Paradox #1: "It's opposite day."

I just love that one :)

I lie when I say "I'm a hypocrite".

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If God is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he himself cannot eat it?!

Dun dun duuun

Can cvatch 22 be considered a paradox if it can, Catch 22 is the greatest paradox.

I lie when I say "I'm a hypocrite".I don't get this. Perhaps you aren't a hypocrite, which would make your statement "I'm a hypocrite" a lie.

Exactly, so what don't u understand? Do u know what a hypocrite is?

I lie when I say "Im a hypocrite". What that means is, the statement "I'm a hypocrite" is false, but by saying im hypocrite without actually being one makes me a hypocrite, but how is this possible if im lying?

I think a hypocrite is someone who pretends to have moral virtue, but doesn't. Being a hypocrite doesn't mean that everything you say is a lie.

You could modify it to be "I lie when I say that I always lie" but that still leaves you with the same problem. Perhaps you don't always lie, but you lied when you made the statement 'I always lie.'

My personal favorite is: "This Statement is a Lie."
It goes along with the hypocrite statement, but is much much simpler.

X-Ide

Paradox arises when we reach limits of our undrstanding. It also demonstrates how limited language is when it comes to describing reality.


Like the empty sky it has no boundaries,
Yet it is right in this place, ever profound and clear.
When you seek to know it, you cannot see it.
You cannot take hold of it,
But you cannot lose it.
In not being able to get it, you get it.
When you are silent, it speaks;
When you speak, it is silent.
The great gate is wide open to bestow alms,
And no crowd is blocking the way.

Cheng Tao Ko

How about a set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets?

Nasor, I believe a hypocrite is someone who pretends they are something they're not. Now apply that to my paradox.

hypocrite

\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]

It ain't half hot...
Can't live with them, can't live without them...
MacDonald's Happy Meal...
War against Terror...

im not sure but wouldn't they be considered oxymoronic rather than paradoxes???

another oxymoron, military intelligence

a war against terror would be possible, if people were armed with food for the poor, instead of guns

chunky lover has seen too much simspons (too much simpsons is an oxymoron tho)

im not sure but wouldn't they be considered oxymoronic rather than paradoxes???


Hmm... hard to define... maybe they're oxymoronic paradoxes? :D

Ahh i love oxymorons, but yes that not really a paradox...Here's a good paradox though...

Where there is something there is nothing.

"I have a missing tooth."

How on earth can you HAVE sonmething that is missing?!

What happens if you go back in time to before you were born and kill your mother?

I AGREE THAT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES ABOVE WOULD BETTER QUALIFY AS OXYMORONS.........

Paradox

[Logic and mathematics] - an apparently contradictory conclusion that is derived from what seem to be valid premises.

Paradoxes have been known since the time of the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea in the 5th century bc. Many paradoxes, on inspection, prove to be based on false premises or arguments, or on incomplete presuppositions underlying the logical or mathematical systems involved. Other paradoxes, however, have been more difficult to resolve, and their study has contributed to the development of modern mathematics.

Semantic paradoxes depend on the structure of language.

EXAMPLES IN USE:
The poet Alexander Pope referred to the paradox of the human condition in his Essay on Man.

Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

FROM A MORE MODERN POEM:

PARADOX

Are life and death the same? I wonder.

Such a paradox confounds my mind;

uncertainties dare to taunt me,

boldly crossing opposing confines.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OXYMORON

Placing two ordinarily opposing terms adjacent to one another. A compressed paradox.

Related Figures
paradox
irony
synoeciosis
................pmt

What happens if you go back in time to before you were born and kill your mother?

I think we're talking about literary paradoxes on this thread, but anyway, here goes. If you went back in time and killed your mother; you wouldn't exist, so you couldn't have gone back in time to kill her and so she'd still be alive, which means, that you could have been born after all and therefore, even if you did go back in time and tried to kill her, you would fail in the attempt.

""I have a missing tooth."

How on earth can you HAVE sonmething that is missing?!"
quite easily, steal it from someone else, they're missing it, and you have it

Hmmm....Tablariddim, Socrates could not have handled that one any better. Now, can you explain the speed of darkness? PMT

I think we're talking about literary paradoxes on this thread, but anyway, here goes. If you went back in time and killed your mother; you wouldn't exist, so you couldn't have gone back in time to kill her and so she'd still be alive, which means, that you could have been born after all and therefore, even if you did go back in time and tried to kill her, you would fail in the attempt.

