elmo_killer6 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? put a sound recording device next to it and it will but no one is there to hear it? That includes a person putting a recording device there. It is impossible to tell if it will make a sound, because we only know sound happens when people are listening, or something is observing it. My feelings on the whole tree thing are upon falling it would cause vibrations therefore making sound waves. However, sound is just the sensation when our brain converts soundwavs into what we call sound. Therefore, if no one was there to hear it, there would be no brain to convert the sound waves to sound, therefore there's no sound made. ^^That's probably a bit confusing. At the bottom of the wikipedia page I found the link to the .999...=1 more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? put a sound recording device next to it and it will but no one is there to hear it? That includes a person putting a recording device there. It is impossible to tell if it will make a sound, because we only know sound happens when people are listening, or something is observing it. My feelings on the whole tree thing are upon falling it would cause vibrations therefore making sound waves. However, sound is just the sensation when our brain converts soundwavs into what we call sound. Therefore, if no one was there to hear it, there would be no brain to convert the sound waves to sound, therefore there's no sound made. ^^That's probably a bit confusing. At the bottom of the wikipedia page I found the link to the .999...=1 more interesting. I tend to disagree with it for no particular reason. I know you can round it up, but to me having two essentially different numbers equalling each other dosen't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbagad Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 As soon as i saw this topic i thought of this one: This statement is false. But you already said it. [spoiler=My 99s (7)]9,638th to 99 Fletching ~ 29th January 2007 737th to 99 Hunter ~ 2nd July 2007910th to 99 Agility ~ 28th January 200859,467th to 99 Defence ~ 23rd December 200992,762nd to 99 Hitpoints ~ 26th June 2010102,704th to 99 Attack ~ 29th June 2010144,091st to 99 Strength ~ 29th June 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angryjoe Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I tend to disagree with it for no particular reason. I know you can round it up, but to me having two essentially different numbers equalling each other dosen't seem right. Is it just me; or can you essentially not get 1/10th of 9.99999... meaning it's void - or it mmight be just me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 The right-hand part of my signature image is a Mandelbrot set. Imagine two points anywhere on the outside edge of it. Imagine moving from one point to the other, along the outside edge of the set. Moving in either direction doesn't make you any further from the other point, since the perimeter of the set is infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitramosma Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Figures with finite volume and infinite surface area befuddle me. Like the Mandelbrot set and Gabriel's horn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 If a there is an infinite beginning and infinite end, where's the middle? Traveling back in time to fix a problem is not plausible. I just made those up, so I hope they work. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 The right-hand part of my signature image is a Mandelbrot set. Imagine two points anywhere on the outside edge of it. Imagine moving from one point to the other, along the outside edge of the set. Moving in either direction doesn't make you any further from the other point, since the perimeter of the set is infinite. Ditto with my signature :oops: "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 If a there is an infinite beginning and infinite end, where's the middle? Traveling back in time to fix a problem is not plausible. I just made those up, so I hope they work. Personally (I don't know if this goes with any theory, it's just random conjecture), I believe that if we went back in time and changed something, and went back to our own time, nothing would change. The reason being that one can't go back in time in their own dimension, so they instead end up going to another dimension that's at the time period they desire, and change the course of history in that dimension. It's weird and complicated, and I'm not even in college, so it's probably bull :-w . Oh well. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Our Rob, or Ros? This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilperson Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 What if there were no hypothetical questions? Everybody lovin' it, but ain't no body touchin' it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 What if there were no hypothetical questions? hehe, good one. =D> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaquierming Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 What if there were no hypothetical questions? hehe, good one. =D> Yeah, that one made me smile. