Glitch City Laboratories Archives

Glitch City Laboratories closed on 1 September 2020 (announcement). This is an archived copy of a thread from Glitch City Laboratories Forums.

You can join Glitch City Research Institute to ask questions or discuss current developments.

You may also download the archive of this forum in .tar.gz, .sql.gz, or .sqlite.gz formats.

General Discussion

Paradoxes - Page 7

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: atoms2ashes
Date: 2009-01-12 04:19:01
Space: The existance of which any other existance can fill it.

Time: The measurement of events that happen in a period of length.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: agusganog
Date: 2009-01-16 22:31:27
I thought I would find paradoxes in this thread.


Consider set theory. Sets are just groups of like things, and the set of all sets contains everything (simple enough). Now consider the sets that are not members of themselves: the set of books is not a book, therefor it is not a member of itself (there are infinitely more examples). These sets that are not members of themselves can be placed in a set of sets that are not members of themselves. If it is, then it is not since it is defined as the set of sets that do not contain themselves. If it is not a member of itself, then it is by virtue of how it is defined.

Explain that one.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Bent`
Date: 2009-01-17 08:11:39

I thought I would find paradoxes in this thread.


Consider set theory. Sets are just groups of like things, and the set of all sets contains everything (simple enough). Now consider the sets that are not members of themselves: the set of books is not a book, therefor it is not a member of itself (there are infinitely more examples). These sets that are not members of themselves can be placed in a set of sets that are not members of themselves. If it is, then it is not since it is defined as the set of sets that do not contain themselves. If it is not a member of itself, then it is by virtue of how it is defined.

Explain that one.

That?s a paradox inherent to naive set theory. Modern set theory has axioms set in place to prevent this from happening (e.g. the axiom schema of specification).

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: agusganog
Date: 2009-01-17 19:19:08


I thought I would find paradoxes in this thread.


Consider set theory. Sets are just groups of like things, and the set of all sets contains everything (simple enough). Now consider the sets that are not members of themselves: the set of books is not a book, therefor it is not a member of itself (there are infinitely more examples). These sets that are not members of themselves can be placed in a set of sets that are not members of themselves. If it is, then it is not since it is defined as the set of sets that do not contain themselves. If it is not a member of itself, then it is by virtue of how it is defined.

Explain that one.

That?s a paradox inherent to naive set theory. Modern set theory has axioms set in place to prevent this from happening (e.g. the axiom schema of specification).


Shhhhhh. Ignorance is bliss.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: ultraVex
Date: 2009-01-17 20:15:15

Shhhhhh. Ignorance is bliss.


Even though everyone hates it.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Zowayix
Date: 2009-01-18 02:24:10
It's blissful for the person being ignorant, just not for anyone else.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Missingno. Master
Date: 2009-01-18 08:29:12
Well, looks like it's time for Professor Missingno. Master to step in and explain some of these here paradoxes.

The immovable object could exude a force field that causes the unstoppable force to go in another direction without actually stopping it.

The guy who goes back in time killed his grandfather would cause the timeline to skew into another tangent which becomes reality.  The murderer would still be born in the original timeline, but that timeline would no longer be reality, and he would just not exist in the new timeline, which began the moment the dude's granddad was offed.

—————————
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.
—————————
True does not just mean correct.  It also means loyal or faithful.  A statement, having no mind of its own, cannot be loyal or faithful, and thus, statement #2 can easily be correct without paradoxical contradiction.


I am you- easily possible, provided you're talking to yourself.

An indestructible object is destroyed- easy.  Diamonds can't be destroyed except by other diamonds.  So, an indestructible object could be destroyed, but only by something equal in hardness and strength.  Thus, true indestructibility cannot exist.


Drowning in the fountain of pure life- Sure.  You'd drown, then the fountain would revive you.

A square circle- Square doesn't just refer to a shape, it can also refer to being behind the times.  So if a circle was wearing disco clothing and singing tunes from the 70s, it would certainly be a square circle.

Knowing where nowhere is- easy.  Nowhere is non-existant, as everything and everywhere is somewhere.  Even nothing has to be somewhere.  So nowhere doesn't exist.  If you know that,  then you know where nowhere is.


Existing in non-existance.

There is no non-existance.  Even nothingness exists.  For there to be non-existance, there would have to be a complete and absolute lack of anything.  And even then, there would be nothingness to exist there.  This, therefore, is completely and obviously impossible, thanks to the complete and utter lack of non-existance.

