[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 365x138, images (6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4873045 No.4873045 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/ Paradox thread?

>> No.4873965

schrödinger's cat

>> No.4873966

The sentence below is false
The sentence above is true

>> No.4873967 [DELETED] 
File: 31 KB, 400x400, paradox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4873967

>> No.4873971

biological science

>> No.4873982

>>4873967
cheeky but not technically a paradox.

>> No.4873983 [DELETED] 

>>4873982
yeh i know, but its the closest i have :/

>> No.4873984

>>4873983
Oh wow, so you don't even know what a paradox is?

>> No.4873987 [DELETED] 

>>4873984
course i do.
>I know, but...

its kinda paradoxical.

>> No.4873993

>>4873966
Oh, I know this one. They have no truth value individally because neither of them actually states anything by itself.

And taken as a set, the set is false, because following the logic through, each statement becomes "this statement is true if it is false" which is always false.

>> No.4874005

>>4873993
It's really funny once you realize the answer that you didn't notice before. I can't help but wonder how many times I said to myself "but if it's true, then it's false" or "but if it's false then it's true" without realizing that those paraphrase statements are inherently false.

>> No.4874031

What causes causality?

>> No.4874034

In this ITT: Babby's first logic.

>> No.4874036

>>4874031

Causality is describing physical things, but its also an abstract idea. Its disconnected from reality.

No physical process is going to result in an abstract idea.

Nothing causes causality.

>> No.4874040

>>4874036
>No physical process is going to result in an abstract idea.

Do you even emergence?

>> No.4874055

>>4874040
isn't that a fancy way of saying "it's magic"

>> No.4874056

>>4874036
Come now, then what causes physical processes to carry out? It is a logical paradox to consider such thing as an ultimate cause, a cause for reality's existence, for an agent of causation is necessitated all the way down

>> No.4874057

>>4874034
Translation: In this in this thread

Go back to
>>>/reddit/

>> No.4874061
File: 7 KB, 180x128, dolan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4874061

>>4874057
Gooby pls

>> No.4874064

>>4874061
>Overused meme

Yeah, /reddit/

>> No.4874068
File: 30 KB, 403x403, le everything will be le okay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4874068

>>4874064
There's no need to be le rustled.

>> No.4874077

>>4874056

>Come now, then what causes physical processes to carry out?

Well... I dont know...?

We have been saying "causality" and I guess thats the answer I would tell you. But in general "causality" is pretty shallow answer.

>a cause for reality's existence

Isnt this an inconsistent statement?

Reality is everything. Everything that exists is a part of reality. Reality is the sum of everything that exists.

How can something precede that? Nothing is going to cause existence to exist.

>> No.4874082

Crusader kings 2 or EU3?

>> No.4874083

>>4874031
That's meaningless.
>"What causes eleven?"
It's a concept.

>> No.4874085 [DELETED] 

>>4874077
Exactly, our existence is paradoxical. We are in limbo.

>> No.4874087

>>4874077
Exactly. Our existence is paradoxical. We are in limbo.

>> No.4874095

>>4874087

Well how is it a paradox?

Existence isnt like a physical property. You know like, a thing exists or doesnt, but existence isnt a thing the same way a rock is a thing. I dont think abstract ideas need causality.

>> No.4874107

>>4874082
You know this the wrong board right?
CK2, by the way

>> No.4874151

<span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler]

>> No.4874161 [DELETED] 

>>4874151
I think you mean something like <span class="math">Y=\{X : X \notin Y\}[/spoiler], because otherwise it's just the same as <span class="math">\{X:\tee\}[/spoiler] (where <span class="math">\tee[/spoiler] is the logical truth.

>> No.4874163

>>4874151
I think you mean something like <span class="math">Y=\{X : X \notin Y\}[/spoiler], because otherwise it's just the same as <span class="math">\{X:T\}[/spoiler] (where <span class="math">T[/spoiler] is the logical truth.

>> No.4874177

>>4874163
He meant what he wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

>> No.4874193

>>4874163
Well, ask yourself the question does <span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler], where <span class="math">X \notin X = P(X)[/spoiler] contain itself? If it wouldn't contain itself then <span class="math">P(X) is true[\math], which is contradiction. But if it would contain itself then P(X) is false, which is contradiction. Therefore we cannot decide whether <span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler] contains itself.[/spoiler]

>> No.4874196

>>4874193
>>4874163
Well, ask yourself the question does <span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler], where <span class="math">X \notin X = P(X)[/spoiler], contain itself? If it wouldn't contain itself then <span class="math">P(X)[\math] is true, which is contradiction. But if it would contain itself then <span class="math">P(X)[\math] is false, which is contradiction. Therefore we cannot decide whether \{X : X \notin X\} contains itself.

corrected.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.4874203

>>4874163
Well, ask yourself the question does <span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler], where <span class="math">X \notin X = P(X)[/spoiler], contain itself? If it wouldn't contain itself then <span class="math">P(X)[/spoiler] is true, which is contradiction. But if it would contain itself then <span class="math">P(X)[/spoiler] is false, which is contradiction. Therefore we cannot decide whether <span class="math">\{X : X \notin X\}[/spoiler] contains itself.

