Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>613277045 I think he's talking about the grandfather paradox If you go back in time to kill your grandfather you would have never been born thus you would never be able to travel back in time and kill your grandfather
>>613276861 Traveling to the future is not only possible buy very real. An atomic clock was placed on an airplane and scientists found that it was like a few nanoseconds slower than an equivalent one kept on earth. It's estimated that pilots will have gained a few seconds in their life compared to everyone else.
>>613276861 The clocks in the ISS have to update all the time to keep up with earth time. It's called gravitational time dilation. The clocks up there literally go slower because time speeds up as you approach objects with mass.
>>613279106 That is time travel. They are traveling faster through time than everybody else. If earth was really big, dense, and had a large gravitational pull, it would be extremely obvious. What more do you want?
protagoras is just a con-man. the case would be dismissed out of hand because protagoras is clearly not abiding by the terms of the agreement but then his student technically wins the case so the terms are fulfilled.
>>613276711 the statement "everything is possible" is a paradox, if you start with that assumption then, is it possible to find an impossibility? it must be, or else it is impossible to find one and therefore an impossibility
>>613279982 It has to do with relativity. The twin paradox says:
Suppose one of two twins decides to go on a relativistic ride through outer space. According to relativity, as he approached the speed of light, time would slow down for him, but not his brother. Therefore, when he returns, he should be younger than his brother. However, since there is no frame of reference outside the the earth and the ship, the problem could also be thought of as the earth moving away from the ship at relativistic speeds and the ship staying in the same position. This would mean the brother who stayed on earth would be younger. So the question is, who is younger?
Paradoxes are some of the most beautiful things in this world. Below I present the most common paradoxes as well as their more popular solutions. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
The Liar Paradox is probably the best, most prolifically examined example.
(1) Everything I say is a lie.
Is (1) true? Well, as Tarski so puts it: it depends on whether (1) is a metalinguistic truth predicate to language. If it is the case that we're speaking of language an order above the language order in which our "conversation" - so to speak - occured, then it is acceptable to speak in this manner.
Another paradox that's quite troublesome is that of Sorite's Paradox - or the paradox of a heap.
(1) X is a heap of sand. (2) If I remove 1 grain of sand at a time from X, when will it no longer be a heap?
There are numerous solutions to this, none more well-accepted than the next. One way to solve the problem is to distinguish between continuous relationships and discrete relationships.
This is the most common solution, and the solution provided by Aristotle around 300 BCE. The solution is similar to Zeno's arrow paradox.
Zeno's arrow paradox:
(1) Suppose I shoot an arrow, and that arrow travels from A to B. (2) Suppose every second the arrow travels half of the remaining distance. (3) There will always be an infinitesimally small distance between B and the arrow. (4) Thus, the arrow doesn't travel from A to B. (5) All motion is impossible.
Aristotle considers the paradox and realizes that we don't treat physical objects in such continuous patterns - and as such if anything in the physical world were considered in such a way, nothing would <i> happen </i>. But Aristotle's solution, as is the same for Sorite's paradox, is to suggest that an arrow, or a heap occupy a discrete space in time which can only be identified as such by some subject observing said space. The space is considered discretely, not as an object traveling over an infinite plane
And so, to determine whether a pile of sand is indeed a heap at point X in time would simply require one to observe the heap and label it as a heap or "not a heap". Similarly, we treat the arrow as occupying discrete moments in time, with lapses in the continuity of some theoretical n-dimensional hyperplane.
>>613276711 achilles and the tortoise is awesome, achilles is faster than tortoise >tortoise gets 10 meter head start >achilles runs 10 meters >tortoise has now gone 3 more meters in that time >achilles runs 3 meters >tortoise has gone 1 meter in that time >achillies runs... you fucking get it,
>>613281105 The solution to Zeno's paradox is rather simple: if one treats objects as discreet, the observer can conclude that the answer is imperceptible because the object will never disclose any information.
There is no such thing as paradox, only confusion.
No one ever told you to stick the global result back into the algorithm again. This need to "loop" comes from the "process of narration" that is to say, everything we understand is a narrative, and narratives are dynamic. It would be tiresome and impossible to have to explain all aspects of our narratives, so we use the literary concept of cause and effect, and from shared first principles, set the action of our narratives in motion, letting the reader fill in the blanks. This dynamic narrative works independent of the linear flow of time, allowing us to glean from conclusions the underlying rules of the cause and effect, as well. However, this timelessness creates a fallacy in our narratives when in the case of a paradox, we "loop" the results of the cause and effect back into the narrative again.
Everything I say is a lie I am lying therefore I am telling the truth the end. But you can't leave it alone, so you stuff the conclusion back into the narrative and say,"but wait! You are telling the truth, so it can't be that everything you say is a lie!" Then you continue to go full retard by then doubting the first premise, and plugging that back in and saying the second premise must be false, which confirms the first....There you are. Stuck because your dynamic narrative bent forced you to not stop the algorithm when you should have.
>Curry's paradox Naive set theory was discredited in the early 20th century - and oddly enough because of another paradox: Russell's Paradox. In any case, modern set theory doesn't allow Curry's paradox to exist: See Zermelo Frankel Set Theory
>Everything I say is a lie Therefore: >[You] are lying
I arrive at that conclusion based on the assumption that you are a reliable narrator, that the statement given is a fact, and that it means what it means. I.e., I'm assuming that your statement is a truth written in plain, interpretable English.
Where does the narrative begin? With the assumption that your statement is true, or the content that your statement is false?
>>613283571 I can with formal logic: 1. X = (X=>Y) - The sentence in question. We know Y is false: 2. X = (X => false) X can only imply false if X is false or the statement is false. For those who don't know formal logic, think of it like you are promised ice cream if you do good on a test. If you do good on the test, and get ice cream, the promise was true. If you do bad on the test, and get ice cream, the promise is still true since that case wasn't implied. If you do bad on the test and don't get ice cream, the promise was still true for the same reason. If you do good on the test, and you don't get ice cream, the promise is false. Use the last two conditions to arrive at this (V is or in formal logic): 3. X = (~X V false) Because of the way the OR operator works, the second part can only be true if ~X is true, so we can reduce the statement to: 4. X = ~X Which is a contradiction
>>613279470 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus This kind of thing just pisses me off. It's just so pointless... But it's so goddamn fascinating. I don't want to, but I begin to really get invested in this shit.
Autological is an adjective that describes a word iff it describes itself (for example, unhyphenated or pentasyllabic) Heterological is an adjective that describes a word iff it does not describe itself (for example, unwritten and monosyllabic)
>>613281685 >Anonymous 05/01/15(Fri)22:20:10 No.613279106▶>>613279306>>613279646 >>613281685 This paradox is bullshit. In reality the tortoise and Achilles travel the same distance, and the tortoise is always one turn ahead. So, Achiles is not faster, because if we keep going on and on for many more turns, their speed will almost become the same. And the first 10 m turn should take the same amount of time, as any further turns. So this entire paradox relies on perception of time as fragments with certain amount, any amount. But since we don't know what time really is, we cant possibly percieve what a portion of time really is, we have nothing bigger to compare it to.The same paradox would arise in the question - what is bigger than infinity?
>>613285742 In physics it is possible due to all events happening, and at the last second you get thrown into a certain reality, so you can kill your grandfather but it is another grandfather in another reality. As well as other forms of time-travel such as you'd only be able to go back in time as far back as when you first invented the time machine. and 3. there is one more way to create a wormhole in where you take a blackhole near a neutron star, to be able to cause some sort of collapse in order to either hold up the Einstein-Rosen bridge or create one, which is pretty much impossible right now to move things this big.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.