Paradoxes

[Zierro]

Here's a pretty cool riddle:

 

 

 

A man lead an officer through his house, to a plant. He pulled the plant away from the window, opened the blinds and took the safe that rest on the windowscil. With nervous fingers, he opened it. In it, a will sat, and the man read it aloud. "I grant all of my estate to my grandson, William Neuman, should nobody enter my house three days after my death. His uncle died four days ago. The officer read the will and said "I cannot grant you the estate". Why not?

 

 

 

Because the estate is entitled to his grandson - not his nephew.

 

 

 

Edit: Legos beat me to it. :cry:

[Happysniff]

You guys fail it. Stop posting riddles and start posting actual paradoxes you ninnies.

[Riku3220]

The sentence below tells the lie.

 

The above sentence tells the truth.

 

Is this good enough for you?

[Happysniff]

Yes, but it'd be pretty cool if every 'paradox' was like that, k?

[pureprayer]

 

 

 

Theres your pair of docks.

 

 

 

OT: If you get a bottle of shampoo and mix it with one of conditioner do you get a 2 in 1 shampoo?

 

 

 

(It dosen't work)

[Yes_Its_Ross]

What does conditioner even do? I use it but it really doesn't make a difference for me.

[pureprayer]

What does conditioner even do? I use it but it really doesn't make a difference for me.

 

Makes hair soft/takes out knots.

 

 

 

The paradox is about whats the difference from two shampoo and conditioner in the same bottle from a product that works as shampoo and conditioner.

[warren211]

I found this one lets see if anyone can solve it:

 

 

 

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

 

 

 

I think that was in a magazine once. I forgot the reasoning, but it is to your advantage to switch your choice. It was in the novel "The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime". I must reread it.

 

 

 

And to the OP: your reasoning is flawed. You can't divide by 0 because it produces obscure, impossible results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then there's the classic: What happens when unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

 

My mediocre reasoning is that an unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist simultaneously in the same universe. Unstoppable means that absolutely nothing can stop it. Immovable means that absolutely nothing can move it. You can't have both of them at the same time, they negate eachother. Now lets say for the sake of a good argument that both do happen to somehow exist in one universe (which would defy logic and physics). In which case, my friends and I (we were discussing this riddle at lunch in school) thought of a few results for if the two were to collide:

 

1. If the force was continuous, like a lazer beam or another beam-type thing, then the force would break up and move around the object, or be sent in a lateral direction. Sounds imposible? We're defying all the laws of logic and physics to keep the two things in the same universe, remember?

 

2. If the force was a one time non-continuous thing, like say the punch of an incredibly strong giant that couldn't be stopped, then both the force and the object would be destroyed instantly.

 

 

 

I know my reasoning sounds awkward, I haven't much experience in the theoretical thinking department,

[Laura]

I believe that the very word, "unstoppable" implies that nothing else can exist alongside it.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, you said that. Sorry. :P

[Lenin64]

The force would bounce. Still not stopping, really, but not moving the object. Or, the force would go through the object. The object would have to be made of jell-o or something, and the force may slow down within the immovable Jell-o, but it still hasn't stopped.

[mmmcannibalism]

The force would bounce. Still not stopping, really, but not moving the object. Or, the force would go through the object. The object would have to be made of jell-o or something, and the force may slow down within the immovable Jell-o, but it still hasn't stopped.

 

:shock:

 

 

 

were doomed, Lenin found the answer.

[Wongtong]

I found this one lets see if anyone can solve it:

 

 

 

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

 

 

 

I think that was in a magazine once. I forgot the reasoning, but it is to your advantage to switch your choice. It was in the novel "The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime". I must reread it.

 

I'm reading it for English and I've read it before so I thought I might type up the reasoning just in case you'd like to read it.

 

 

 

[hide=The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night-Time]Let the doors be called X, Y and Z.

 

 

 

Let Cx be the event that the car is behind door x and so on.

 

 

 

Let Hx be the event that the host opens door x and so on.

