Paradoxical nonsense ?

[FoxRarity 15]

You guys know any good paradoxes?

Im looking for some good ones to troll my friends with at work.

Im talking about super spooky brain breakers not the " the next statement is true, the first statement is false" type.

[SCS 7,445]

How about the Grandfather Paradox? Let's say that, in a hypothetical situation, someone went back in time and murdered their grandfather. Since they murdered him, they would not have been born. But, if they had not been born, they would not have gone back in time to murder him in the first place. If he had not been murdered, he would have been alive, yet they went back in time to murder him. 

 

So then, the question is: what exactly would have happened to them and their grandfather if something like that occurred?

[PercyThePony 15]

If a tree falls down in the forest does it make a sound?

 

This sentence is false.

 

If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?

 

If you were all powerful and you could do everything could you create a door you could not open?

 

If everyone is unique, wouldn't we all be unique, making us the same.

 

A stranger says to a person, never trust a stranger.

 

If you make a new years resolutions to not keep resolutions would you keep that resolution? 

 

 

[FoxRarity 15]

Good god what have i done.......id honestly class myself as pretty intelligent but i just tried to run through the mechanics of the grandfather paradox....

Mind = Broken

[Super Derpy 535]

How about the exception paradox.

 

"If there is an exception to every rule, then every rule must have at least one exception; the exception to this one being that it has no exception." "There's always an exception to the rule, except to the exception of the rule—which is, in of itself, an accepted exception of the rule." "In a world with no rules, there should be at least one rule - a rule against rules."

[Mr. Critical 433]

I love a good paradox. Especially the brain numbing ones. Here's my personal favorite. Does a set of full sets contain itself.

How about the Grandfather Paradox? Let's say that, in a hypothetical situation, someone went back in time and murdered their grandfather. Since they murdered him, they would not have been born. But, if they had not been born, they would not have gone back in time to murder him in the first place. If he had not been murdered, he would have been alive, yet they went back in time to murder him. 

 

So then, the question is: what exactly would have happened to them and their grandfather if something like that occurred?

There life would be put into a loop of unending torcher to relive going in and out of existance in words that would describe as an unknowable hell focused into one persons life... or he could get lucky and it wasn't really his grandfather. You just never know.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,064]

The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence: ("Can God create a stone so heavy that not even God is strong enough to lift it?"). The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution ("it destroys it"). Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities, since an irresistible force is implicitly an immovable object, and vice versa.

The paradox arises because it rests on two premises—that there exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects—which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa.

 

Here we are.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Gamer P0N3

[Fluttermena 1,223]

The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition.

 

Think about it: one possibility would be to keep balance between competitors by preventing anyone from being stronger than the others, thereby creating an environnement where competition has no reason to exist and life is just an insane and irrational cycle of fighting where everyone would be better just cooperating instead. The other possibility would be to let competition go unchecked, which would result in the stronger competitor having complete control and no rivals, thereby ending competition.

 

Nature has an astonishing capacity to create pointless, ruthless and insane ways of functioning. Staring at Cthulhu's butthole would probably be less damaging to my sanity than trying to wrap my mind around the human condition. There are more efficient and ethical ways to live than that, but we can't make them work because we can't seem to stop acting like dicks for five minutes.

[Scootalove 10,684]

The paradox where if you alter anything in the past, it will alter the present but if you have a time machine to revert the time back to it's original state then it won't alter the past, present, or future. This paradox shows how in time, we try to look back on the past to see what life was like but we aren't able to see it unless we go back in time. It's similar to the Butterfly Effect.

[Dsanders 5,742]

My kind of thread!

 

I got some for you!(:

 

Drinkers Paradox: There is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, everyone in the pub is drinking.

 

Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it can't be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ' that person ' drinks ' everybody ' drinks, everybody includes that person.

 

Crocodile Dilemma: If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess exactly what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father correctly guesses that the child will not be returned?

 

Paradox of the Court: A law student agrees to pay his teacher after winning his first case. The teacher then sues the student (who has not yet won a case) for payment.

 

Barber Paradox: A barber (who is a man) shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?

 

Opposite Day: "It is opposite day today." Therefore it is not opposite day, but if you say it is a normal day it would be considered a normal day(Take that all you foolish children!!)

 

Moderation Paradox: "Moderation in all things, including moderation"

 

Interesting Number Paradox: The first number that can be considered "dull" rather than "interesting" becomes interesting because of that fact.

