Have a paradox?

[Zonorhc]

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.

 

 

 

Well, there's an absurd interpretation of Schr̮̦̉̉dinger's cat if I've ever seen one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There can't be two cats in the box simply because the variable allows for two states of the cat's existence. It should be a dead cat OR a living cat, but you don't know until it's observed. Assuming there are two when you know there's only one, but that can be in one of two different states, is a crime unto logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is like saying that if you put a cat into a bag which only has enough space to contain it and nothing else, and then look away, there will suddenly be two cats which cannot fit in the bag because one will be alive and the other dead.

[Parabola]

Sounds like a changed version of Schrodinger's cat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: for those who want to whine about my post being a repeat of the one above, they were both posted in the same minute. Evidently neither party knew of the other's reply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is like saying that if you put a cat into a bag which only has enough space to contain it and nothing else

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a bonsai kitten.

[____]

16 seconds apart to be exact ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and tzone92 - that seriously makes no sense. I've seen bad logic before but that's just wrong :-? #-o

[rocketman089]

I always thought Zeno's paradoxes was pretty cool. It took me a while to get the concept, and if you didn't know any better it really makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an example of one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

[Rebdragon]

Some of these paradoxes just seem like nothing more than an abuse of the English language.

[lawrencekill]

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it trying to compare?

[chicodallasman]

Explain women :D . Sorry, I couldn't resist lol. One that I HATE..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can do anything, can you make a door that you can't open?

[chase_cool7]

Explain women :D . Sorry, I couldn't resist lol. One that I HATE..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can do anything, can you make a door that you can't open?[/quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an uninstalled door is still a door.

[Flametrooper]

That's one athiests try to use do disprove God's omnipotence...

 

 

 

One answer I like, to, "Can God make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?", was, "Yes. And then he could lift it."

 

 

 

Mine is simply that God doesn't have the physical body to go around lifting rocks.

[gonpost]

 

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it trying to compare?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's sort of like "nothing moves because it only moves in halves, thus never reaching its final destination".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, it is disproven by the fact that .9999999(repeating) = 1, or in another form 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6(etc) = 1.

[tzone92]

I always thought Zeno's paradoxes was pretty cool. It took me a while to get the concept, and if you didn't know any better it really makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an example of one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, this is not a paradox. Because the world we live in is a quantum universe, eventually there would be a point when Achilles is only one atomic bond away from the tortoise; he would be on a neighboring atom-space. They words I am using to describe the situation aren't the best, but I'm sure that you can understand what I am saying.

[rocketman089]

I'm sorry, this is not a paradox. Because the world we live in is a quantum universe, eventually there would be a point when Achilles is only one atomic bond away from the tortoise; he would be on a neighboring atom-space. They words I am using to describe the situation aren't the best, but I'm sure that you can understand what I am saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hence why I said "If you didn't know any better, it'd make sense" :| . This paradox is thousands of years old, quantum physics wasn't isnt their heads...

[Randox]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats assuming the laws of physics applies when we are not observing them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the question becomes, do they? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good question, and one that is imposible to answer. Somewhere in quantum mechanics theres something about mesuring the properties of an object, defines the objects properties. The properties are not certain/fixed untill mesured, and since we cant prove that the laws of physics exist when not being observed/mesured without observing/mesuring them there will never be an answer. My reasoning holds true under the assumption that the world exists when you arent looking (a simple way of puting it). Now if thats not true, than I ask you this. Did the tree ever fall? even if someone sees it on the ground, did it ever actualy fall, or did it just appear on the ground once it was looked at? If the world dosent exist when not being mesured, who can say. I leave you with this thought.

[trapical]

I actually came across this one myself a long time ago and that Zeno paradox reminded me of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two electrons are emitted into a infinitely space one second apart, they have the same initial speed. For the sake of argument lets say that each electron is loosing speed the further it goes. You can say the electron that was emitted 1 second later will forever be going faster then the electron in front of it... yet it will never catch it. :-k

[Rebdragon]

I actually came across this one myself a long time ago and that Zeno paradox reminded me of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two electrons are emitted into a infinitely space one second apart, they have the same initial speed. For the sake of argument lets say that each electron is loosing speed the further it goes. You can say the electron that was emitted 1 second later will forever be going faster then the electron in front of it... yet it will never catch it. :-k

 

 

 

*Dials 202-647-4000*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naw, I think I get it, though it's still very strange >_<.