No that doesn't work :)

Its more general than just killing your mother. Anything u do in the past will effect the future so that there are 2 possible outcomes for everything u do. Actually some physicists believe that this happen. The many world theory says that every conceivable event actually happens but we are following only one of these paths :eek:

And I have to wonder upon what information such a theory is based. It is an interesting theory, but hangs in the air like cobwebs riding on the wind.

""I have a missing tooth."

How on earth can you HAVE sonmething that is missing?!"
quite easily, steal it from someone else, they're missing it, and you have it


Shoot, thanks! I haven't thought about that!
It just brightened my day. ;)

"can you explain the speed of darkness"
can you explain the speed of hope? or majesty?
none of these exist, darkness is a lack of something and therefore isnt anything

anytime rosa, btw, can i sell you some teeth :P

alian...........Can you explain the speed of darkness was a question I posed to Tablariddim. Apparently, he understood that it was an attempt at humor, like we know the speed of light, so what is the speed of darkness? Get it? :) pmt

yeah i know pmt, ive heard the joke alotta times b4. i just dont like one line posts, so i added that as well

That is okay alian. I have my computer set to flag me when a new msg. is posted to a thread on which I have made a comment, and when I saw that, I wanted to be sure that you knew I was not dead serious.

There is the famous math paradox of the fast Achilles and the slow turtle.
Even though Achilles is a fast chap, he never gets to take over the turtle; because when the turtle is in position b, Achilles is in position a, and when he gets into position b, the turtle is in c. Then they get infinitensimaly close, but Achilles never manages to be in z before the turtle.

What it the original misconstruction in this?

Also, is calling something a "misconstruction" also a misconstruction?

Has anyone read the Buddhist "Diamond Sutra"

I think this would top the paradox list when it comes to the nature of true knowledge.....

My interpretation is

To know is to loose what you know
To grasp something is to loose it
To hold a thought is to fail to think
Hmmm....somethng along those lines

let's go fight for peace.

heres something i have always believed is oxymoronis/paradoxic

'to teach philosophy'

Heres an oxymoron i thought of today:
Indirectly adjacent

Of course the very first paradox that ever came to be was the father or mother of all paradox's.

The scientists refer to it as the Big bang, the creationists refer to it as the creation of God.

"The great big paradox in the sky"

For reality to come from nothing, for nothing to become reality.

For God to create himself from nothing.....

Of course this defines the word paradox.....

So science and religion are both founded on a paradox.....hmmmmm....no wonder I am so confused....... :D

is it no wonder that "God" talks in riddles...after all is he not a paradox?

QQ: To put God in the same category with science is what? Also, what makes you think God created Himself, huh? You do not have to answer, but I had to give you a bad time. Stay cool. >>>> pmt

to answer you question PMT.....a paradox......a paradox...made me do it!!!

Oh hey, QQ, last evening I thought of a "word" sort of, that I hate to hear, so thought I would tell you guys, because I know you were waiting to hear from me. :)

I do not like it when people say extra-ordinary. Extrardinary is best with only five syllables. To me it is a contradiction to say extra ordinary, which I suppose would simply make it an oxymoron. Would this not be right. If it is extra, it is not ordinary; and if it is ordinary, there is not extra. That is like our saying, I am really full. If one if full, there is no more room, right?

Another thing is that college commercial, wherein the woman is so happy now to be educated and working "less hours." I suppose she uses fewer gas and goes less miles too. Who cares, I suppose, but I like it better when folks at least tried.

You can see I am too late up. Tee hee. goodnight

I think we're talking about literary paradoxes on this thread, but anyway, here goes. If you went back in time and killed your mother; you wouldn't exist, so you couldn't have gone back in time to kill her and so she'd still be alive, which means, that you could have been born after all and therefore, even if you did go back in time and tried to kill her, you would fail in the attempt.

Nicely Put.

Its more general than just killing your mother. Anything u do in the past will effect the future so that there are 2 possible outcomes for everything u do. Actually some physicists believe that this happen. The many world theory says that every conceivable event actually happens but we are following only one of these paths

Anything that has happened in the past will forever be that way. If someone were to go into the past and try to change the future its events would have already played out in the past. Basically he's only furfilling the gap in his present. Whatever changes he would make in the past has already been done therefore whatever impacts it has on the future is already existent even if the future hasn't come around for that particular person.

I do not like it when people say extra-ordinary

Lol maybe they mean they are so normal that even ordinary people find them boring. Who knows?

PMT "when I saw that, I wanted to be sure that you knew I was not dead serious."
alright, so where agreed that neither of us were serious

not sure if this is a paradox, but the word buzzword has actually turned into a buzzword

Anything that has happened in the past will forever be that way. If someone were to go into the past and try to change the future its events would have already played out in the past. Basically he's only furfilling the gap in his present. Whatever changes he would make in the past has already been done therefore whatever impacts it has on the future is already existent even if the future hasn't come around for that particular person.

