[Philosophy] Paradoxes

[Fel]

Guys, try to understand the argument instead of attempting to debunk things for such reasons.

This is the internet! We (yes, I am including you) don't bother understanding each other's arguments, we only debunk them because they conflict with our world views.

So yeah, w/e

- - - Updated - - -

Here, I know one:

The sentence below (the underscored one)is true or false:

"This sentence is false".

Uh...true. I'll go "true". Huh, that was easy. I'll be honest, I might have heard that one before, though; sort of cheating.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Fel

[Ethanadams]

What happens when an unstoppable force meets a immovable object?

[Robotengineer]

What happens when an unstoppable force meets a immovable object?

Nothing, the Un's and the Im's cancel.

[windows_x_seven]

Uh...true. I'll go "true". Huh, that was easy. I'll be honest, I might have heard that one before, though; sort of cheating.

It's a paradox, there is no answer!

[Ethanadams]

When you played the game did you notice all the Frankln cubes died when that happened?

[Xannari Ferrows]

By that, you mean two objects with infinite force, therefore infinite mass? Well, if that's the case, the objects are the same thing.

However, this isn't a paradox. By definition of an unstoppable force, they would simply pass through eachother.

[Pixel of Life]

This statement is false.

[YNM]

Paradox arose from those things that aren't well resolved yet, or those things that contradicts our basic view. One example is twin paradox, which the paradox itself stands wrong (it does happen, you "get younger" because of strong gravity / acceleration or high velocity).

Other could be this :

If an ant crosses on a rope, but the rope becomes longer and longer, at a rate that is faster than the ant's speed (wrt the rope), will the ant reach the other end ?

[Fel]

What happens when an unstoppable force meets a immovable object?

The unstoppable force uses quantum tunneling to move through the immovable object.

[Starwhip]

You shoot an arrow. It travels from your bow to the target in a matter of seconds. This change in position is perceived as motion.

But how does this motion take place. Say you could see the arrow at any instant of its flight. It would not be moving.

If no motion occurs in a single instant, then how can motion occur at all?

[Xannari Ferrows]

You shoot an arrow. It travels from your bow to the target in a matter of seconds. This change in position is perceived as motion.

But how does this motion take place. Say you could see the arrow at any instant of its flight. It would not be moving.

If no motion occurs in a single instant, then how can motion occur at all?

Because an instant is independent from the passage of time. An instant literally means no time has passed, so infinite instances later, and arrow will still be in the same place, at the same time.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Other could be this :

If an ant crosses on a rope, but the rope becomes longer and longer, at a rate that is faster than the ant's speed (wrt the rope), will the ant reach the other end ?

Yes. As the two ends of the rope extend outwards, the ant remains on it's position relative to the scale of the rope. The ant is also walking, meaning it is accelerating at a faster rate than the end. given time, it's end velocity relative to the ground will surpass that of the end of the rope, and it will be able to reach the end.

[Monger]

You shoot an arrow. It travels from your bow to the target in a matter of seconds. This change in position is perceived as motion.

But how does this motion take place. Say you could see the arrow at any instant of its flight. It would not be moving.

If no motion occurs in a single instant, then how can motion occur at all?

You are creating two axioms here that contradict each other: 1) change in position is perceived as motion, and 2) you are able to see a single instant, without any motion.

Seeing requires a change in perception: now something wasn't there, and next it is.

In other words: everything that we perceive (and in fact, everything that interacts with anything) can only do so in motion, and therefore can only perceive things in motion. A single instant moment is physically impossible. Your paradox can not be part of the physical world.

[CaptainKipard]

You shoot an arrow. It travels from your bow to the target in a matter of seconds. This change in position is perceived as motion.

But how does this motion take place. Say you could see the arrow at any instant of its flight. It would not be moving.

If no motion occurs in a single instant, then how can motion occur at all?

This looks like a fallacy of division. Sometimes a question can also be nonsensical. People say there are no stupid questions but that's not really true.

[Fel]

KSP will release when it is complete

KSP is ever evolving and thus is never complete

When will KSP release?