Sorry used backslash instead of slash.

>> No.4874257

>>4874203
>Therefore we cannot decide whether X:XX contains itself
No. It's "Therefore the set given does not exist."

>> No.4874323

>>4874257
Which is direct consequence of not being able to tell it's elements. What's your point?

>> No.4875283

>>4874151
empty set, phi. not a paradox retard

>> No.4875358

>>4875283
It is not empty set.

>> No.4875373

Isn't this why we introduced classes, as opposed to just sets?

>> No.4875403

What is love?

>> No.4875478

>>4875283
It can't be ∅, because {∅} is a set that doesn't contain itself, so {∅} must be a member of Y (the aforementioned set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves).

>>4875373
Yes, it allows us to discuss objects that we couldn't otherwise. Category theory would be pretty pathetic otherwise - most categories one would like to discuss, such as the category of groups or of topological spaces, are not sets.

>> No.4875526

Gödel thread?

>> No.4875531

>>4875283
>not a paradox retard
Alternatively, most well known mathematical paradox. Yes, yes definitely that.

>> No.4876017

>>4875403
Baby don't hurt me

>> No.4876027

>>4873967

"If I asked you to have sex with me, w-would your answer to that question be the same as the answer to this one?"
"Yes."
"Well, would you have sex with me?"
"Hahahahahaha no."
"But...you just said..."
"I was lying, obviously. Piss off, nerd."

>> No.4876034

>>4874036
>>4874077
>>4874095
I'm starting to like this tripfag. Was he in the shitposters list?

>> No.4876047
File: 29 KB, 350x110, Banach-Tarski_paradox.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876047

Banach Tarski paradox: for any pair of balls partitioned in any number of subsets, there exists that many applications such that their images of each subset of the first ball is a subset of the second ball.

In other words, if you cut an orange into appropriate pieces and clump them together in an appropriate way, you may get a ball as big as the universe.

>> No.4876319

op here made this thread like a week ago didnt realise it was still alive you guys can probably go home now

>> No.4876321

>>4876319
Yesterday wasn't a week ago.

>> No.4876325

I was joking with my girlfriend as she threw her penny in a wishing well.

>I asked her what she wished for
>Of course, she didn't want to tell me because then, her wish would not come true.
>I threw a penny in the wishing well after
>I told her I wished for her wish to not come true.

lol, LOOPHOLE!

>> No.4876331

>>4876325
Fail.

No loophole anymore. You told us what you wished for, so it can't come real.

>> No.4876334
File: 31 KB, 320x316, feel or no feel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876334

>>4876325
I threw a penny in the wishing well, wishing to get a gf. ;_;

>> No.4876336

>>4876331

Yes, my wish was for her wish not to come true.

Forcing her wish to come true.

>> No.4876344

>>4876336
And you did it wrong. Can't you into logic? You should of wished for wish to come true and then tell her. This way your wish and transitively her wish couldn't come true.

>> No.4876381

>>4876344
No, he did it right, if he wished for her wish to not come true and his wish does not come true, then the double negatives cancel and her wish comes true.

If he wished that it does come true and his wish does not come true, then her wish also does not come true.

>> No.4876386

>>4876344
Oh wait, nevermind, you are just a typical dick and actually want her wish to not come true, whereas the other guy actually wanted his girlfriend's wish to come true.

>> No.4876389

>>4876381
1. As a proper anti-social asshole his intention should be to annoy her by making her wish impossible to come true.
2. Logically this is the only thing that can be achieved, given the implications of a wishing well. By telling the wish he can make it 100% sure that it won't happen, but by wishing without telling he only leaves a possibility of it coming true. Figure it out for yourself.

>> No.4876391

>>4873965
Ah I love this one.

>> No.4876401

>>4876389
No need for him to be an asshole, especially since he is just attempting to learn her wish and set up a paradox as per the thread (and your way doesn't even introduce a paradox it just introduces pure dickery) and he has successfully done that if he can convince her to tell him her wish.

>> No.4876402

>>4876389
contd.

3. Even if a wishing well resulted in 100% probability of the wish coming true (if not told), his action would be fucking retarded because it wouldn't add anything anymore.

Oh god, you guys seriously can't into logic.

>> No.4876407

>>4876401
His way doesn't introduce a paradox. It does literally nothing. All he did was wasting a penny.

>> No.4876413

>>4876407
Oh, so you didn't get it after all.

If she tells him her wish then her wish can not come true.
But he already told her his wish, so it can not come true either which means her wish must be able to come true.

That would put her wish in a position in which it both must come true and must not come true... a paradox.

l2logic first, then you can get on your high horse and tell other people to learn logic

>> No.4876419

>>4876413
he got you good

>> No.4876422

>>4876413
>That would put her wish in a position in which it both must come true and must not come true... a paradox.

Are you retarded? This doesn't follow at all.

>she makes a wish and doesn't tell
>ergo her wish can come true
>he makes a wish and does tell
>his wish can't come true
>his wish was her wish not to come true
>if his wish can't come true, that means hers still can come true
>he added NOTHING, especially not a paradox

Get your IQ tested. You might have a severe deficiency.