Exactly, so what does this tell us? That u cannot interact with past events.

u can't interact but you can observe........

Actually if you did interact you would have to contain it to a set period of interaction I guess.....like 10 minutes 1000 years ago.....go in do your thing and leave whilst outcome is neutral....

The thing is like I said before, the outcome can never be neutral. What ever u do will affect something in the future so that they cannot be the exact same outcomes :eek:
Although this is what I believe, there are like I say, scientists who believe in the many worlds theory which means we CAN go back (in principle) and change the course of the universe and set it on a different path which is already laid out before :eek:

Exactly, so what does this tell us? That u cannot interact with past events

Yes you can interact with past events, only when you do you won't effect anything since you would just fit into the series of events that take place.

Elaborate.

Class A is a group of all classes that do not contain themselves.

If Class A is not a member of itself it has to be.
If Class A is a member of it self it cannot be. :eek:

I have an unbelievably hard time explaining this topic since its so hard to understand so I'm gonna try and set up a scenerio for you please try and follow along.

Characters:
Man A
Woman B
Killer C

Scenerio:
An unknown bullet is ricocheted off a wall and kills Woman B. The police investigate the scene and figure out in which direction the bullet came from, but Killer C is already gone. Man A is broken by this woman's death and decides to go back in time to change the events, once he is back in time he goes to the general area where the police pedicted Killer C made the shot. Man A suddenly sees a man in the corner of his eye, pulls out a gun and fires at that man. The bullet that is fired misses the man and ricochets off the wall inevitably killing Woman B. Man A is distraught and understands the woman died by his own gun and swears never to go back in time agian.

Summary:
Woman B is killed by Man A's bullet. Since Man A went back into time to stop the killer, he inevitably fits into the series of events becoming the man who killed Woman B. In other words Man A is Killer C.

"u can't interact but you can observe........"

to observe we need to interact, we give of heat, and take in heat and light and all sorts of stuff

coludnt man A keep going back in time until he didnt miss? or do you think he would be destined to miss?

I have an unbelievably hard time explaining this topic since its so hard to understand so I'm gonna try and set up a scenerio for you please try and follow along.

Characters:
Man A
Woman B
Killer C

Scenerio:
An unknown bullet is ricocheted off a wall and kills Woman B. The police investigate the scene and figure out in which direction the bullet came from, but Killer C is already gone. Man A is broken by this woman's death and decides to go back in time to change the events, once he is back in time he goes to the general area where the police pedicted Killer C made the shot. Man A suddenly sees a man in the corner of his eye, pulls out a gun and fires at that man. The bullet that is fired misses the man and ricochets off the wall inevitably killing Woman B. Man A is distraught and understands the woman died by his own gun and swears never to go back in time agian.

Summary:
Woman B is killed by Man A's bullet. Since Man A went back into time to stop the killer, he inevitably fits into the series of events becoming the man who killed Woman B. In other words Man A is Killer C.

So ur saying that Killer C was somebody else in one scenario and he was Man A in a different scenario? Can u see that they are two different world outcomes? This cannot happen.

So ur saying that Killer C was somebody else in one scenario and he was Man A in a different scenario? Can u see that they are two different world outcomes?

No, Killer C was Man A since this whole thing started. Maybe it will be better to understand this if you think of it as a loop. Forever going around in circles, Man A is driven to go back into time only to become Killer C who will, inevitably cause Man A to go back into trime only to become Killer C and so on and so on.

But history is still changed. In the first case, Man A did not kill the woman did he? He didn't even own a gun. Now how could this man have owned a gun, learnt how to shoot a gun AND shoot the woman in the second case without changing history???

But history is still changed. In the first case, Man A did not kill the woman did he? He didn't even own a gun. Now how could this man have owned a gun, learnt how to shoot a gun AND shoot the woman in the second case without changing history???

Ahh but history did not change. Although i never mentioned that Man A owned gun, learned how to shoot and actually took the shot, I never said he didn't. If you want to get that specific then yes, Man A did own a gun and he did know how to shoot. By going back into the past he fit into the role as Killer B and shot Woman C causing a continous never ending cycle.

I see what ur saying now. Basically u are saying when u go back in time to 'interact' with the past, the only thing u can do is follow events which are already set out for u! U have absolutely no choice in what to do and every footprint u have ever created will have to be tread on again right?

what about a real fake

Alain Is Right, Of Course; However, We Must Not Be Too Literal Here, Don't You Think? But, It Is A Good Point.

