

in my example it is kinda a stretch, nothing I could do would have solved the problem

I guess the easiest way to explain is you're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't

Can anyone define catch-22? Not looking at a dictionary, using what I remember from reading the book and looking at Smunkeeville's post, it's a situation in which one needs something (an action to be taken, a thing...) to get something. To get the original thing, one needs the second thing that can only be had when one has the original.
Can't quite think up a good example, so here is the orginal Catch-22 from Joseph Heller's novel:
To get out of the Airforce someone has to both A) be crazy and B) ask to be removed from duty. However, if someone wants out of be taken off duty then he obviously has concern for his own health and safety and that makes him (by the official definition) sane. If someone doesn't want out of the Airforce then they are crazy, and are eligible to be removed.
In essence, if you want out, you are sane and have to stay. If you don't want out, then you are crazy and can leave up until the moment where you decide that you want to leave.

PasturePastry, those are some good ironies.

Can anyone define catch-22?
Thank you:)

A catch-22 is also known as a double bind, defined thusly by Merriam Webster:

"a psychological predicament in which a person receives from a single source conflicting messages that allow no appropriate response to be made"

Other phrasings include "stuck between a rock and a hard place" , "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and if you want to get really esoteric "sailing between Scylla and Charybdis".

From Zeno of Elea: "An arrow in flight is really at rest. For at every point in its flight, the arrow must occupy a length of space exactly equal to its own length. After all, it cannot occupy a greater length, nor a lesser one. But the arrow cannot move within this length it occupies.
Fine up to here.
It would need extra space in which to move,
This is where it falls apart. It doesnt 'need extra in which to move' but rather 'needs to be able to move into space that is not part of the exact space that it currently occupies'. I see nothing that suggests, implies or substantiates any barrier to the arrow moving from the exact space it occupies into space, some of which is not part of the exact space it occupied a moment ago.

The Two-Envelope Paradox:

Suppose you're on a gameshow where you can choose either of two sealed envelopes, A or B, both containing money. The host doesn't say how much money is in each, but he does let you know that one envelope contains twice as much as the other.

You pick envelope A, open it and see that it contains $100. The host then makes the following offer: you can either keep the $100, or you can trade it for whatever is in envelope B.

You might reason as follows: since one envelope has twice what the other one has, envelope B either has 200 dollars or 50 dollars, with equal probability. If you switch, then, you stand to either win $100 or to lose $50. Since you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should switch.

But just before you tell the host you would like to switch, another thought might occur to you. If you had picked envelope B, you would have come to exactly the same conclusion. So if the above argument is valid, you should switch no matter which envelope you choose. But that can't be right. Can it? :D


It's not right - this one has been disproved statistically.

I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
ROLF :D

Here's an interesting question: is the "chicken and the egg" question a paradox? Think about it - if the chicken came first, what did it come from? The egg. If the egg came first, it must have been laid by a chicken. I'm really just embellishing this; it's full of holes. For instance, one could argue that God made the chicken (or egg), or that the chicken evolved from something else that has no connection whatsoever to the egg.
Nope, not a paradox. The egg came first. There were egg-laying animals around for millions of years before chickens evolved.
Irony can generally be summed up in the words 'Shit happens'.

Suppose you are teleported by having your body disintegrated in one place and reassembled in another from new materials. Are you still "you"? Your body is made of different atoms, but it is still you as far as your mind is concerned, right? your body now is also made of different atoms than, say, 10 years ago...

I have read the original Catch-22. Now I pretty much get the idea of a catch-22, and I'm expanding the scope of this thread to include catch-22s, although they're not as engaging to discuss.

In Zeno's arrow paradox, what he is trying to say is that the arrow can only occupy one length. More on this later.

The Two-Envelope Paradox:

Suppose you're on a gameshow where you can choose either of two sealed envelopes, A or B, both containing money. The host doesn't say how much money is in each, but he does let you know that one envelope contains twice as much as the other.

You pick envelope A, open it and see that it contains $100. The host then makes the following offer: you can either keep the $100, or you can trade it for whatever is in envelope B.

You might reason as follows: since one envelope has twice what the other one has, envelope B either has 200 dollars or 50 dollars, with equal probability. If you switch, then, you stand to either win $100 or to lose $50. Since you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should switch.

But just before you tell the host you would like to switch, another thought might occur to you. If you had picked envelope B, you would have come to exactly the same conclusion. So if the above argument is valid, you should switch no matter which envelope you choose. But that can't be right. Can it? :D


Did you get that from the tv show 'numbers'? I seem to recall something similar being on that. Maybe there's no connection.

In Zeno's arrow paradox, what he is trying to say is that the arrow can only occupy one length. More on this later.
I interpret 'at rest' to mean something other than moving (inert and stationary is more or less the intended meaning so far as I can tell). Otherwise what is the point of stringing so many words together to say something that is not only fairly self-evident so far as human cognition is concerned, but which could more quickly be said in some other way? For instance "an arrow only occupies that space which it occupies".

In order for it to be a paradox or ironic, it needs to communicate something other than a non-paradoxical, non-ironic premise. I dont think that it does that. The premise "at any particular point in time, physical things occupy exactly the space they occupy" is not (so far as I can tell) either ironic or paradoxical. :confused:

Maybe you could just go for a metaphysical explanation and agree that the arrow is stationary and it is the mind that is moving.;)

If you have an axe, of two parts. If you lose the head, is it still the same axe? what if you then lose the handel? is it still the same axe? What about the axe that was re-constructed with the lost peices?