[dsavi]

What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

[dutchdreams]

I always thought Zeno's paradoxes was pretty cool. It took me a while to get the concept, and if you didn't know any better it really makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an example of one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, great story about the impossible at first, until you realise one of his preconditions is flawed. He assumes constant speed for both, but if you look what he describes, you will notice he is describing Achilles slowing down and adjusting to the constant speed of the tortoise over time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speed is observable through time and distance travelled. It is not measurable by itself. We say someone travelled 10 feet in 10 seconds, hence his speed was 1 ft/sec. It is literally derived from distance-time: plot a distance-time graph and the tangent in any point of that curve gives the speed of the object at that time.

 

 

 

Do this for the example from Zeno and you will see Achilles slowing down to match the tortoise's speed (after infinite time). This goes against his precondition that both were going at a constant speed. Zeno described deceleration (i.o.w. negative acceleration) but not a true paradox. He didn't describe that Achilles can't overtake the tortoise, he merely described Achilles doesn't want to overtake it ;)

[warri0r45]

What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say you could flick the switch, but you wouldn't see light at all. Of course this situation is highly hypothetical. trying to observe a detail of something going at such a speed isn't quite possible I would have thought.

[dutchdreams]

What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything is relative (I think), you should still be able to see it. The light emitted from the headlights would still be travelling away from you at the speed of light. Even though the car is travelling at the speed of light, the light can still escape relative to the car. To someone outside of your car, you appear to be travelling with the speed of light, while the light emitted from your headlights would appear to be travelling *twice* the speed of light to him.

 

 

 

Compare it to sitting in a train and somebody walking down the path away from you. To you he appears to be walking 5mph. To someone outside of the train, his speed = speed of train + 5 mph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(feel free to correct me, my theoretical physics is a bit rusty)

[zyrm]

What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like the person above me said, i think it would appear that the light was traveling at twice the speed of light

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

however it is impossible for anything (at least physical) to to go faster or at the same speed of light anyway

 

 

 

so in theory its a paradox but would never actually ever happen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always thought Zeno's paradoxes was pretty cool. It took me a while to get the concept, and if you didn't know any better it really makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an example of one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is such a fast runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which said period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as described its a paradox bit all one has to do is get a tortoise and a person to race and you will see who wins

 

 

 

if the person is traveling faster than he will eventually pass the tortoise

[Evilperson]

What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I asked my physics teacher this one, because he knows everything about everything and the answer was light is a wave. Not a physical substance. So it doesn't matter.

[trapical]

Speaking of nothing going faster than the speed of light, I could never really grasp that. I mean, what if you were in the back of a ship going the speed of light. Would you be stopped from walking forward? :-k

[zyrm]

Speaking of nothing going faster then teh speed of light, I could never really grasp that. I mean, what if you were in teh back of a ship going teh speed of light. Would you be stopped from walking forward? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the ship would not be going faster than the speed of light in the first place because it would be impossible- thats kinda the point, light is like a cosmic speed limit you can get very very close to its speed but never actually match it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hypothetically it is possible, take this as an example

 

 

 

you are on a bus going 20 mph, and you walk down the isle at 2mph- your total speed would be 22 mph relative to someone outside the bus which is the same thing that would happen in your example

[tzone92]

 

What happens, if you are going at teh speed of light in a car, and you turn on teh headlights? Since light will never go faster then 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I asked my physics teacher this one, because he knows everything about everything and teh answer was light is a wave. Not a physical substance. So it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light isn't exactly a wave, of course it isn't exactly a particle, and of course that is shown in another paradox, the wave-particle duality that holds true for all objects, both matter and energy. Your physics teacher states that light is a wave, but I think what he really means is light is energy, this agrees with the "not a physical substance" part.

[Lionheart_0]

If teh world dosent exist when not being mesured, who can say. I leave you with this thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, but i never said that the world doesnt exist. I said that maybe the rules that we base our world on do not exist when we are not observing it. We cannot say something might not exist, thats just crazy. Everything must exist. We dont just get matter (ignore anti-matter) popping in and out of existence.