 

 

 

Supposing that you choose Door X, the possibility that you win a car if you then switch your choice is given by the following formula:

 

 

 

[. = multiply]

 

P(Hz ^ Cy) + P(Hy ^ Cz)

 

=P(Cy).P(Hz|Cy) + P(Cz).P(Hy|Cz)

 

=(1/3.1) + (1/3.1) = 2/3

 

 

 

The second way you can work it out is by making a picture of all the possible outcomes like this:

 

[my attempt to type out what the diagram is in the book, try writing it out on paper if it's confusing]

 

 

 

Door:

 

Goat1 Goat2 Car

 

/\ /\ /\

 

stick change stick change stick change

 

||||||

 

You get a:

 

goat car goat car car goat

 

 

 

So if you change, 2 times out of 3 you get a car. And if you stick, you only get a car 1 time out of 3.

 

And this shows that intuition can sometimes get things wrong. And intuition is what people use in life to make decisions. But logic can help you work out the right answer.[/hide]

[i_love_burritos]

One mind-boggling paradox is the Banach/Tarski paradox.

 

It states that a solid sphere in 3D space can be split into many pieces, which can be put back together in a alternate way to give two identical copies of the original sphere.

 

 

 

I remember Richard Feynman's book, in which he he provides an alternate set of possiblities.

 

 

 

Ill try to find it.

 

 

 

Ok, heres one for you to figure out.

 

 

 

Fermi paradox:

 

If there are, as probability would suggest, many other sentient species in the Universe, then where are they? Shouldn't their presence be obvious?

 

 

 

But then again most "real scientists" state that the Drake equation is iffy as everything is assumed and based on conjecture.

 

 

 

This is like spitting on the face of the scientific method of inquiry.

 

No wonder scientists dont like it.

[tryto]

The atoms in the unstoppable force would be vibrating so fast that they would basically go through the spaces between the molecules of the immovable object. I think the Flash does it in one of the Justice League comics.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, in an unstoppable force, the particles would need to be vibrating so fast that they'd need to be moving much faster than the speed of light, which is impossible(but lets ignore that).

 

Once they neared the speed of light, the particles would gain mass exponentially the faster they moved(relativity) Before they breached the speed of light, each particle would have so much mass that black holes would be formed. This is because by vibrating, they would gain temperature, eventually reaching the Planck Temperature.

[Lenin64]

Fermi paradox:

 

If there are, as probability would suggest, many other sentient species in the Universe, then where are they? Shouldn't their presence be obvious?

 

Why should it be? Humanity is confined to a single planet, our presence isn't "obvious". Sure, we've sent out satellites, but as of now only the Voyagers have made it anywhere near the edge of our solar system. Basically, they're out there, far away, and probably in one or two planets per spiecies, like us.

[i_love_burritos]

[hide=Drake Equation][/hide]

 

 

 

If you even take this with a pinch of salt it affirms the theory that there are millions of life forms "out there".

 

 

 

I think we should be arguing over, why "they" haven't contacted us.

[Lenin64]

[hide=Drake Equation][/hide]

 

 

 

If you even take this with a pinch of salt it affirms the theory that there are millions of life forms "out there".

 

 

 

I think we should be arguing over, why "they" haven't contacted us.

 

Again, probably for the same reasons we haven't contacted "them". Either they/we can't yet, or we/they simply don't know they/we exist. It's not as if Earth is the centerpoint of sentient life that all other planets know about and want to establish communications with.

[Wongtong]

[hide=Drake Equation][/hide]

 

 

 

If you even take this with a pinch of salt it affirms the theory that there are millions of life forms "out there".

 

 

 

I think we should be arguing over, why "they" haven't contacted us.

 

Again, probably for the same reasons we haven't contacted "them". Either they/we can't yet, or we/they simply don't know they/we exist. It's not as if Earth is the centerpoint of sentient life that all other planets know about and want to establish communications with.

 

Maybe there aren't any forms similar to humans i.e they could have small brains or are still in a prehistoric-like stage or something.

[tryto]

[hide=Drake Equation][/hide]

 

 

 

If you even take this with a pinch of salt it affirms the theory that there are millions of life forms "out there".

 

 

 

I think we should be arguing over, why "they" haven't contacted us.