[Xannari Ferrows]

KSP will release when it is complete

KSP is ever evolving and thus is never complete

When will KSP release?

When it has achieved perfection.

[CaptainKipard]

KSP will release when it is complete

KSP is ever evolving and thus is never complete

When will KSP release?

That's also not a paradox. The answer "never" is a straight-up conclusion drawn from stated premises. It's internally consistent and valid, even if not sound. For it to be sound the premises would have to be true, but then we're getting into the semantics of those sentences.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Ethanadams]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat

here is a good one

[WinkAllKerb'']

an easy one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

I'm not convinced a guy able to do this kind of thing could be gaussianly and normally considered as sick ... but ... may be it's more politically correct to reassure thoose unable to do the same to say so ...

"it's not because they are many to be wrong that they are right" -someone-

"the only thing i know, is that tommorow, i have more things left to learn than yesterday" -someone-

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Fel]

That's also not a paradox. The answer "never" is a straight-up conclusion drawn from stated premises. It's internally consistent and valid, even if not sound. For it to be sound the premises would have to be true, but then we're getting into the semantics of those sentences.

Never only works if you remove the condition of KSP having a release.

There is a difference between will and can.

[ZetaX]

Never only works if you remove the condition of KSP having a release.

There is a difference between will and can.

That "having a release"-condition is not given in your sentence. If it were, your paradox would boil down to "X exists and doesn't exist". The answer for that is just "false" (but you may want to ask Wheatley). Just writing down obviously false statements is not a paradox.

So the following is assuming we are not adding that:

Sure, "will" means that it "must" release then. But that does not exclude the answer "never" at all. It follows by that first sentence that it also will never be complete. There is no problem in that and it doesn't contradict the second line at all; it even has the very same conclusion as that line ("never complete").

A more simplified version of your statement is "if X is red, then X is green". X being actually red cannot happen as that causes a nonsensical conclusion. But if X is green (or even blue or purple or ...) to begin with then there is no problem at all.

Edited April 28, 2015 by ZetaX

[WinkAllKerb'']

Paradoxes that have no real answer are understandably interesting, but even so. Why do we pursue interest in a question that we know doesn't have a real answer? Endlessly pondering the question, and never getting closer to another side. Do we just enjoy the satisfaction of thinking about a question? Do we enjoy it because it asks for you opinion?

Speaking of which, I'd like to hear your opinion. This is a bit of a paradox in itself.

Paradoxes are Parade Hoax nowdays ; )

what about this:

https://www.google.com/patents/US5411540

Would you rather user artificial electrical, chemical, synthesis stimuli when you can obtain pretty the same result simply using some sentences sequencies ? (plot twist hihih ; )

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[musicpenguin]

A paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox causes a paradox

[Fel]

That "having a release"-condition is not given in your sentence. If it were, your paradox would boil down to "X exists and doesn't exist".The answer for that is just "false" (but you may want to ask Wheatley).

The cat is both dead and alive.

The paradox is of the form

X will happen

X will not happen

"never" excludes the first statement.

The argument that the statements are nonsequitor is mis representative of the logical fallacy. If you don't want to accept my statements as valid is an entirely different argument; and one that may not even be required when dealing with a paradox. Time paradoxes, for instance, can easily be called invalid if you don't believe in time travel; killing your grandfather isn't a paradox because you can't go back in time!

[ZetaX]

The cat is both dead and alive.

The paradox is of the form

X will happen

X will not happen

That statement is logically just equivalent to "false". There is no paradox here, no insight, nothing. It's really just the equivalent of saying something that is objectively wrong. This is different from "this sentence is wrong" because that one is paradoxical not because it is wrong, but because it is self-referential (and thus neither true nor false). It is also different from time traveling paradoxes because those are not focused on being true statements (i.e. "time travel exists") but on it being non-intuitive (most of them show that time travel is impossible _if_ we also assume certain things, e.g. they leading to the same universe and there being nothing to prevent us to enact the actual paradox; a much weaker statement than "time travel does not exist").

Edited April 29, 2015 by ZetaX