Paradoxes

[Anonymous No.2490389]

Post something that is counter intuitive. Does't have to be contradictory, just a casual mindfuck.


Quantum Zeno Effect

It's what some quantum non-sense cultists fap to: it's an effect observed in quantum mechanics systems, which claims that observation can effect the outcome of a system.

[Anonymous No.2490397]

You should switch the door.

[Anonymous No.2490417]

30-some odd percent of human DNA is from retro viruses

[Anonymous No.2490422]

Logic is relative

[OP No.2490489]

>>2490422
>>2490417

[OP No.2490495]

>>2490397

[Anonymous No.2490512]

Birthday paradox:
In any system of randomly distributed events, you only need to take sqrt(n) samples to achieve a 0.5 probability of collision.
This is commonly called the birthday paradox because this means that, if birthday density was a "random" distribution, you would only need to take 19-20 samples of people to achieve a 0.5 probability of two people having the same birthday.

[Anonymous No.2490524]

[Anonymous No.2490535]

Benford's Law -

If you have a set of real-world data, ANY set (heights of animals, sizes of lakes, masses of planets, income distributions), the chance the first digit is a 1 is roughly 30%, then descending through the digits until 9 which is about 4.6%. The reason for this is that real-world data is usually spread out on a log scale rather than a linear scale.

Think of it this way: if you pick a random number between 1 and 9, all the digits are equal. But if you pick a random number between 1 and 19, suddenly 1 becomes around 50%. 1 and 29 makes 1 and 2 both 33%, with the remaining 33% spread out among 3-9. Benford's law generalizes this to any random number on a log scale.

The IRS actually uses this to look to look for fraud

[Anonymous No.2490599]

>>2490535
Holy shit that is completely incorrect.

Benford's law only applies to data of a single order of magnitude, which is to say the same number of digits. My mind is completely fucked at your inability to skim wikipedia articles.

[Anonymous No.2490616]

Gravity.....


The mass of objects holds no sway on the speed at which they moves towards each other due to gravitational force.

Everyone knows that though.

[Anonymous No.2491174]

dont you die on me motherfucker

[Anonymous No.2491237]

Since you cannot experience a universe in which you don't exist, your consciousness will always exist in a universe in which you do not die. There are an infinite number of universes, therefore, you naturally exist within the one in which you will be the oldest living thing.

[Anonymous No.2491243]

OMG!!!!! I SEE IT!!!!! OVER 9000 GRASS!!

[Anonymous No.2491269]

philosoraptor likes this thread

[Anonymous No.2491270]

[Anonymous No.2491272]

my favorite

[Anonymous No.2491278]

Space-Filling Curves have infinite perimeter but finite area enclosed.

[Anonymous No.2491281]

If time had always existed, time would not exist at all.

If we could go infinitely back in time, then the gap between this moment and a moment infinitely back in time would be infinite - meaning we could have not reached this moment. Also, we could not have reached a moment before this, or a moment before that. In fact, we could reach no point in time at all. Therefore, if time had always existed, time would not exist at all.

[Anonymous No.2491282]

Approaching the speed of light, time slows down.

To a photon, time doesn't pass. It's everywhere at once.

This is why the speed of light is absolute: Wherever you go, wherever you measure light, photons are already there, asking "what took you so long?".

[Anonymous No.2491290]

This

[Anonymous No.2491294]

>>2491281

[Anonymous No.2491293]

>>2491281
Nope.

Hallway Paradox.

You are walking down a hall to a door. However, youu must first arrive at that point which is halfway between the starting point and the door. Then you must arrive at the point that is halfway between the first half way point and the door. Lather rinse repeat and you will never get to the door because you are always moving to halfway points between the last point and the door.

Same with time.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2491298]

>>2491293
Planck time, nigger. Time is not infinitely divisible.

[Anonymous No.2491300]

You don't have free will. But we live in a universe in which there are atoms that evolve into molecular survival machines, one species of which is humans who have brains large and efficient enough that they believe they are in control of their own destiny.

[Anonymous No.2491301]

Quantum objects can simultaneously pass through two holes.

[Anonymous No.2491303]

Infinity and continuity do not exist in reality, only as concepts in the human mind.