 

Again, probably for the same reasons we haven't contacted "them". Either they/we can't yet, or we/they simply don't know they/we exist. It's not as if Earth is the centerpoint of sentient life that all other planets know about and want to establish communications with.

 

 

 

This can be solved easily by looking at how large the universe is. The universe is at least 93 billion light years in diameter, while it is around 13 billion years old. If we are near the center of the universe, then a sentient species on the edge of the universe would take 46 billion years for a message in the electro-magnetic spectrum to arrive from them. If there are 10 sentient species, arranged more or less evenly, then it would take 9.3 billion years for a message to arrive from them to any one civilization. This is ignoring the fact that at minimum, it takes two star generations to support life(a primordial star, which must then supernova to create heavier elements, and another star formed from the remnants of that star to provide heat.). We can assume that our earth(at less than 5 billion years old), is fairly typical, due to the need for these star generations. In this case, if sentient species had only begun to evolve less than 5 billion years ago, then the absolute maximum for a message from them is 5 billion light years away, or closer. Realistically, however, we have to allow for evolution and the production of sentient beings to take place, limiting it to, say, generously, 2 billion years(and two billion light years away, maximum.)

 

 

 

Just take in the sheer size of the universe, and it's easy to tell why we haven't been contacted. It's really not a paradox at all.

 

In fact, the N in Drake's Equation(the number of alien civilizations in the universe) would have to be more than 45, assuming the aliens reached civilization capable of contacting us exactly 2 billion years ago, and sent immediately. They would have to send these in all directions; if they instead looked around at them, they won't see us for 2 billion years(if they live on the edge of the sliver) after we send a message, then another 2 billion years to send on back.

 

If, they evolved like us, and only developed intelligence and then developed ways of transmitting electro-magnetic radiation less than a hundred years ago, they would need to be so very very very close.

 

If they developed it less than 100 years ago, then Drake's N value would need to be nine hundred twenty million, which is insane.

 

 

 

Drake's equation is ultimately bs, however, because it's simply multiplying a ton of complete unknown percentages together, yielding a completely unknown answer.

 

Out of billions and billions and billions (ad nauseum) of planets, we know of one that supports life(earth(duh)). If we divide 1/billions and billions and billions, we get nearly zero. We can then conclude that the conditions to produce life are extremely rare. This is quite a dubious claim to make, but so is the Drake equation, and really, we do not know either way. We do know of several types of systems that cannot support life. Nebulas cannot support life, nor can primordial stars, or systems very close to black holes, nor can the vast empty spaces between galaxies. We know of some types of systems similar to ours, but we do not know for sure; if the sun is a bit too hot, or the planets a bit too close, life cannot survive. If the sun is a bit too cool, or the planets a bit too far, life cannot survive.

[i_love_burritos]

Tryto made my post fail. :-#

 

 

 

Still formulating a counter-attack. -.-

[WWWWW]

 

Then there's the classic: What happens when unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

 

My mediocre reasoning is that an unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist simultaneously in the same universe. Unstoppable means that absolutely nothing can stop it. Immovable means that absolutely nothing can move it. You can't have both of them at the same time, they negate eachother. Now lets say for the sake of a good argument that both do happen to somehow exist in one universe (which would defy logic and physics). In which case, my friends and I (we were discussing this riddle at lunch in school) thought of a few results for if the two were to collide:

 

 

I think they would implode.

[D Jay99]

Kinda off topic but whatever.

 

 

 

You now realise that a part of your body itches. Itch it NOW.

 

^ Is that as bad as the breathing thing?

 

 

 

Yes it is. It makes me breath manually and makes me itch :(

[JustPokemon]

You can only walk into a forest half way, so when you get half way, are you stuck?

 

This wasnt mine, I heard it from someone lol.

 

But heres the answer:

 

Youre not stuck, because you can walk the other half out of the forest -.-

[WWWWW]

You can only walk into a forest half way, so when you get half way, are you stuck?

 

No because people will soon go to clean cut the forest.

[mmmcannibalism]

You can only walk into a forest half way, so when you get half way, are you stuck?

 

 

 

i dont get how that is a paradox, im familiair with the children's riddle but I dont see what would stop you from moving.