As For The Guns And Shootings, I Pass. :)

I see what ur saying now. Basically u are saying when u go back in time to 'interact' with the past, the only thing u can do is follow events which are already set out for u! U have absolutely no choice in what to do and every footprint u have ever created will have to be tread on again right?

Yeah, basically but its gets more complex than that as you start relating to these other people who tread on this path as you. and how this whole series of events wasn't cause by a preset path but rather the consequences of your own actions while going into the past even though you haven't gone into the past yet

so what your trying to say is that even if you go back in time, whatever you do will have no actual effect?

but surely an american solider/scientist could go back and pass on knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons to the Japanese before WWII, then when hiroshima and the others were nuked, the Japanese wouldnt simply quit the war, but would nuke America

this means that some people at least could change the past (its not as if the nuke will miss :P)

No the whole idea is that its absurd to think u can change the past. If u did then there would be many different future scenarios wouldn't there?! If u go back and change the past then u can't come back into the future because the future will be different now. Its paradoxical

well I guess that is what this thread is all about.....paradox

Not only is it a paradox, it is impossible (unlike a lot of other paradoxes)

John, just a little off topic here. When you sit on the sand at the beach and look back at your own and other peoples pasts what are you actually doing do you think?

Could it not be suggested that in some way you are travelling back in time to those past events and feelings?

When you think of the past are you in some way changing your past or are you just observing your past thus changing the present?
I do understand this is a very individual thing but as you know any change in the past changes the present.

Have you ever experienced that surreal feeling when thinking about a powerful event, either good or bad in the past. Is this feeling a sort of "present changing" feeling because your thoughts aabout the past are changing the present?

John, just a little off topic here. When you sit on the sand at the beach and look back at your own and other peoples pasts what are you actually doing do you think?

Could it not be suggested that in some way you are travelling back in time to those past events and feelings?

No. Back then they were not memories but actually happening.

When you think of the past are you in some way changing your past or are you just observing your past thus changing the present?

U cannot change the past without changing the future. The latter.

Have you ever experienced that surreal feeling when thinking about a powerful event, either good or bad in the past. Is this feeling a sort of "present changing" feeling because your thoughts aabout the past are changing the present?

Yes. U are drawing on emotions which u have felt in the past again. As u know we have immense power to change the present and future.

but surely an american solider/scientist could go back and pass on knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons to the Japanese before WWII, then when hiroshima and the others were nuked, the Japanese wouldnt simply quit the war, but would nuke America

Who says that they haven't already? For all we know a person from the future could have gone back into time to tell Einstein that E = MC2. Or maybe someone went back into time to give us information on how to create atomic bombs. What I'm trying to get across is is that the past is set forever. The past cannot be changed therefore the future will stay the same.

EX: Lets say the dinosaurs died, which we believe to be a cause from a large collision with an asteroid. Lets say it wasn't a collision with the asteroid but rather a man made weapon. Someone went into the past and setting off an atomic bomb which wiped out all living organisms on the surface of the earth (including dinosaurs). Now this person who went into the past may not be born for another millenium from this present, but the fact is, he's going to go back into time and wipe out all the dinosaurs at some point in his life, even though this person has yet to be born, his tampering with the past has effected the future. But lets say someone else goes into the past to try and stop this person from wiping out the dinosaurs. Its not going to happen, something is going to prevent this "Dinosaur-saver" from stoping this madman from setting off the atomic bomb, since, as we know, all the dinosaurs are extinct.

P.S - Isn't it possible that maybe we haven't gone back into time?

Are we forgetting that the universe does not know time as we do? What is the past exactly, and what is now specifically, and future means what ... to the universe. When the lightening strikes, and later the thunder roars, is this not a paradox of sorts. Does this not tell us something about time? Say what? pmt

POSTED BY JOHN: As u know we have immense power to change the present and future.

Surely you jest! We have no immense power within ourselves alone to change any thing. Just because we do something different does not necessarily assure that the bottom line will be so different. Come on, John, if you have immense power, tell us about it. :) .........pmt

vortox, no weapon we currently have could have killed the dinasaurs

a nuke being set of, would result in high levels of radio-activity whereever the nuke effected (centered aroud wherever the nuke was set off)

of course, its possible that someone from the future could have gone back and killed them, to allow his ancestors to evolve without dinasaur competition)

Who says that they haven't already? For all we know a person from the future could have gone back into time to tell Einstein that E = MC2. Or maybe someone went back into time to give us information on how to create atomic bombs. What I'm trying to get across is is that the past is set forever. The past cannot be changed therefore the future will stay the same.

