[color= rgb(0, 0, 0)]
derventa wrote:
[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Crocodile Dilemma
[/color]The Crocodile Dilemma is an unsolvable problem in logic.[1] The premise states that a crocodile who has stolen a child promises the father that his son will be returned if and only if he can correctly predict what the crocodile will do.While the transaction is logically smooth (but unpredictable) if the father guesses that the child will be returned, a dilemma arises for both parties if he guesses that the child will not be returned. In the case that the crocodile decides to keep the child, he violates his terms: the father's prediction has been validated, and the child should be returned. However, in the case that the crocodile decides to give back the child, he still violates his terms, even if this decision is based on the previous result: the father's prediction has been falsified, and the child should not be returned. The question of what the crocodile should do is therefore paradoxical, and there is no justifiable solution.
[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)][/color]
Just in lecture today we were talking about this one. The thing with this is that it simply isn't true that if I want to get to point B I can't get there. Of course if I want to get to point B I can get there. The half-life thing just doesn't apply to some things. The impetus of my motion will get me to point B.
The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence ("Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?").
The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, no force is completely irresistible, and there are no immovable objects and cannot be any, as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass. An immovable object would have to have an inertia that was infinite, and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe.
An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally "Spear-Shield"). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi.[sup][1][/sup] In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or "self-contradictory".
The paradox is also commonly referenced in sport. The paradox is generally used to refer to a game between two teams or individuals, one of which having a strong defense, and the other having a strong offense.
Barbershop paradox
Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.
Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?
Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
- If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
- If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.
My mind just exploded.
Originally Posted by Mo Matik
