And then the universe exploded.

[martin's a madman]

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.

That is one type of paradox, yes, and there are multiple types.

 

[Furious Styles]

But he's all powerful. Couldn't he use his power to explain it to us?

Then it wouldn't be an idea we couldn't conceive of.

 

[ultrachicken]

But he's all powerful. Couldn't he use his power to explain it to us?

Then it wouldn't be an idea we couldn't conceive of.

It's only an idea we can't conceive if god doesn't want us to understand it. Remember: he can do anything.

 

[Xiorell]

I dunno if it's come up already, couldn't be arsed to read every post but
I like the age old -

If I tape/glue a piece of toast, butter-side up, to the back of a cat, then throw toast/cat combination out of a window, what happens? Seeing as cat must land on its feet, and toast must land on the butter side, would one cancel out the other? Would the toast-cat just hover there for all time? Would the universe implode? Would it create a rip in space time?

OH THE BRAIN HURTS !

 

[Chogg Van Helsing]

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.

It could be argued that the thing you are asking of god is a paradox in itself, as no object could ever be too heavy. It's like asking him to make a circular triangle - it's just an impossibility.

But it's still something he couldn't do! lol

 

[Furious Styles]

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.

But that's fairly irrelevant isn't it? I don't know how heavy something would have to be to be lifted by God so cannot specify. The only thing who could know that is God himself and I don't exactly have his direct line now do I?
This isn't to say that any rock god may or may not lift doesn't have a certain weight because if it existed it would, I just don't know what weight would be necessary so cannot specify.
Anyway it isn't a matter of weight necessarily, just something he cannot lift of any weight, size or description.

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.

You're essentially saying here that there is nothing in the universe and nothing that can possibly be conceived of by God or myself that god cannot lift because he's all powerful. It's an impossibility by virtue of the definitions of god and nothing could ever be heavy enough because weight is irrelevant.
Hence he cannot make something he cannot lift. It is something he can't do.

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.

But the challenge isn't in the lifting of the rock itself, it's in the creation of the rock. If he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, then that is a failure by the virtue of his being unable to create such a rock. He has failed at succeeding to create the rock.
This is a failure even by this above specified definitions of what failure is and isn't.

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.

Now how could I possibly give specific details for a physical trial of god? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard, of course I can't do that. Who am I, God? That'd be something God would have to work out for himself.
What about, can god create an opponent so powerful that even he can't defeat it? That would be the proper version of the god can't lose in battle thing.

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."

And object so heavy he can't lift is nonsensical why? Because in your definition of God the idea of him being unable to lift something is impossible to even conceive of logically. I think that might be tautology.
Anyway, even assuming it is nonsensical that's still something he can't do! If god can do anything he can do anything, be it make a circular triangle, make 4+4=5 or even make something he cannot lift. It doesn't have to make logical sense to us, if he's all powerful he can do it... or can't.
But then that would mean he could make something so heavy he can't lift, then lift it anyway using a solution beyond our minds.
But then could he explain it to us?
Gaaah!
Omnipotence is a pretty tricky notion.

 

[Furious Styles]

It's only an idea we can't conceive if god doesn't want us to understand it. Remember: he can do anything.

Ah yes, its an unwinnable argument from my end isn't it. Anything I come up with can be countered by God can do anything.
Damn!

 

[Glamorgan]

...What happens when the unstoppable force hits the unmoveable object?...

Duuuuuh. The unstoppable force just changes directions. It's all there in the universal manual to everything.

Huh, very clever.
OT: I don't really like Time Paradoxes. I always get into arguments with someone about it.
And no. That was not an excuse to flame me for fun.

 

[Jedoro]

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?

Rant solved that one. Since you remove your beginning, you can't have an end; it makes you immortal.

 

[oppp7]

An unstoppable force and an unmovable object both have inertia equal to infinity. Since they're equal, when they hit the unstoppable force stops and the unmovable object moves in the direction the force was going in at the same speed. For a visual aid, imagine 2 pool balls hitting.

There, I've solved that paradox. Please stop mentioning it.

OT: How can I come from America and know basic geography? Makes no sense.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

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?

Or anything involving meddling in the affairs of time travel for that matter. For example, you have to go back in time and stop yourself from buying a car you know will break. If you don't buy the car you have a different car, and your purpose for going back in time has been erased, so what the fuck happens?

I would assume that anything you do while time traveling is meant to happen and you don't actually change anything, because even if you interfere with the past, the future you came from and your memories thereafter would be the result of that happening, so if you went back and time and tried to kill your parents for example, something would stop you from succeeding because obviously you exist.

