37 replies to this topic

[Romanul]

I remember this show called 'samurai jack'

YES! Epic awesomeness show right there.

But was Jack right?

The cartoons?...

The cartoons were okay.

[Pasidon]

Are you kidding me? Watching a Samurai being sent into the future and banjaxing crap out of weird monsters is epic television.

[Ash]

Banjaxing.

Sorry, are we really going with that as a real word?

But to get back to the orignal debate of wondering whether "Everything I say is a lie." Is truth or a lie, yeh I've heard that before. Better just to chalk it off as a paradox and be done. If he's telling the truth, then not everything he says is a lie. If he's lying, then technically everything he says must be the truth. Which further confounds the paradox.

Practicality cannot really be applied to logical paradoxes such as these. Nearly no such scenario would ever appear in real life. Take 'em as what they are. Just a bit of thought-provoking fun.

[Allathar]

If he lies, that doesn't mean he always tells the truth - it just means he doesn't always lie (he sometimes tells the truth). No paradox.

[Bart]

If he's lying, then technically everything he says must be the truth.

This is the thinking error that people make here. The denial of "I always lie" is not "I always tell the truth", it's "I do not always lie". Therefore, the answer is simple: It's a lie.

[Vortigern]

Man, you guys want a paradox, try anything Zeno (the Greek mathematician/philosopher) ever said. Achilles and the tortoise, for example:

Achilles races a tortoise, but decides to give the tortoise a head start to even things up a little. By the time Achilles has reached the place where the tortoise started, the tortoise has moved on. By the time Achilles reaches that place, the tortoise has moved on again. How can Achilles ever catch up?

Or, my personal favourite, the arrow paradox:

For motion to be occurring, an object must switch places from the place it is to a place it is not yet. In any one instant of time, the arrow must move to where it is or to where it is not, but it cannot move to where it is because it is already there, but nor can it move to where it is not because this is a single instant of time. Therefore, if the arrow cannot move in a single instant of time, it cannot move in any instant of time, therefore it must be motionless, and motion itself must be impossible.

[Pasidon]

I don't get that Zeno one. A guy gives a head start while racing a clumsy reptile, he catches up to its starting point but the turtle is still ahead. Either this is one fast turtle, one stupid racer, or the turtle wandered off the track some time ago, and Archilles just didn't realize it and thinks it is in the lead.

[Ash]

Achilles races a tortoise, but decides to give the tortoise a head start to even things up a little. By the time Achilles has reached the place where the tortoise started, the tortoise has moved on. By the time Achilles reaches that place, the tortoise has moved on again. How can Achilles ever catch up?

Achilles clearly has his priorities for the race wrong. His objective seems to be to catch up to exactly where the tortoise was up to at the moment he set off each at each leg of the race, whereas the correct objective of a race is to get to a set point ahead of all racers.

For motion to be occurring, an object must switch places from the place it is to a place it is not yet. In any one instant of time, the arrow must move to where it is or to where it is not, but it cannot move to where it is because it is already there, but nor can it move to where it is not because this is a single instant of time. Therefore, if the arrow cannot move in a single instant of time, it cannot move in any instant of time, therefore it must be motionless, and motion itself must be impossible.

This is perplexing more because of the rules he set; he hasn't allowed for speed or how long an 'instant of time' is. In fact, he's actively disallowed them.

[Bart]

For motion to be occurring, an object must switch places from the place it is to a place it is not yet. In any one instant of time, the arrow must move to where it is or to where it is not, but it cannot move to where it is because it is already there, but nor can it move to where it is not because this is a single instant of time. Therefore, if the arrow cannot move in a single instant of time, it cannot move in any instant of time, therefore it must be motionless, and motion itself must be impossible.

Time is continuous, the number of "instants" unlimited, but this is something that is hard to grasp.

[Puppeteer]

Perhaps the movement happens between the instants of time?

[some_weirdGuy]

For motion to be occurring, an object must switch places from the place it is to a place it is not yet. In any one instant of time, the arrow must move to where it is or to where it is not, but it cannot move to where it is because it is already there, but nor can it move to where it is not because this is a single instant of time. Therefore, if the arrow cannot move in a single instant of time, it cannot move in any instant of time, therefore it must be motionless, and motion itself must be impossible.

Reminds me of the 'pirates and global warming' link.
Basically it was using twisted logic to say lack of pirates is causing global warming.

Cause back during the golden age of piracy pirates were plentiful, and global warming was non-existent. However in modern times pirate numbers have declined, and global warming has occurred. Therefore we see a direct link proving lack of pirates is causing global warming.

So while the twisted logic sounds correct, it obviously is not.

[Pasidon]

Pirates retired from their eco-friendly boat riding and now use cars like ordinary people. It makes sense.

[Vortigern]

The pirates and global warming thing was used by the founder of Pastafarianism to demonstrate that better proof is needed sometimes. He was arguing against creationism being taught as science in schools in what amounts to a modern-day Monkey Trial. He put it in a letter to the Kansas School Board and they demanded he resign, so he started a religion based on random guesswork, illogical conjecture and Photoshopped Christian artwork. A true inspiration to us all.

[Pasidon]

Well... to Atheists at least.

[Mathijs]

Atheists? Oh, you mean the non-delusional rationalists.

[some_weirdGuy]

http://lolgod.blogspot.com/

i love funny religious stuff like those, they're good for a laugh, both ways.

(seems to be relevant to the new train of thought so i thought i'd post it)

[Bart]

Awesome, added that site to my Google Reader.

[Pasidon]

Atheists? Oh, you mean the non-delusional rationalists.

Whatever works.