And then the universe exploded.

[Nukarama]

Everything I say is false.

LIAR!

I never tell the truth.

There you go lying again.

Stop Picking on me! *crys*

 

[TimeLord]

[HEADING=1]TIME PARADOXES!![/HEADING]

Time Loops too

*Opens time window with a kettle and some string*

Hello, I'm you from the future. Is this what you/we wished for?[/quote]

Beware of page 4!

*disappears*

 

[The Arc of Eden]

0^0 = 1

Wait. What have I done?

Bow before the all knowing... I think that's how god died.

[http://thetural.com/360]

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I multiplied by 0!


Alternate history is cool too. I like thinking about what would have happened if someone had shot Hitler during WWI. Would communism have filled the role of Facism in WWII? Stalin the new Hitler?

I also like pondering what would happen if I went waaaayy back in time and bombed the Big Bang. Would the two bangs cancel out? Or would it become the "Unbelievably Huge Explosion That Only Made Dust Bang"?

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

How about when two falcon punches collide? Here is a simulated FPC (Falcon Punch Collision). Be warned, this is not for the faint of heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbJbfeFq9M

I just realized that this is the nerdiest post I have ever made.

 

[lacktheknack]

My favorite logic bomb is the concept of division by zero.

Take Calculus. It relies largely on dividing stuff by zero without dividing by zero.

I just took it in summer school. You see, we divided by zero but DIDN'T ACTUALLY dived by zero. My idea takes effect if you divide it directly.

My favorite paradox is Zeno's Paradox. To get to the bus, you have to get 1/2 of the way there, but to do that, you have to get 1/4 of the way there, but first 1/8, 1/16, 1/32.... This means you have to do an infinite amount of things to get to the bus stop, so you will never get there, but simple logic tells us that you will, thus causing the paradox.

That makes me wonder now. Can I deny the seemingly infinite regression of divisions? Would it be valid to say that I believe that it stops at a certain point, and the paradox is begging the question by assuming infinite regression?

Again, I've taken calculus, and eventually the regression will regress so far that it ceases to matter (Traveling a trillionth of a quark? Really?) and thus it finally totals out to one. Basically, we overcome the paradox by taking it so far that it ceases to matter, even on an atomic scale.

 

[crudus]

Catch-22 logic is always fun. It is also the most common around us.

I like, if god is omnipotent can he create an object so heavy even he can't lift it?
If he can't then he can't to everything.
If he can, then its something he can't do.

I always wondered something like this myself, and I came to this conclusion: He can create something that He can't lift, and then He would lift it anyway, BECAUSE HE'S GOD.

Lozfoe is on the right track as far as answering this question. The answer is actually the fact that this is an unintelligible question. It is basically asking "is God more powerful than God"? To put it in a way that is closer to the original: is there something God can do that he can't do? See how those don't make sense or are highly contradictory?

The unstoppable force would bounce of the unmovable object. Alot like INTERGALATIC PINBALL!

Good answer, but wrong. For something to change direction like that its velocity must be zero at some point. It has to stop in other words. Much more likely they go through one another.

 

[Angus565]

Be careful because this could very well mean the end of the world as we know it...

Spoiler: Parodox!

Behold!

 

[Plazmatic]

If you went back in time and killed your parents before you were born, you would obviously never be born, so how would you go back in time and kill your parents?

It depends on how you look at time. Going back in time and killing your parents, I believe, would result in them dying and you instantly disappearing. The timeline travels with you, thus anything you do will in fact be changed regardless of your future self.

Although I have absolutely no proof of the matter. Let me know if you figure it all out.

If you went back in time and killed your parents before you were born, you would obviously never be born, so how would you go back in time and kill your parents?

Hello FargoDog,

I am very sad to inform you that not one single scientist thinks this is possible.
No, not because its impossible to travel through time, but because if you did travel through time to kill your parents, you couldn't kill your parents, you cant change the past even if you could travel there, you can change the future though, as long as you havent seen it.

If you wanted to go in the past and lets say, oh, become the first president of the United States, you could, only George washington would still be George washington known as him some how, but still you. The past wouldn't change.


If you want a good example of this, play timesplitters, it demonstrates this theory perfectly.

I disagree- see my explanation posted elsewhere in this thread. Prevention of action would violate logical causality as much as a paradox- it seems that divergence of universes would have more continuity, allow freedom of action, and not change the original timeline. I could be wrong but it seems more logical.

... logic would have that there would be no paradox...

second, you just spat in the face of about every physicist on the planet.

 

[halfeclipse]

Faster than light travel, if you could then you would arrive at a destination before you set off, basically time travel, what if you used faster than light travel to move a meter to the left, would you see yourself moving to your current position after you did it, and would this mean there was more mass in the universe than previously, and if so then there would be more energy, and therefore you would have created energy, which is impossible, arghghghghgh my brain hurts

moving faster then the speed of light would no more cause the creation of energy then moving faster then the speed of sound. You also can't arrive somewhere before you leave your starting point. You can arrive at your end point before you "arrive" there but thats because you outpaced your image rather then being in two places at once. FTL travel (or any speed of travel causes you to move forward in time at a greater rate then other objects moving at a slower velocity. Traveling backwards in time is impossible, however traveling forward is very easy to do. We're doing it right now after all.

 

[Zeromaeus]

I just read Artemis Fowl: Time Paradox. This is oddly coincidental. It followed the belief that any change you make after traveling to the past has already happened in your time and time only actually changes if you don't attempt to change it. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Personally, I believe that if one were to travel back in time, they would be unable to return to affect or return to their future, but an alternate future of your creation.

 

[Zeromaeus]

Doubled.

 

[Ross Emmingham]

Basically an un-ending stream of endings.

