Seachmall Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 I was thinking about this earlier and wasn't sure if it could be considered a paradox (i.e. a self-contradictory statement, or in this case: a question). Here is a question, A computer is a: - Man - Dog Clearly the answer is neither and that is in fact a trick question but what about this, A computer is a: - Man - Dog - Neither. This is a trick question. If the answer is 'Neither. This is a trick question' it is no longer a trick question because the answer is provided, this means though that none of the answers are correct and thus it is a trick question, which means 'Neither. This is a trick question' is correct and on and on... So, would you consider this a paradox? P.S. Feel free to add your own paradoxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManArmy Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 I was thinking about this earlier and wasn't sure if it could be considered a paradox (i.e. a self-contradictory statement, or in this case: a question). Here is a question, A computer is a: - Man - Dog Clearly the answer is neither and that is in fact a trick question but what about this, A computer is a: - Man - Dog - Neither. This is a trick question. If the answer is 'Neither. This is a trick question' it is no longer a trick question because the answer is provided, this means though that none of the answers are correct and thus it is a trick question, which means 'Neither. This is a trick question' is correct and on and on... So, would you consider this a paradox? P.S. Feel free to add your own paradoxes. Well, it can't be a trick question if you put the 'neither' option there. So in another words, the answer is either wrong or the question is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Struff Bunstridge Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Either a paradox, or a badly-worded question. My favourites are the ones about time travel. For example, if someone in the future builds a time machine and travels to the past for a specific purpose, and achieves that purpose, then there will be no need in the future for that time machine to be built, as there's nothing in the past to be changed. Hence, although the guy built a time machine, he actually never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astinus Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 wat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seachmall Posted November 28, 2008 Author Share Posted November 28, 2008 Well, it can't be a trick question if you put the 'neither' option there. So in another words, the answer is either wrong or the question is wrong. So its not a paradox because the outcome has to be wrong? I see where you're coming from, but once you say its wrong it becomes right, then wrong again, the right again etc. Its sort of never ending but I'm not sure if its a paradox. I'm begining to agree with you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManArmy Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Yeah, the time paradox are pretty cool. If you have a time machine and you travel back in time to kill your grandparents, you would not have existed. But if you do not exist, then who killed your grandparents? This is a paradox that scientists are still trying to figure out. There has been many theories but none has been proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag_Drift Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Either a paradox, or a badly-worded question. My favourites are the ones about time travel. For example, if someone in the future builds a time machine and travels to the past for a specific purpose, and achieves that purpose, then there will be no need in the future for that time machine to be built, as there's nothing in the past to be changed. Hence, although the guy built a time machine, he actually never did. I gots to make that into a movie. lol I'm sure somebody here will come in and say "0 divided by 0!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Struff Bunstridge Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 The very fact that you exist to make the attempt proves it would be physically impossible for you to kill your grandparents. I can pretty much guarantee you there are no scientists anywhere in the world spending their grant money trying to solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnorg Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Yeah, the time paradox are pretty cool. If you have a time machine and you travel back in time to kill your grandparents, you would not have existed. But if you do not exist, then who killed your grandparents? This is a paradox that scientists are still trying to figure out. There has been many theories but none has been proven. I just wish Doc Brown wouldn't have banned himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hart Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 The very fact that you exist to make the attempt proves it would be physically impossible for you to kill your grandparents. I can pretty much guarantee you there are no scientists anywhere in the world spending their grant money trying to solve that. So what happens if you could go back in time and try kill yourself as a baby? Would that even be possible? If you killed yourself, you would cease to exist, but if you didnt exist you couldnt have killed yourself. Mind-bending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Multiple timelines. If I kill my grandfather then I cease to exist on one timeline. But, the one I continue to exist on thrives. blah blah, I was going to go on further, but the bullsh*t you people regularly spout made me change my mind. ENJOY ARMAGEDDON, c*ntS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManArmy Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 The very fact that you exist to make the attempt proves it would be physically impossible for you to kill your grandparents. I can pretty much guarantee you there are no scientists anywhere in the world spending their grant money trying to solve that. Not unless there are different dimensions. Let's say everything that will happen in the future and our past is happening all in different dimensions. If somehow there is a loophole and we are able to go to another dimension when our grandparents are alive, we can kill them because we still belong in the dimension we came from. Also, I think your question is just badly worded... Maybe someone who is really good in english can find some error in his question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhoda Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 I quite like the idea of a paradox, particularly time travel ones as Struff said. I'm not going to go into them because this post while rival the Walmart recruitment drive manual in length by the time I'm finished going on about the Grandfather Paradox and the Unexpected Hanging Paradox. Actually, I'm lying, I will post one; the Horse