EX: Lets say the dinosaurs died, which we believe to be a cause from a large collision with an asteroid. Lets say it wasn't a collision with the asteroid but rather a man made weapon. Someone went into the past and setting off an atomic bomb which wiped out all living organisms on the surface of the earth (including dinosaurs). Now this person who went into the past may not be born for another millenium from this present, but the fact is, he's going to go back into time and wipe out all the dinosaurs at some point in his life, even though this person has yet to be born, his tampering with the past has effected the future. But lets say someone else goes into the past to try and stop this person from wiping out the dinosaurs. Its not going to happen, something is going to prevent this "Dinosaur-saver" from stoping this madman from setting off the atomic bomb, since, as we know, all the dinosaurs are extinct.

P.S - Isn't it possible that maybe we haven't gone back into time?

U just said that the past is set forever and then u tell me u can go back and change it. I haven't got a clue what world ur living on but pray tell!!!

Are we forgetting that the universe does not know time as we do?

The universe doesn't 'know' anything! It cannot think.

What is the past exactly, and what is now specifically, and future means what ... to the universe.

huh???

When the lightening strikes, and later the thunder roars, is this not a paradox of sorts.

Absolutely not. One travels faster than the other

Does this not tell us something about time? Say what? pmt

I don't think so :confused:

"This statement is false."

If it's true, then it's false. But if it's false, then it's true.;)

POSTED BY JOHN: As u know we have immense power to change the present and future.

Surely you jest! We have no immense power within ourselves alone to change any thing. Just because we do something different does not necessarily assure that the bottom line will be so different. Come on, John, if you have immense power, tell us about it. :) .........pmt

What is the bottom line? Haven't got a clue about the terminology u use!!! Because we do something different is exactly why we have the power to change present and future. U also have the power and u have displayed it by changing the future by posting on this thread there and confusing the hell out of me :D

I got it!!!! Ha!!!

To go back in time is actually to go forward.......what?? you say!!!!!

Well according to relativity if you travel at significant velocity relative to a stationary frame time slows thus as you travel the present for the stationary frame is progressing faster than you are......so after a while you have travelled forward to the past.......of that stationary frame

Do I get a gold star or what :D :D :D

U just said that the past is set forever and then u tell me u can go back and change it. I haven't got a clue what world ur living on but pray tell!!!

Hence the paradox. If there was no way the past could be altered then how would Man A be Killer B and kill Woman C if Killer B could never go back into the past in the first place to kill the woman? By killing the woman inevitably changed the future which, according to this theory, cannot happen :D.

Instead there are really only 2 different possiblities:

1. By going back into the past to change a certain event, something which cannot be countered prevents your from changing that even which will happen anyways no matter what you do.

or

2. By going back into the past to change a certain event, you succeed and create an alternate universe to support the event that you've changed. But im not a fan of multiple universes.

Well according to relativity if you travel at significant velocity relative to a stationary frame time slows thus as you travel the present for the stationary frame is progressing faster than you are......so after a while you have travelled forward to the past.......of that stationary frame

Either that or that stationary frame will be going really fast.

A paradox, or contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.

If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

Hence the paradox. If there was no way the past could be altered then how would Man A be Killer B and kill Woman C if Killer B could never go back into the past in the first place to kill the woman? By killing the woman inevitably changed the future which, according to this theory, cannot happen :D.

Instead there are really only 2 different possiblities:

1. By going back into the past to change a certain event, something which cannot be countered prevents your from changing that even which will happen anyways no matter what you do.

or

2. By going back into the past to change a certain event, you succeed and create an alternate universe to support the event that you've changed. But im not a fan of multiple universes.

Im not arguing that it isn't a paradox. This whole thing started off because somebody tried to explain (in a wrong way IMO) how u couldn't go back in the past and change events. I tried to explain the real reason why u can't.
U have to remember Votorx that ur 1st possibility means that u cannot interact with the past because it is impossible to interact without changing the future.

I know I know, I just said that cause I saw the error in my theory. My theory contradicts itself, I can make a mistake right?

SENTENCE A:

sentence B is false

SENTENCE B:

sentence A is true

I lie when I say "I'm a hypocrite".


hey, would this be a paradox, 'the greatest scheme of all is schemeless'

No wonder nobody comes here. It's too crowded


Jamie

My candidate for greatest paradox: The assertion that two things exist in the same place, which seems to be the general principle of paradox.

BTW, I believe paradox is simply mental disorder. How beautufull are the enchanted minds of the insane. What nonsense sights they think they see! If we sorted the paradox out for them, how many would comprehend this? I still find them entertaining though.

None of these are paradoxes, philosophers just never figured out how to deal with them.