 

Archer's Paradox: An archer must, in order to hit his target, not aim directly at it, but slightly to the side.

 

Those are all my favorite ones! 

[Sparkle Pie 6]

 

The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence: ("Can God create a stone so heavy that not even God is strong enough to lift it?"). The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution ("it destroys it"). Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities, since an irresistible force is implicitly an immovable object, and vice versa.

The paradox arises because it rests on two premises—that there exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects—which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa.

 

Here we are.

 

the unstoppable, indestructible force will keep moving since it's unstoppable, and the immovable, indestructible object will not move since it's immovable. So, they just phase through each other, that is the only logical option, isn't it?

[Nerdy Luigi 2,064]

the unstoppable, indestructible force will keep moving since it's unstoppable, and the immovable, indestructible object will not move since it's immovable. So, they just phase through each other, that is the only logical option, isn't it?

No. They will just ram into each other and stay stuck there. Because an immovable object would logically be impenetrable, correct?

[Sparkle Pie 6]

No. They will just ram into each other and stay stuck there. Because an immovable object would logically be impenetrable, correct?I

I don't know about that. I guess i don't understand physics well enough to know for sure what would logicaly happen, but I thought that being penetrated (yeah, great word choice..) does not involve moving.

[Shawn Parks 1,798]

Pinocchio says:  "My nose will now grow."  What happens?

 

That is the only one that I can think of that has not already been mentioned.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,064]

I don't know about that. I guess i don't understand physics well enough to know for sure what would logicaly happen, but I thought that being penetrated (yeah, great word choice..) does not involve moving.

An object must MOVE before (what about this?) piercing through another object. You can't just drop an FMJ bullet and expect it to kill people, because it's piercing abilities are activated (maybe not the best word choice) by the bullets speed in flight. Logic pretty much states, actually, that this cannot happen because an unstoppable force cannot be stopped and an immovable object cannot be moved, or done anything with any amount of force meaning neither could exist together.

[Oh Akatosh why 43]

An object must MOVE before (what about this?) piercing through another object. You can't just drop an FMJ bullet and expect it to kill people, because it's piercing abilities are activated (maybe not the best word choice) by the bullets speed in flight. Logic pretty much states, actually, that this cannot happen because an unstoppable force cannot be stopped and an immovable object cannot be moved, or done anything with any amount of force meaning neither could exist together.

This should sort it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA

 

As for my own paradox:

 

Can god microwave a microwaveable burrito so hot that he can't eat it?

 

(And yes, that quote is from the simpsons)

[Harmonic Revelations 8,833]

 

The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence: ("Can God create a stone so heavy that not even God is strong enough to lift it?"). The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution ("it destroys it"). Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities, since an irresistible force is implicitly an immovable object, and vice versa.

The paradox arises because it rests on two premises—that there exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects—which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa.

 

Here we are.

 

That's actually not a paradox. On a level of physics, at least, an unstoppable force and an unmovable object are practically the same. The unstoppable force would go straight through the unmovable object, as if it wasn't there, and without damaging it, slipping between it's atoms on a molecular level, as liquids are observed to do at temperatures close to absolute zero.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Harmonic Revelations

[Dsanders 5,742]

Here's some more paradoxes I thought I share.

 

Zeno's Paradox: You will never reach point B from point A as you must always get half-way there, and half of the half, and half of that half, and so on.

 

Abilene Paradox: People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really wants to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.(Basically means epic fail)

 

Paradox of Hedonism: When one pursues happiness itself, one is miserable; but, when one pursues something else, one achieves happiness.(Take that Thomas Jefferson! lol)

 

Paradox of Bronies Tolerance: Should one tolerate intolerance if intolerance would destroy the possibility of tolerance?

 

 

 

 

Heat Death Paradox: Since the universe is not infinitely old, it cannot be infinite in extent.

 

Hardy's Paradox: How can we make inferences about past events that we haven't observed while at the same time acknowledge that the act of observing it affects the reality we are inferring to?

 

Banach–Tarski paradox: Cut a ball into a finite number of pieces, re-assemble the pieces to get two balls, both of equal size to the first. 

 

Why? Because,

 

[Zok 27]

Good god what have i done.......id honestly class myself as pretty intelligent but i just tried to run through the mechanics of the grandfather paradox....

 

Mind = Broken

 

trololololo

 

This is the part where alternate universes are really handy to use. No more brain hurt! Just say, "That would just create an alternate universe."