[Anonymous No.2491306]

The belief in free will is an illusion that arises from the fact that we cannot predict our own future actions.

[Anonymous No.2491307]

>>2491281
>>2491293

It's possible to troll through the ages as demonstrated by Zeno in this thread.

And OP is faggot.

[Anonymous No.2491319]

>>2491298

1) Providing that my smallest segment of time is equal to or greater than the Plank time, my explanation is still valid.

2) Plank time is the time needed for a photon to travel one Plank length in a vacuum. Not for time to exist, retard. Plank time is a theoretical bound to time measurability, not existence. Think of Heisenberg. We cannot measure something without changing it.

3) The post to which I was replying is quantifying the gaps between moments. Try correcting the REALLY wrong shit in the thread before nit-picking.

4) This is /sci/. Do we really need to call names?

[Anonymous No.2491320]

>>2491293
You're right in that he's wrong, but for the wrong reason.
That half-way point always takes half the time to get to as the previous point, so it's a converging series
<span class="math">\displaystyle\sum^\infty_{n=1}\frac{1}{2^n}=1[/spoiler]

The real reason he's 'wrong' is because his conclusions don't follow from his (baseless) assertions.

[Anonymous No.2491328]

>>2491298

Planck time is not a quantization of time, just a measure of time derived from physical constants. Learn to dimensional analysis.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2491329]

>>2491300
>You don't have free will

PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE THIS PLACE THE SEWER DRAIN OF THE INTERNETS.

Psychopathic people come here to spew thier bullshit in the hope that at least someone one on the internets agrees with them.

FUCK OFF.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2491331]

>>2491300
>You don't have free will

PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE THIS PLACE THE SEWER DRAIN OF THE INTERNETS.

Psychopathic people come here to spew thier bullshit in the hope that at least one person on the whole internets agrees with him.

FUCK OFF.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2491333]

>>2491300
>You don't have free will

PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE THIS PLACE THE SEWER DRAIN OF THE INTERNETS.

Psychopathic people come here to spew thier bullshit in the hope that at least one person on the whole internets agrees with him.

FUCK OFF.

[Anonymous No.2491334]

>>2491320
What's half of infinity?

[Anonymous No.2491335]

>>2491329
>>2491331
>correcting grammar errors to save face

Must be hard work maintaining a reputation on an anonymous image board.

[Anonymous No.2491339]

If there was a hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms, and they were all full, you could still get a room if everyone else moved into the room one higher than their own.

Of course no-one stays at the hotel anymore, because they are sick of being woken up at all hours by someone demanding they move a room up.

[Anonymous No.2491340]

>>2491334
>implying algebraic operations have meaning when applied to hyperreals

What's the square root of a ham?

[Anonymous No.2491341]

>>2491270
I must say the other two are better.

this only takes a tiny bit of logic to figure out

[Anonymous No.2491351]

>>2491320
>comparing a finite hallway with a definite middle point to infinite time
>implying <span class="math">\infty = 1[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2491353]

>>2491333

lol u mad

[Anonymous No.2491358]

>>2491290
but... some of those are true...

the most obvious is that 0.999 repeater DOES equal 1.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2491359]

>>2491281

The issue you mentioned is exactly what we have the word "infinity" for.

You could apply infinity to a different set of dimensions. like space and numbers.

Thus the essence of your paradox is not necessarily about "time", it`s about the absurdity of infinity, which is real existent.

[Anonymous No.2491363]

>>2491351
You probably meant to respond to >>2491293
considering that >>2491320 says the same thing as you.

>>2491358
That's the point, they're all true, but some people have a hard time believing them because they're counter-intuitive.

[Anonymous No.2491373]

>>2491363
really?

i must read up on those a little bit. some of those are indeed mindfucks.

[Anonymous No.2491382]

>>2490599
Skim wiki really quick
>It tends to be most accurate when values are distributed across multiple orders of magnitude.

O LAWD.

[Anonymous No.2491388]

>>2491373
Yeah, I've heard of all of them before except for the computer w/ 4 bins having infinite memory, I'll have to look into that.