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyrm Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 How is it wrong? Personally, I still don't think we have free will, not because a god could be omniscient, but based on the fact that every action we make is merely a reaction to our environment :-w . i agree with that, but that is where religion comes into play, someone posted on the first page that god and free will can exist because we have the free will to make our own choices but God already knows what they will be this is a quote from wikipedia on omnipotence paradox which i think raises an interesting conflict in the idea of omnipotence "The omnipotence paradox is actually a family of related paradoxes, having to do with the question of what an omnipotent being can do, especially whether or not a being that is able to perform all actions can perform an action that would limit its own ability to perform actions. The argument states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions, and if it cannot limit its own actions, then it could never have performed all actions" here is another paradox Grandfather paradox: Lets say you go back in time and kill your grandfather. If he was dead that means you could never have been born. If you were never born then you couldnt go back in time and kill him and he would still be alive. WHich means you would be alive and could go back and kill him... kinda surprised no one mentioned that one, first one that came to my mind heres a short one i find kind of funny If truth does not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" is a truth, thereby proving itself incorrect [omg] who cares if its nerfed or fixed.... you people will argue over the color of a green apple if it was a topic on this fourm god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A personal favourite: could God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it? Haha, that reminds me... Not really a paradox, but still nice to think about.. What happens when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object? Scary, I know. :uhh: The unstoppable force will penetrate the immovable object. Unless I messed up somewhere. But by move you could mean the atoms never move at all. Is that what you mean? The God one is funny. God would have to limit his powers or something to not be able to lift it. So in a way it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownmasterofnothing Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Actually this is more of a religious question than a paradox. If you believe in God and he created everything, then the chicken came first. If however, you believe in evolution and stuff like that, the egg came first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Go back in time and kill you parents. :uhh: :ohnoes: Good one. If you killed your parents (back in time), that would be like killing yourself before you were born!!! Both of you look at "John Titor" on wikipedia. If those theories are right, going back in time would send you into a slightly different time-line (but if the theoretical time machine "John" was talking about was improved, one could arrive in an identical time line (you create a new time line by going back into yours and changing it... ). So even if you go back into your original time line and do something, it will have no effect on you, since by changing your time line, you've split it in two.). By my reasoning, going back in time and killing your parents would have no effect, since than you would not be born, and if you werent born, you wouldnt go back in time to kill your parents, so theyed still be alive to have you, so you would still be born. Got that? If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? If I recal correctly the answer is actualy yes. If you define sound as vibrations travaling through a medium the answer is yes. Now ask the same question substituting "noise" for sound, now the answer is no. sound - vibrations travaling through a medium, dose not reqire anything to be aware or mesure those vibrations. Now noise would by general definition be someone or something recording/sensing/hearing those vibrations. By hearing a sound you make that sound a noise. So recap. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? Answer: Yes. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a noise? Answer: No. Just my own theory on that particular paradox. Hears one. If all infinitys are equal (which they are) and there are infinite numbers, there must also be infinate prime numbers (this is laying down facts, not the paradox really), so the # of numbers = # of prime numbers (even though not all numbers are prime). Think about that for awhile. In truth, I dont think its healthy to think about infinity to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitramosma Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Go back in time and kill you parents. :uhh: :ohnoes: Good one. If you killed your parents (back in time), that would be like killing yourself before you were born!!! Both of you look at "John Titor" on wikipedia. If those theories are right, going back in time would send you into a slightly different time-line (but if the theoretical time machine "John" was talking about was improved, one could arrive in an identical time line (you create a new time line by going back into yours and changing it... ). So even if you go back into your original time line and do something, it will have no effect on you, since by changing your time line, you've split it in two.). By my reasoning, going back in time and killing your parents would have no effect, since than you would not be born, and if you werent born, you wouldnt go back in time to kill your parents, so theyed still be alive to have you. Got that? The way I figure it, if you go back in time and change anything, you create an alternate time line/universe/whatever you want to call it. Well the paradox of killing one's own parents would likely cause the universe of that time line to implode/be destroyed in some other cool manner, but the time line that you left when you went back in time would be fine, just you wouldn't exist in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 The way I figure it, if you go back in time and change anything, you create an alternate time line/universe/whatever you want to call it. Well the paradox of killing one's own parents would likely cause the universe of that time line to implode/be destroyed in some other cool manner, but the time line that you left when you went back in time would be fine, just you wouldn't exist in it. The way I figure it, you wouldn't create a new timeline, you'd just go to a different timeline. But that's beside the point, I think. If you went back in time to a different timeline (as you suggested), and killed your would-be parents in that timeline, the version of you in that timeline would just never come to be, it wouldn't cause "time to implode". You'd go back to your timeline, and everything would be the way it was when you left your timeline. On the timeline you changed, history would just end up being different from your timeline because you would never be born in that timeline, due to killing your parents there and all. Timeline...timeline....timeline... man, someone pass me a synonym. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? If I recal correctly the answer is actualy yes. If you define sound as vibrations travaling through a medium the answer is yes. Now ask the same question substituting "noise" for sound, now the answer is no. sound - vibrations travaling through a medium, dose not reqire anything to be aware or mesure those vibrations. Now noise would by general definition be someone or something recording/sensing/hearing those vibrations. By hearing a sound you make that sound a noise. So recap. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? Answer: Yes. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a noise? Answer: No. Thats assuming the laws of physics applies when we are not observing them. So the question becomes, do they? :-s Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuBai Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 "The following statement is true, the previous statement is false" That paradox can actualy be solved by classical logic - Bertrand Russel managed it by devising a complex logic system. The Sorites paradox is a real [female dog], and it gave rise to "fuzzy logic". The basic problem was proposed by the Sorites as an attack on the logicians. It goes, there is a heap of sand, if you remove one grain, is it still a heap? If you take another, how about then? And if you keep taking them until there is only one grain left, is that a heap? There have been two proposed solutions, but both have problems - the first one is (and the most obvious one), is that "heap" is the incorrect logical term to describe the object as. What we should do is describe everything about the object possible, thus, when one feature of it is removed, it ceases to be what it was originaly. This means that we would never be able to discuss anything, as there are an infinite number of characteristics to every object, it would take an infinite amount of time. But it does make logical sense, even if it isn't practical. The other solution is the "fuzzy logic", where, rather than have a 1/0 truth value, you have various degrees of truth, so we can say that, if the heap contains 100 grains, then to remove 1 grain makes it 99% still a heap...well, this is infact incorrect and a bad and splistic way of putting it, but it helps illustrate the idea nevertheless. There are quite a few logical paradoxes, and many of the methods that philosophers and mathematicians tried to unify the braches of mathmatics on a single ground have run into problems because of it. It may simply be that Witgenstien was right, and that all human languages are naturaly illogical and inherently metaphysical, so it is impossible to discuss true logic in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzone92 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Well here we go, this one is fairly well know... If I have a box, and I put a cat in it, I have one cat in a box. But I don't know if the cat is dead or alive, because I can't see it. So I have to assume I have one dead cat and one living cat in my box. If I have one dead cat, and one living cat, then I have two cats in the box. But I can repeat the circumstances with those two cats, and I get four cats, two dead and two living cats. Then I have four, and then I can get eight, sixteen, et cetera cats in the box. you know there is a place called outside, better graphics 100% pvp and no fee to play :-w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaquierming Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? If I recal correctly the answer is actualy yes. If you define sound as vibrations travaling through a medium the answer is yes. Now ask the same question substituting "noise" for sound, now the answer is no. sound - vibrations travaling through a medium, dose not reqire anything to be aware or mesure those vibrations. Now noise would by general definition be someone or something recording/sensing/hearing those vibrations. By hearing a sound you make that sound a noise. So recap. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? Answer: Yes. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a noise? Answer: No. Thats assuming the laws of physics applies when we are not observing them. So the question becomes, do they? :-s Logically, they would but it's just impossible to prove Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Well here we go, this one is fairly well know... If I have a box, and I put a cat in it, I have one cat in a box. But I don't know if the cat is dead or alive, because I can't see it. So I have to assume I have one dead cat and one living cat in my box. If I have one dead cat, and one living cat, then I have two cats in the box. But I can repeat the circumstances with those two cats, and I get four cats, two dead and two living cats. Then I have four, and then I can get eight, sixteen, et cetera cats in the box. That is odd. Firstly your going on assumptions, not logic. Secondly, it's illogical. You put a cat in a box, 1 cat and after that you end up assuming there are two when there was clealy 1? Can't say I agree with that one. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now