Example: Futurama, Fry accidentally kills his grandfather, but he still exists. Because he slept with his grandmother. So he is his own grandfather.

 

[Bobic]

There's no such thing as an unstoppable force or an immovable object so the question is kinda redundant

But for the sake of argument

F=ma

unstoppable force - F = infinity
immovable object - m = infinity

infinity = infinity*a
a=infinity/infinity
a=1

(i'm aware this is mathematically daft but it's too late for me to care)

Sorry, but my physicist/math suspenders popped on this one, and I want to clarify people's understanding of the mathematics before they run around screaming stuff that isn't correct.

This statement is not actually correct. Infinity/Infinity is an indeterminate quantity because the actual answer can be anything. The specific answer for any given situation must be obtained by applying a limit process by which the numerator and denominator simultaneously tend toward infinity so that algebraic cancellations allow the specific value of the ration F/m to be obtained. However, to do this, you need the formulaic forms of F and m depending on some common parameter such there is a particular value of this parameter which simultaneously causes F and m to be infinite. Then you can use algebraic cancellation of terms between the numerator and denominator to arrive at the limit answer as the independent parameter tends toward the specific value causing F and m to simultaneously tend toward infinity. So you would have something like this:

Make F and m be monotonically increasing functions of a parameter lambda such F and m simultaneously tend toward infinity as lambda tends toward a specific value c

F = F(lamba)->INF as lambda->c
m = m(lamba)->INF as lambda->c

Then we find the acceleration a through the limit process as lambda->c

limit[F(lamba)/m(lamba), lambda->c] = a

The specific value obtained for a will depend on the functional forms of F and m as monotonic functions of lambda. The simultaneity is key to obtaining a finite value. If F tended toward infinity faster than does m, then the limit process would produce that the acceleration a is, in fact, infinity. If m tended toward infinity faster than does F, then the limit process would produce that the acceleration m is, in fact, zero. Only in the case that they both tend to infinity at the exact same rate as they near infinity do we have the possibility of obtaining a finite, non-zero acceleration. So, what happens when an irresistible force(F = INF) meets an unmovable object(m = INF)? The answer is it depends on how you obtained the force and the object.

Other indeterminate forms are things like INF*0, 0^0(no, this doesn't equal 1; you can't do this), INF - INF, 0/0(this one is quite common), 1^INF. The reason these are indeterminate is not that one cannot find an answer; it's that there is no singular value that is always the answer. It depends on the functions leading to the indeterminate form.

See this is why I said the answer was just 1. Taking limits and explaining what you're doing is just way too much hassle.

 

[Chamale]

Technically, under the laws of physics, no object can be immovable and all forces are irresistible.

Bit of a cheesy answer, but that's how it works.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

Not really a paradox, but paradox-ish and awesome.

 

[El_Chubba_Chubba]

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

It would be just an image of you.

but even an image must have mass, or energy. maybe a way to create holograms???

Maybe from the photons or something, but that would be from what ever light source there is already, so nothing is created.

 

[dthvirus]

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.

That's one way of refuting it: saying the division becomes negligible at a certain point. Of course, people are going to squabble over where this point is, so here we go again, right?
I was thinking of simply denying that infinite regression exists. I don't believe that we can divide things past a certain point. The paradox assumes that you can, and it matters. The answer you give is that it can divide infinitely, but it doesn't matter. I argue that you cannot divide infinitely to begin with, and the paradox begs the question. Of course, people are going to quarrel over where this point is, but I don't think it matters where the point is, just the denial of infinite regress is powerful enough to refute the paradox.

Doubt we will ever be able to prove either of these views though. Bugger...

 

[Sylocat]

0^0 = 1

Wait. What have I done?

Actually, 0/0 = 1 as well.

So you can divide by zero.

 

[megamanenm]

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"?

The big bang isn't an explosion, it's an expansion.

 

[riflow]

I'd think that the unstoppable object and the unstoppable force would just keep "pressing" against each other.

 

[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.

Not those that studied quantum mechanics- they'd tend to agree with me. Many physicists seem to believe in the infinite universes theory- this is just a natural conclusion of it.

What does that have to do with the time paradox? and what does that have to do with ANY paradox?

This doesn't prove your point at all. Again, they still say that you don't create a paradox by going back in-time and killing your parents, they still say your wrong. Something would stop you from killing them, you could become your own parents (Some how) or those would turn out not to be your parents.