Some paradoxes

Kalmah

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2003
3,692
1
76
-Paradox of the arrow

In the paradox of the arrow, Zeno asks us to consider an arrow in flight and argues that, in fact, the arrow must always be at rest. At each instant the arrow occupies a space equal to itself. Movement is impossible, because an instant by definition has no parts. If the arrow were capable of moving during an instant, we would contradict the definition of an instant, for the arrow would be in one position during the first part of the instant and in another position in the other part of the instant. Thus, the arrow never seems to be moving but rather, as Russell notes in his essay on infinity, "in some miraculous way the change of position has to occur between the instants, that is to say, not at any time whatever." If the arrow does not move at any given instant, how then does it make its flight?


-"Interesting" and "uninteresting" numbers

The question arises: Are there any uninteresting numbers? We can prove that there are none by the following simple steps. If there are dull numbers, then we can divide all numbers into two sets - interesting and dull. In the set of dull numbers there will be only one number that is the smallest. Since it is the smallest uninteresting number it becomes, ipso facto , an interesting number. We must therefore remove it from the dull set and place it in the other. But now there will be another smallest uninteresting number. Repeating this process will make any dull number interesting.


more can be found here. Text
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
The arrow thing simply points out that his conception of time or "an instant" is flawed. Obviously time is continuous, we can make divisions of time (seconds, minutes, instants), but they're all artificial. There is no objective way to mark time, the only way we measure it is through comparision.
 
S

SlitheryDee

On the paradox of the arrow:

Movement is impossible, because an instant by definition has no parts.

It's possible that time cannot be divided into instants, but instead moves smoothly with no "smallest possible unit".

If the arrow were capable of moving during an instant, we would contradict the definition of an instant, for the arrow would be in one position during the first part of the instant and in another position in the other part of the instant.

Contradicting the definition of a word that may not even accurately describe the real world is different from contradicting actual evidence.

 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
paradox of the philosophy student

You endeavor to become a deep thinker by reading and regurgitating the thoughts of others.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
I'd tell him that if you divide space into arbitrarily small chunks, the laws of nature stop applying there, also. Anyone who tells you they understand quantum physics is either insane, god, or lying.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,726
35,594
136
The point of having leap days every four years is to take up the slack in the calendar, with the error accumulating by ~1/4 day each year. So half way through the cycle from leap year to leap year when the accumulated error is 1/2 day, why isn't it dark in the middle of the day?
 
S

SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: ironwing
The point of having leap days every four years is to take up the slack in the calendar, with the error accumulating by ~1/4 day each year. So half way through the cycle from leap year to leap year when the accumulated error is 1/2 day, why isn't it dark in the middle of the day?

Because the extra 1/4 day doesn't have as much to do with the earth's rotation as it does the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. At the end of the last day of the normal year the earth is ~1/4 day's travel short in it's orbit of where it was at the last day of the year before. The leap year is simply to allow the gap to get big enough for us call a full day that we were already experiencing each year anyway an "extra" day on our calendars so that we can start the year at roughly the same point in the earth's orbit every 4 years.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: ironwing
The point of having leap days every four years is to take up the slack in the calendar, with the error accumulating by ~1/4 day each year. So half way through the cycle from leap year to leap year when the accumulated error is 1/2 day, why isn't it dark in the middle of the day?

Because the extra 1/4 day doesn't have as much to do with the earth's rotation as it does as the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. At the end of the last day of the normal year the earth is ~1/4 day's travel short in it's orbit of where it was at the last day of the year before. The leap year is simply to allow the gap to get big enough for us call a full day that we were already experiencing each year anyway an "extra" day on our calendars so that we can start the year at roughly the same point in the earth's orbit every 4 years.

cliffs: because the time it takes to fly all the way around the sun is not causally linked to the time it takes our rock to spin around. I mean 620 million years ago a day was 21.9 hours long, which would make a year about 400 days long.

Edit: linky
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Hanging or beheading

Poaching on the hunting preserves of a powerful prince was punishable by death, but the prince further decreed that anyone caught poaching was to be given the privilege of deciding whether he should be hanged or beheaded. The culprit was permitted to make a statement - if it were false, he was to be hanged; if it were true, he was to be beheaded. One logical rogue availed himself of this dubious prerogative - to be hanged if he didn't and to be beheaded if he did - by stating: "I shall be hanged." Here was a dilemma not anticipated. For, as the poacher put it, "If you now hang me, you break the laws made by the prince, for my statement is true, and I ought to be beheaded, but if you behead me, you are also breaking the laws, for then what I said was false and I should therefore be hanged."

Its fuckin hung.

Reading this annoyed me like no other.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,940
10,840
147
Originally posted by: ironwing
Time flies like an arrow...

And fruit flies like a banana. :thumbsup:
 

Aluvus

Platinum Member
Apr 27, 2006
2,913
1
0
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Hanging or beheading

Poaching on the hunting preserves of a powerful prince was punishable by death, but the prince further decreed that anyone caught poaching was to be given the privilege of deciding whether he should be hanged or beheaded. The culprit was permitted to make a statement - if it were false, he was to be hanged; if it were true, he was to be beheaded. One logical rogue availed himself of this dubious prerogative - to be hanged if he didn't and to be beheaded if he did - by stating: "I shall be hanged." Here was a dilemma not anticipated. For, as the poacher put it, "If you now hang me, you break the laws made by the prince, for my statement is true, and I ought to be beheaded, but if you behead me, you are also breaking the laws, for then what I said was false and I should therefore be hanged."

Its fuckin hung.

Reading this annoyed me like no other.

"Hanged" is in fact the correct word in that context. See hang senses 4, 5, 20, and 24 and note usage note at the beginning. I do not know why this conjugation has survived, but it has.

The more you know...
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
This is like finding limitations to how language can describe reality, and then blaming reality for being wrong. I hate philosophy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Your second paradox isn't one.

You could define dull as numbers put in one set, and interesting put in the other. There is no additional qualifier in that definition. If you except the smallest number, then you can except the next to smallest etc. There's nothing inherently magical about a place in a set.

By selecting the smallest number as automatically being interesting you invalidate the set. Since your definition is invalid any reference to it is also invalid.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
The second isn't a paradox. The second is a truth that all math majors have always known: all numbers are interesting. You merely provided proof for the people who hate math.
 

SaltBoy

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2001
8,975
11
81
Statement A: Statement B is false
Statement B: Statement A is true