Paradox. Suppose that we have a set of five horses. We wish to prove that they are all the same colour. Suppose that we had a proof that all sets of four horses were the same colour. If that were true, we could prove that all five horses are the same colour by removing a horse to leave a group of four horses. Do this in two ways, and we have two different groups of four horses. By our supposed existing proof, since these are groups of four, all horses in them must be the same color. For example, the first, second, third and fourth horses constitute a group of four, and thus must all be the same colour; and the second, third, fourth and fifth horses also constitute a group of four and thus must also all be the same colour. For this to occur, all five horses in the group of five must be the same colour. But how are we to get a proof that all sets of four horses are the same colour? We apply the same logic again. By the same process, a group of four horses could be broken down into groups of three, and then a group of three horses could be broken down into groups of two, and so on. Eventually we will reach a group size of one, and it is obvious that all horses in a group of one horse must be the same colour. By the same logic we can also increase the group size. A group of five horses can be increased to a group of six, and so on upwards, so that all finite sized groups of horses must be the same colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derventa Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 OoOo boy I love predestination paradoxes One of my favorite one's: A man is hunting when someone shoots him. Surviving, he resolves to go back in time to stop the sniper. Appearing at the place of the incident, he sees someone approaching, he shoots them, believing that they are the sniper. Later, he realises that the man he shot was a past version of himself, and so he was both the sniper and the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhoda Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 A man is hunting when someone shoots him. Surviving, he resolves to go back in time to stop the sniper. Appearing at the place of the incident, he sees someone approaching, he shoots them, believing that they are the sniper. Later, he realises that the man he shot was a past version of himself, and so he was both the sniper and the victim. So this would mean that this man would only survive if he had gone back in time? It seems that by this logic, he would have to go back in time to live on. What would be the consequences if the man decided not to go back in time, despite the fact he could only carry on living if he was to go back in time? Wow, there's a lot of "back in time"'s in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derventa Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 A man is hunting when someone shoots him. Surviving, he resolves to go back in time to stop the sniper. Appearing at the place of the incident, he sees someone approaching, he shoots them, believing that they are the sniper. Later, he realises that the man he shot was a past version of himself, and so he was both the sniper and the victim. So this would mean that this man would only survive if he had gone back in time? It seems that by this logic, he would have to go back in time to live on. What would be the consequences if the man decided not to go back in time, despite the fact he could only carry on living if he was to go back in time? Wow, there's a lot of "back in time"'s in there... He never actually is killed in the shooting, just hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhoda Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 No, I know, but in order for him to resolve the circle, he would have to go back in time. What if he never did? Furthermore, would the accident still occur if he didn't? Of course, if that was the case, he'd never have any reason to go back in time in the first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derventa Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 No, I know, but in order for him to resolve the circle, he would have to go back in time. What if he never did? Furthermore, would the accident still occur if he didn't? Of course, if that was the case, he'd never have any reason to go back in time in the first place... Ahhh I understand now...I guess that's a loop-hole within the actual paradox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OysterBarron Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Either a paradox, or a badly-worded question. My favourites are the ones about time travel. For example, if someone in the future builds a time machine and travels to the past for a specific purpose, and achieves that purpose, then there will be no need in the future for that time machine to be built, as there's nothing in the past to be changed. Hence, although the guy built a time machine, he actually never did. I gots to make that into a movie. lol I'm sure somebody here will come in and say "0 divided by 0!". ah yes but the person from the future who posted on these forums a year or 2 back said that when you time travel you can change things but when you return to your time nothing would have changed perhaps you need a time changer, and not a time machine for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 One of my favorite one's As soon as I saw your grocer's's''' apostrophe, I lost interest. Sorry. Get out of the fruit barn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManArmy Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Either a paradox, or a badly-worded question. My favourites are the ones about time travel. For example, if someone in the future builds a time machine and travels to the past for a specific purpose, and achieves that purpose, then there will be no need in the future for that time machine to be built, as there's nothing in the past to be changed. Hence, although the guy built a time machine, he actually never did. I gots to make that into a movie. lol I'm sure somebody here will come in and say "0 divided by 0!". ah yes but the person from the future who posted on these forums a year or 2 back said that when you time travel you can change things but when you return to your time nothing would have changed perhaps you need a time changer, and not a time machine for that! Well, that is only possible if there are multiple dimensions where everything is happening in the past, present and future is happening in different dimensions simultaenously. So, for example a man goes to the another dimension where 'past' is currently happening and he kills his grandparents. That dimension will be distorted and god knows what will happen. And... and... f*ck i'm so confused... i'll continue later when I think this through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gutslab Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Anyone here seen the movie Déjà Vu that came out two years ago? Towards the end, it got really