>> No.4876424

>>4876422
oh nevermind he got you good

>> No.4876428

>>4876422
You are the retarded one.

He told her his wish to get her to tell him her wish... that was the whole point of spending the penny, to try to give her confidence in her wish coming true, but to actually set up a paradox and learn her secret wish and if he had succeeded and she told, then there would be a paradox in place rather than just her getting her wish.

>> No.4876435

>>4876424
Trolling with logic can hardly be succesful. It's so easy to disprove and all it does is lowering his IQ. Thinking like a retard -- even if done for only a short period of time -- can have permanent negative effects on your brain.

>>4876428
lol, nice try. The lack of reading comprehension "troll".

>> No.4876450

A male barber only shaves men who do not shave themselves, does he shave himself?

>> No.4876456

>>4876435
>troll
says the guy who values being an antisocial asshole over collecting knowledge and information

>> No.4876458

>>4876450
Again no paradox. No, he doesn't shave himself. That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that he should shave himself, because only one implication was given: IF he shaves someone, THEN that guy didn't shave himself. The opposite direction cannot be assumed.

>> No.4876462

>>4876456
What does wasting money in a wishing well and wasting time with a "gf" have to do with collecting knowledge and information?
As if it wasn't retarded enough to believe in wishing wells at all.

>> No.4876469

>>4876462
He valued the knowledge of the contents of her wish higher than simply fucking her out of her wish for no apparent reason like you would do, you self-admitted antisocial asshole.

>> No.4876493

>>4876435
I read it fine, you just failed to read between the lines, but we can just chalk it up to your asperger's and your inability to understand anything that isn't 100% literal and explained in complete painful detail.

>> No.4876529

The guy should have wished to never learn her secret, and told her. THAT introduces a paradox.

Anyway, here's a better one, and it's math related!

If you were to choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance that you would choose the right answer?
> 25%
> 50%
> 75%
> 25%

>> No.4876535

>>4876529
Or rather, it introduces a Catch 22 for her - because if she doesn't tell him, then the wishing well is proven false and she doesn't get her wish. Yet if she proves the wishing well right, and tells him, then she still doesn't get her wish.

>> No.4876541

>>4876469
Except that this is unrelated to the thread topic of paradoxes.

>>4876493
This is a thread about logic. "Reading between the lines" (which in this case boils down to making up shit that wasn't contained in the post) can be done on /lit/ or /x/ or wherever people don't give a fuck about logic.

>> No.4876550 [DELETED] 

>>4876529
That's not a paradox. The answer is 0%, and that answer is not available.

>> No.4876559 [DELETED] 

>>4876541
Yes, I know being an antisocial asshole for the sake of being an antisocial asshole has nothing to do with paradoxes or this thread, that is what I have been saying this whole time.

>> No.4876566

>>4876541
Yes, I know being an antisocial asshole for the sake of being an antisocial asshole has nothing to do with paradoxes or this thread, that is what I have been saying this whole time.

However, that is the event that was the catalyst for the creation of this particular paradox and again sorry if your disease prevents you from filling in the additional information needed to solve this incomplete logic puzzle, but maybe next time you can stick to more pedestrian puzzles and riddles whose answers are contained entirely in the prose and no additional information is needed to be gleaned from common sense.

>> No.4877167

A man is loading a gun, he is next to a time portal that is looking directly at the same spot one minute back. (just assume it exists) He finishes loading and points the gun at the portal which is showing himself loading the gun 1 minute prior, he fires the gun. Who fired the shot?

>> No.4877177

>>4877167
Not a paradox as time portals do not exist.

>> No.4879161

>>4877177
Do any paradoxes exist?
Isn't that the point of a paradox something that is logically impossible?

>> No.4879165

>>4879161

No paradoxes actually exist, only logically.

Nature has no paradoxes, only our attempts at understanding her does.

>> No.4879170

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

>> No.4879179

>>4879165
That was my point, you can't say "its not a paradox because it doesn't exist" since paradoxes themselves do not exist, nonexistence would be a better indication that is was a paradox rather than not. (is this a paradox?)

>> No.4879214

Would infinity be a paradox?

It only exists because it doesn't exist. Infinity cannot exist, because there has to be a limit eventually, yet it does exist because we have not discovered that limit.

>> No.4879225

>>4879214
There is no limit to infinity, it is a limit... the ultimate limit, but it is not an actual number, it exists only as a limit and you are thinking about it all wrong.

>> No.4879235

>>4879225
Infinity is everything after a certain point. We can move that point by lets say adding more numbers into our numbering system. But, we can never define every number, because infinity will always be there. If we can continually add more, how is infinity a limit? If we can define more of infinity, how is it a limit?

>> No.4879242

>>4879214

Because it is an unbounded limit... the ultimate limit or limit of limits.

>> No.4879261

ITT: people acting like aspies calling people acting like aspies aspies, and vice versa.

>> No.4879344

>>4879261
Your post is literally the only post that term exists in and you used it three times in one line because you have a terrible vocabulary and can't properly express yourself.