But the other thing mentioned in the same box is talking about Busy Beavers (computing term).

Here's an explanation on the inverting a spherical shell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVfs4zKrgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7d13SgqUXg
(it only takes 20 minutes because they're being extremely pedantic, feel free to skip around if you're familiar with topology)

[Anonymous No.2491404]

>>2491388
thanks for the links.

i am more interested in this "ball being pulled apart and reassembled into two balls identical to the first".

might google it after i watch the vids.

[Anonymous No.2491467]

>>2490616

Help me on this one, since the gravity is calculated by multiplying masses of 2 objects and dividing that by distance squared, why is mass of object ignored in earth's gravity ? Is is because it is irrelevantly small, or ? If it is, it is fucktarded to say that it has no impact at all (because, however small, it still has some).

[Anonymous No.2491479]

>>2491467
The force it feels is proportional to its own mass, but it's acceleration is not.
F=ma
<span class="math">F_g=\displaystyle\frac{GM_Em}{r^2}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">a=\displaystyle\frac{GM_E}{r^2}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2491632]

>>2491479
I don't get it.
If mass doesn't affect acceleration. And acceleration is 9.8ms on Earth then it would be 9.8ms everywhere. Mass must affect acceleration.

[Anonymous No.2491658]

>observation can effect the outcome of a system

The only reason this is counter-intuitive is because it is not widely understood that there is no such thing as a non-interactive observation.

>>2491298
>Time is not infinitely divisible

This does not follow. Planck time refers to the limits on our ability to measure time, not on the nature of time itself.

[Anonymous No.2491666]

>>2491290

The ball cloning example actually requires infinite point sets, not finite.

Fucking around with infinity and division by zero is exactly how this sort of chicanery happens.

[Anonymous No.2491718]

>>2491351

>implying time isn't finite

also aristotle would like to have a word with you.

"Instants are not parts of time, for time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is made of points, as we have already proved. Hence it does not follow that a thing is not in motion in a given time, just because it is not in motion in any instant of that time."

In fact integral calculus is based on the fact that you can add up an infinite number of points to get a finite result.

[Anonymous No.2491729]

>>2491333

Oh, whats wrong? To pussy to accept the fact that you're the bitch of the atoms that form you?

Deal with it faggot, life aint so grand as you think

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2491897]

>>2491658
>The only reason this is counter-intuitive is because it is not widely understood that there is no such thing as a non-interactive observation.

It has been verified that observations had effected the state of a particle BEFORE the actual measuring/interactive observations did takes place.

So the conclusion that the state of particles are only effected because of the interactions is not an enclosed conclusion.
It requires the assumption of determinism, or a many worlds/many minds-like reality. Both of these interpretations are far-fetched and ridiculous assumptions.

Why not just accept the facts as we perceive them? Some things are mystery by definition.

[Anonymous No.2491912]

bump

[Anonymous No.2491920]

>>2491897

I'm sure that only mysteries are mysteries by definition. Otherwise we are no better than mystics and gullible peons.

[Anonymous No.2491922]

>>2491897

Does not follow.

>It has been verified that observations had effected the state of a particle BEFORE the actual measuring/interactive observations did takes place.

Citation needed, and if you refer to quantum eraser experiments as I suspect you do then you do not understand what's going on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

[Anonymous No.2491962]

>>2491479
then what is M?

[Anonymous No.2491988]

>>2491404
I believe that a ball the size of a pea can be reassembled to make a ball the size of the sun. Also from Tarski-Banach. BUT I also gather that Tarsk-Banach is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice, which is not intuitively unproblematic.

[Anonymous No.2491996]

>>2491962
The mass of the object, but that cancels out because it reappears in F=ma when calculating the acceleration of the object.

[Anonymous No.2491999]

>>2490389
Sometimes you mistype the captcha and the post still goes through.

[Anonymous No.2492015]

>>2491999
thats because only one of the words is used to check you, the other is used to check the next person. (not as simple as that but basically)

[Anonymous No.2492030]

>>2490389

/a/niki here, pretty fond of the sciences. Anyone willing to watch an anime should be The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, especially Endless Eight to be honest. Yes, every episode of that arc before you ask me.