interesting with what was happening, and there were some paradoxes that had to or didn't play out. It was really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seachmall Posted November 28, 2008 Author Share Posted November 28, 2008 Here is an interesting thread about a future-predicting computer on another forum. Its sort of like the 'going back in time' paradox you guys are talking about, So I have a theory... If you read the thread be sure to post back here so we can discuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derventa Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 One of my favorite one's As soon as I saw your grocer's's''' apostrophe, I lost interest. Sorry. Get out of the fruit barn. I truly apologize sunshine, for the inconvenience. I am not a native speaker of English. Now would you kindly hop off my testicles and go suck on a frozen pineapple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmachine Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 I have a book with a few paradoxes. Here's one of them. The sentence to the right is true. | The sentence to the left is false. If the left sentence is true, then the right sentence is true. But the right sentence states, that the left sentence is false, so, the right sentence can't be true. But if it is not true, then the left sentence must be true, because it can't be false. But if the left sentence is true, then th-- oh, f*ck it. There seems to be no way to 'solve' this. Also, my English isn't that good, so I feel, that I have jumbled up in the explanation. We will be the arms that lift you up We will be the hand that strike you down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManArmy Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 (edited) I have a book with a few paradoxes. Here's one of them.The sentence to the right is true. | The sentence to the left is false. If the left sentence is true, then the right sentence is true. But the right sentence states, that the left sentence is false, so, the right sentence can't be true. But if it is not true, then the left sentence must be true, because it can't be false. But if the left sentence is true, then th-- oh, f*ck it. There seems to be no way to 'solve' this. Also, my English isn't that good, so I feel, that I have jumbled up in the explanation. I don't think that is considered a paradox. Because false means it's wrong and true means it's correct. So by saying that the sentence to the right is true, the sentence to the right MUST be true (unless you're lying of course). And by stating the sentence to the left is false, you are just contradicting yourself or you don't understand how to use the words 'true' and 'false' correctly when their statements relate to each other. So I guess the whole thing is wrong... Bah, nevermind, i'm not in the mood for all these deep thoughts. Edited November 28, 2008 by 1ManArmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 This probably the first thing that I was told is a paradox, it tends to confuse me from time to time. Everything I say is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nlitement Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 I was thinking about this earlier and wasn't sure if it could be considered a paradox (i.e. a self-contradictory statement, or in this case: a question). Here is a question, A computer is a: - Man - Dog Clearly the answer is neither and that is in fact a trick question but what about this, A computer is a: - Man - Dog - Neither. This is a trick question. If the answer is 'Neither. This is a trick question' it is no longer a trick question because the answer is provided, this means though that none of the answers are correct and thus it is a trick question, which means 'Neither. This is a trick question' is correct and on and on... So, would you consider this a paradox? P.S. Feel free to add your own paradoxes. But that merely begs the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuff_luv_capo Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 If you videotape yourself masturbating when you are 5, then masturbate to that video when you are 25, does that make you a pedophile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statutory Ray Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 (edited) I think the main problem with your "question" is that it's a statement. God help every one of you that couldn't put their finger on why the "question" was "worded poorly." As for whether or not it's a paradox... If the answer is 'Neither. This is a trick question' it is no longer a trick question because the answer is provided, this means though that none of the answers are correct and thus it is a trick question, which means 'Neither. This is a trick question' is correct and on and on... So, would you consider this a paradox? You have both the definitions of paradox AND trick question confused. A trick question is worded in a way that is, for one, a question at all. This is achieved by putting forth a request of information, and ending said request with a question mark (?). An example of a question is, "What is a computer?" Furthermore, a trick question (also known as a logical fallacy) is a question that presupposes something that hasn't been proven or accepted by the person you are asking, not simply providing a list of wrong answers. For example, your question (when worded correctly) it very answerable. "What is a computer?" A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions. A trick question is something along the lines of, "Who is the King of France?" or "Are you still beating your wife?" In the first case, there is no answer, since there is no King of France. There is however, a place called France, which often leads people into attempting to answer the question despite there being no real answer, and the question itself being flawed logically. The second question assumes the person you're asking has a wife and has in the past beaten her. Whether the person answers yes or no, they have admitted to previously beating their wife. A paradox is "a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction." This one is easy. Since a computer is NOT a man or a dog, the answer is obviously "Neither." However, this answer is also loaded with the statement "This is a trick question." That makes it a paradox right?!?! Wrong. I've already established how the question is NOT a trick, and how it's not even a question (though that should have been apparent to anybody with a brain.) Since the answer is incorrect, and the "trick" status of the "question" never had the ability to switch one way or another, then no possibility of contradiction is present, and it is therefore not a paradox. So, it's not a trick question, or even a question, and it's definitely not a paradox. A more fitting phrase for your logic puzzle would be "5th grade mental gymnastics" and "misrepresentation of facts." Edited November 29, 2008 by Statutory Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now