[ 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: 173 KB, 640x960, howheholds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712456 No.5712456 [Reply] [Original]

guys recommend me some paradoxes, riddles, logic, mindblowings, cognitive science I mean something like:
books, terms whatever I just wanna know more
no win situatuon catch 22

de morgan
modus tollens
Vicious_circle

Economic equilibrium
Van der Waals equation
Darcy friction factor formulae
Circular_reasoning


Cornelian dilemma
Double bind
False dilemmaF
Splitting (psychology)
Hobson's choice
Lesser of two evils principle
Morton's fork
Social trap
Zero–sum game
Winner's curse
Buyer's remorse
Cognitive dissonance
Opportunity cost

Fiat money
Purchasing power
Simple living Voluntary_simplicity
Happiness_economics
Impulse purchase
Cognitive science
Will Rogers phenomenon

>> No.5712466
File: 2.07 MB, 4967x3508, 1365544898833.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712466

curiosity bump

>> No.5712516

The omnipotence paradox: "Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?"

The omnipotent being was able to resolve it, let's see if you can figure it out!

>> No.5712548

>>5712456
try modus ponens. if that doesn't blow your mind, nothing will!

>> No.5712631

>>5712516
he could of course not create a rock that he can't lift, he is omnipotent, he can lift everything

the thing is with things you can, sometimes you don't know whether you can or you can't, he may think himself he can't, because he thinks he is omnipotent and thus can contradict this rule and thus will think he can't lift it and may not try to the "fullest", but he may think himself that he can lift it, and thus will be able to lift, because he is omnipotent

he is also object to the same paradox, so the solution he thinks is right, will be right (because he is omnipotent)

>> No.5712674

>>5712631
A: Not giving definition to thinking
B: Interpreting being=thinking and thinking=/=being
C: The answer is Gravity, the question is an arrogance trap

>> No.5712677

This one's stupid and I don't think i'm the first to think of it but

Something cannot be better than something, because if it is, then the something is better at being worse than the other something.

Requesting a reword if anyone can.

>> No.5712679
File: 31 KB, 300x451, 1366338266907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712679

One of mine OP,

'Conscious' is beyond our reason, it is a matter of saying you or I are apart of all things and are thus subject to them- at which point one would except that and cease being 'conscious'

What is Awareness

>> No.5712686
File: 7 KB, 300x168, 96969987r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712686

>>5712677
If something has more of something, than the thing that has less has more less

It's essentially saying that if the only thing making them different is difference, then difference exists and is an arbitrary axiom in terms of which direction it's quantifying in as if its not quantifying to any particular objective, the the two things might as well be equal and difference not exist.

Pidgin holling itself into existance as it were

>> No.5712688

>>5712677
better and worse are 1 dimensional as numbers are, ( -3 < 3 ) -> A thus ( -(-3) > -(3) ) -> not A

>> No.5712694

>>5712686
>...objective, then* the two things...

>> No.5712704

>>5712688
Yeah but that's quantifying a double negative without simplifying, and then there's a difference which isnt being outlined by the equal

>> No.5712707

>>5712704
transform*

>> No.5712713

>>5712456
OP did you even watch the new Startreck? The father of C.Kirk is undeniable in his reasonings

>> No.5712738

>>5712456

you could read and think about the holographic principle as the fundamental character of our universe.

>> No.5712800

>>5712674
Why is the answer “gravity”? And what do you mean by “arrogance trap”?

>>5712631
I think you’ve got it. He only needs to forget how to lift the rock. He won’t be able to do it but will still remain omnipotent and figure it out eventually. So a trickier question would be:
"Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it *forever*?"

>> No.5712856

>>5712516
An omnipotent being wouldn't need to be logically consistent

>> No.5712860

>>5712686
You can't have 'more less', 'less' is a concept, is unquantifiable and can't have varying degrees of existence (e.g. you can't have 2 'less'es)

>> No.5712869

Knock psychological splitting off your list. It isn't all that interesting. That's all I have to contribute.

>> No.5712887
File: 16 KB, 299x274, whoa2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712887

>>5712548
mfw generalization

>> No.5712893

The omnipotent being would create the unliftable rock, he truly could not lift it, and then once it was created simply lift it.

An illogical question must have an illogical solution.

>> No.5712909
File: 46 KB, 400x616, illuminatus3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5712909

>>5712800
>Gravity
It only quantifies relatively
>Darkmatter
Also, space & shiz

>Arrogance trap
The question itself is subjecting itself to the users parameters of recognizing it, the answerer must recognize this- as to say find themself lacking- and display the question to what they are not quantifying as, as to avoid the trap.

>>5712860
It's not a matter of having 'more less' it's a matter of it has more of a diference to what it's relative is, but the point being are you basing your correct answer around EG: A soccer score (having more) or a golf score (Having [more] less)

That being said, you're thinking like a physicist, less is the most extreme of subjective, under those parameters it's a matter of saying what is said in the second section of the post- correction included..

>>5712856
But muh duality

>> No.5713138

bump

>> No.5713190

zeno's paradoxes

motion is an illusion

>> No.5713221

>>5712516
The omnipotent would not want to lift it.

>> No.5713225

>>5713221
Because if he did he would not have made it so heavy.

>> No.5713228
File: 145 KB, 587x480, omnipotent.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5713228

>>5712516

>> No.5713240

>>5713228
If God can become a man....
Then why can't Creator make an unliftable rock and then creator in some avatar form fail to lift it?

>> No.5713255

>>5712516
He can't lift it when he doesn't want to be able to and can when he wants to. Simple.

>> No.5713259

Van der Waals equation

and graphene.

>> No.5713282

>>5713221
>>5713225
Why the fuck do people cling helplessly to their inept BS? It's a puzzle, puzzles are meant to be solved, existance doesnt work on puzzles, it's blatant as anything at all
> >>5712909
>ffs

>> No.5713290

Well, this was a stupid thread.

>> No.5713303

>>5713282
what are you rambling about?

>> No.5713642

>>5713240
that's also a nice solution

captcha:
ndayizi addition

>> No.5713648

>>5712548
>modus ponens
>not modus tollens

>> No.5714865
File: 11 KB, 200x160, 1360539576458.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5714865

>>5713303
Muh arrogance in the fact that science actually gives answers instead of just dicking around with people who dont understand what their being beaten over their head with

>> No.5714878

>>5713648
not disjunctive syllogism

>> No.5715833

>>5712456
The Dictionary^A Thesaurus +/- Google Translate

Eons of Fun