[Anonymous No.2492040]

>>2492015
Next person?

[Anonymous No.2492097]

Deja vu is created from the repetition of certain points of our lives being repeated on a multi-dimensional plane in which some of the past memories are retained in the next cycle of this repetition. That in these different planes of existence, each of our separate selves do minor differences and changes in certain actions and those are sometimes "record" so that our next repetition can foresee the out-come of an action in a certain before even having that situation happen to them. So, technically we are living the past, present, and future, but on different planes and times of existence. That there is one, yet many of you at the same time.

[Anonymous No.2492102]

>>2492097

*in a certain situation

[Anonymous No.2492110]

>>2491988

>This allowed a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits.
>According to the results of the double slit experiment, if experimenters do something to learn which slit the photon goes through, they change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>"Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice
GedankenExperiment demonstrates
beyond any doubt that the behavior
of the photon in the interferometer
depends on the choice of the observable
which is measured, even when that
choice is made at a position and a time
such that it is separated from the entrance
of the photon"
>"We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon"
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174876.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241

ps. i really don`t care if you think me and these scientists are not skeptical enough. If you want to rely on solipsism, fine.
I only tried to point out here these claims like "it`s just because of the interactions" are easy said, but not so based statements.

[Anonymous No.2492119]

>>2491988

>This allowed a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits.
>According to the results of the double slit experiment, if experimenters do something to learn which slit the photon goes through, they change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>"Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon"
>"We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon"
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174876.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241

ps. i really don`t care if you think me and these scientists are not skeptical enough. If you want to rely on solipsism, fine.
I only tried to point out here these claims like "it`s just because of the interactions" are easy said, but not so based statements.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2492128]

>>2491922

>This allowed a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits.
>According to the results of the double slit experiment, if experimenters do something to learn which slit the photon goes through, they change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>"Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice
GedankenExperiment demonstrates
beyond any doubt that the behavior
of the photon in the interferometer
depends on the choice of the observable
which is measured, even when that
choice is made at a position and a time
such that it is separated from the entrance
of the photon"
>"We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon"
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174876.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241

ps. i really don`t care if you think me and these scientists are not skeptical enough. If you want to rely on solipsism, fine.
I only tried to point out here these claims like "it`s just because of the interactions" are easy said, but not so based statements.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2492141]

>>2491922

>This allowed a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits.
>According to the results of the double slit experiment, if experimenters do something to learn which slit the photon goes through, they change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>"Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that
choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon"
>"We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon"
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174876.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241

ps. i really don`t care if you think me and these scientists are not skeptical enough. If you want to rely on solipsism, fine.
I only tried to point out here these claims like "it`s just because of the interactions" are easy said, but not so based statements.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2492144]

>>2491922

>This allowed a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits.
>According to the results of the double slit experiment, if experimenters do something to learn which slit the photon goes through, they change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

>"Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon"
>"We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon"
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174876.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241

ps. i really don`t care if you think me and these scientists are not skeptical enough. If you want to rely on solipsism, fine.
I only tried to point out here these claims like "it`s just because of the interactions" are easy said, but not so based statements.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2492149]

>>2492144
srry for deleting my posts 5 times before i got it right i suck at greentexting and spelling.

[Anonymous No.2492160]

>>2492149

No worries, happens to the best of us.

[Anonymous No.2492161]

>>2492040
recapcha works by scanning books, it does not know what a word is until you type it in. Once you have typed it in it can be used for someone else (the next person), one of the words comes from a previously identified word, and you are used to identify the other.

[The Doctor No.2492173]

>>2491306

>The belief in free will is an illusion that arises from the fact that we cannot predict our own future actions.

But we can predict the future, which is the basis for our decisions. The resulting reciprocal interaction is infinitely complex, depending upon our actions, how can that be anything but free will?

[Anonymous No.2492236]

ITT; infinity, 0.9999... = 1, free will, wave-particle duality.

The only thing that is missing is tripfags discussing the existance of God.

Anyway stay classy /sci/.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2492282]

[Anonymous No.2492359]

>>2491479

Thanks for clearing this up for me, my highschool physics teacher was a real bitch.