And thus, I have solved most, if not ALL of the paradoxes in this thread.  You're all welcome.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: agusganog
Date: 2009-01-18 11:05:22
You're just screwing with alternate definitions. By simply rephrasing those paradoxes that you have "solved" we can create more.

A geometrically square shaped collection of all points equidistant from a central point.

You get the idea.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Missingno. Master
Date: 2009-01-18 16:58:59

You're just screwing with alternate definitions. By simply rephrasing those paradoxes that you have "solved" we can create more.

A geometrically square shaped collection of all points equidistant from a central point.

You get the idea.

Rephrasing shmephrasing.  Your rephrased paradox can easily be restated in simpler terms, and we're back to a square circle, and from there the alternate definitions could easily take charge in the explanation of the paradox.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: agusganog
Date: 2009-01-18 20:48:40


You're just screwing with alternate definitions. By simply rephrasing those paradoxes that you have "solved" we can create more.

A geometrically square shaped collection of all points equidistant from a central point.

You get the idea.

Rephrasing shmephrasing.  Your rephrased paradox can easily be restated in simpler terms, and we're back to a square circle, and from there the alternate definitions could easily take charge in the explanation of the paradox.


If you solve it after restating it, you aren't solving the same paradox.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Bent`
Date: 2009-01-18 23:26:11

Drowning in the fountain of pure life- Sure.  You'd drown, then the fountain would revive you.

A better solution would be to point out that drowning involves inhaling water, not swallowing it.

The rest of your solutions are terrible BTW? seriously.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: :56 ERROR
Date: 2009-01-18 23:52:42


Drowning in the fountain of pure life- Sure.  You'd drown, then the fountain would revive you.

A better solution would be to point out that drowning involves inhaling water, not swallowing it.

The rest of your solutions are terrible BTW? seriously.


<—— Agrees with IIMarcus.
Plus, you cannot die in the pool of life. That is a paradox.

—————————
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.
—————————

You simply altered the paradox of:
—————————
This statement is true
The above statement is false
—————————
Is that even supposed to be a paradox?

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Missingno. Master
Date: 2009-01-19 05:50:33



Drowning in the fountain of pure life- Sure.  You'd drown, then the fountain would revive you.

A better solution would be to point out that drowning involves inhaling water, not swallowing it.

The rest of your solutions are terrible BTW? seriously.


<—— Agrees with IIMarcus.
Plus, you cannot die in the pool of life. That is a paradox.

—————————
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.
—————————

You simply altered the paradox of:
—————————
This statement is true
The above statement is false
—————————
Is that even supposed to be a paradox?

Simple then.  A pool of life would prevent death from occuring within it, making that paradox impossible.

—————————
This statement is true
The above statement is false
—————————
That is not a paradox.  The first statement is stating that it is true, while the second statement says the first statement is a lie.  THis just means that statement #1 is a lie, no more.  I altered it for a reason, to MAKE it a paradox.

—————————
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.
—————————
THAT'S a paradox.  And one I have solved, no less.  The idea is that statement #1 says that the second statement is true.  However, since that same second statement calls statement #1 a lie, that means that statement #2 can't be correct, which means statement #1 must be correct, which means statement #1 has to be a lie, and so on.  However, by tinkering with an alternate definition of "true", I have solved the paradox, as you've seen above.  It takes an uncommon mind to think of these things.  Remember that.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: :56 ERROR
Date: 2009-01-19 10:58:41
Well another sentence paradox:
———————————
Ignore this sentence.

Person 1: Are you listening to me?
Person 2: I am not.

This sentence is false.
———————————
Try to lie about these ones.

Re: Paradoxes

Posted by: Phrawger
Date: 2009-01-19 11:58:00
———————————
Ignore this sentence.
———————————
This sentence, being a command, is not a paradox. You can easily disobey it, or you can just disregard it, thereby ignoring it.

———————————
Person 1: Are you listening to me?
Person 2: I am not.
———————————
The second statement is just a lie. Honestly, there's nothing saying that person 2 is even telling the truth, and if they were, there are multiple explanations as to why they said that (sarcasm, lying, simple guess at what person 1 was saying). Not a paradox.

———————————
This sentence is false.
———————————
Finally, I think this one might work.