That in itself is a paradox

 

[Lavi]

Good evening Escapists. I was wondering what some of your favorite paradoxes, or ones that make you ponder for hours are. Mine would have to be the age old question of: What happens when the unstoppable force hits the unmoveable object? If anyone has answers post them, just be careful if you decide to test your theory because I'd rather the universe stay around for awhile.

Easy, the unstoppable force will continually move into the unmoveable object without moving it. Therefore, it always moves, but never moves the unmoveable!

 

[Kurokami]

the paradoxataur. It only exists if you believe that it doesn't exist. Even by merely mentioning it's name you acknowledge it's existence.

You son-of-a-*****, you killed it for me!

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

the paradoxataur. It only exists if you believe that it doesn't exist. Even by merely mentioning it's name you acknowledge it's existence.

You son-of-a-*****, you killed it for me!

BWAH HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

 

[Queen Michael]

I like, if god is omnipotent can he create an object so heavy even he can't lift it?
If he can't then he can't to everything.
If he can, then its something he can't do.

Look, this doesn't work logically for several reasons.
1. You haven't given any actual descriptions of what he's supposed to create. You have to describe the weight and shape of the rock. "So heavy even he can't lift it" is not an actual weight. By definition, any rock has a certain weight and God has the strength to lift that weight.

2. The entire point of infinite strength is that you can lift anything, and weight doesn't matter. It's not a question of things not being heavy enough. "So heavy that even Arnold Schwarzenegger can lift it" is a sentence that makes sense. "500 pounds heavy" makes sense too. "Infinitely heavy" doesn't make sense, since at any point a rock has a certain weight.

3. Not managing to complete a task isn't an accomplishment, other than from a grammatical point of view. Being unable to create a task you can't complete isn't a failure, it just means you can perform any task you set out to perform. "Failing at lifting a rock" isn't a proper challenge.

4. "God is almighty" doesn't mean that he can complete every grammatical challenge you can name; it only means he can complete every challenge you can describe in detail as a physical trial and not just as wordplay. It certainly doesn't mean that any sentence beginning with "God can't" proves he's not almighty. For instance, "God can't lose in battle" doesn't mean that he's not almighty due to it being something he can't do.

5. "if god is omnipotent, can he create an object so heavy even he can't lift it?" The answer is "No, because an object so heavy even he can't lift it is a nonsensical sentence."

What happens when the unstoppable force hits the unmoveable object?

That doesn't make sense. First you're saying that it's an unstoppable force that cannot be stopped by anything[footnote]pardon the tautology,[/footnote], but then you say that the object is umoveable, which means that it can stop any object, even though you just said that the force you mentioned can't be stopped by anything. Except now you say it can. That's not a paradox, that's just changing your mind mid-sentence. Like saying "Joe has eaten three donuts. But Joe has never in his life eaten any donuts!" That's not a paradox, it's just contradicting yourself.

 

[martin's a madman]

I like, if god is omnipotent can he create an object so heavy even he can't lift it?
If he can't then he can't to everything.
If he can, then its something he can't do.

Look, this doesn't work logically for several reasons.
1. You haven't given any actual descriptions of what he's supposed to create. You have to describe the weight and shape of the rock. "So heavy even he can't lift it" is not an actual weight. By definition, any rock has a certain weight and God has the strength to lift that weight.

2. The entire point of infinite strength is that you can lift anything, and weight doesn't matter. It's not a question of things not being heavy enough. "So heavy that even Arnold Schwarzenegger can lift it" is a sentence that makes sense. "500 pounds heavy" makes sense too. "Infinitely heavy" doesn't make sense, since at any point a rock has a certain weight.

3. Not managing to complete a task isn't an accomplishment, other than from a grammatical point of view. Being unable to create a task you can't complete isn't a failure, it just means you can perform any task you set out to perform. "Failing at lifting a rock" isn't a proper challenge.

4. "God is almighty" doesn't mean that he can complete every grammatical challenge you can name; it only means he can complete every challenge you can describe in detail as a physical trial and not just as wordplay. It certainly doesn't mean that any sentence beginning with "God can't" proves he's not almighty. For instance, "God can't lose in battle" doesn't mean that he's not almighty due to it being something he can't do.

5. "if god is omnipotent, can he create an object so heavy even he can't lift it?" The answer is "No, because an object so heavy even he can't lift it is a nonsensical sentence."

What happens when the unstoppable force hits the unmoveable object?

That doesn't make sense. First you're saying that it's an unstoppable force that cannot be stopped by anything[footnote]pardon the tautology,[/footnote], but then you say that the object is umoveable, which means that it can stop any object, even though you just said that the force you mentioned can't be stopped by anything. Except now you say it can. That's not a paradox, that's just changing your mind mid-sentence. Like saying "Joe has eaten three donuts. But Joe has never in his life eaten any donuts!" That's not a paradox, it's just contradicting yourself.

A paradox is a contradiction.

And you trying to solve the paradoxes is silly.

Paradoxes are not logical, that is the point.

I think you might misunderstand what a paradox is.

My favourite is: "The Following sentence is true. The Previous sentence was false."

 

[Queen Michael]

Paradoxes are not logical, that is the point.

I think you might misunderstand what a paradox is.

My favourite is: "The Following sentence is true. The Previous sentence was false."

That's a nice one. But paradoxes are logical, and the fun part about them is that they make sense logically even though they're also clearly untrue. Like this:

My favorite paradox is Zeno's Paradox. To get to the bus, you have to get 1/2 of the way there, but to do that, you have to get 1/4 of the way there, but first 1/8, 1/16, 1/32.... This means you have to do an infinite amount of things to get to the bus stop, so you will never get there, but simple logic tells us that you will, thus causing the paradox.