Paradoxes

**Jalexxi** · 02-02-2006 11:42 PM

(Although all of these go back to philosophy in one way or another, it's more for fun than an actual discussion, so here it is in senseless. Edit: On second thought, this should probably be in the Lounge. I hate second thoughts.)

Just throwing a few paradoxes in here for you all to think about. I always find unravelling the structure and exactly where the paradox is created to be great fun, so puzzle away.

Protagoras is educating Euathlos to be a lawyer. They've made an agreement on when Protagoras will be paid, and that's as soon as Euathlos wins his first case. But after his study, Euathlos doesn't become a lawyer. He doesn't take on any cases, and refuses to pay Protagoras because he has not won his first case yet. Protagoras wants his money, and decides to take his claim to court.
He argues: "If I win this case, Euathlos will have to pay me the money for his study, as per my claim. Yet, if I lose, Euathlos wins his first case case and will also have to pay me. Either way, I get my money."
Euathlos argues in the exact opposite fashion: "If I win this case, it Protagoras' claim is refused and I will not have to pay him. Yet, if I lose, I will not have won my first case and I also do not have to pay."
Who is in the right here?

A teacher announces to his class that the test for this term will be a surprise test.
"You will have to study up and have the knowledge at hand always, because I guarantuee you when you get this test, it will be a surprise!"
Bob and Silvia discuss the matter after class. Bob is particularly bummed out, this subject is not his favorite. But Silvia cheers him up:
"Don't worry, I don't think there will be any test at all. I think the teacher is just joking."
"Really? Why?"
"Well, consider this. He couldn't give the test on the last day, because everyone would know the test has to be given by then, so it will not be any surprise."
"Well, great. How does that help us?"
"Well, if we've eliminated the last day, we now turn to the second-last day. As we know he can't give the test on the last day, when the second-last day comes, it will have to be given by then. But that won't be a surprise anymore!"
Now Bob gets it too: "Oh, and that also rules out the third-last, fourth-last, and every other day! He can't give the test!"
Fully confident, Bob and Silvia refuse to study, untill three weeks later the test is suddenly given. Bob is shocked:
"But teacher, you can't give the test! It has to be a surprise!"
"Yes Bob, you weren't expecting any test, and still I give it. Isn't that quite a surprise?"
Were Bob and Silvia wrong, or was the teacher?

"This santence contains two errors."
What is going on with the above sentence?

**Led** · 02-03-2006 02:24 AM

those are fun but only that last one is a real paradox

**Amethyst Star** · 02-03-2006 06:39 AM

Am I a paradox, enigma, or oxymoron?

...you don't have to answer that.

**Jrels** · 02-03-2006 09:18 AM

I do not have the patience for paradoxes.

**freefalling** · 02-03-2006 11:50 AM

1st one: It depends if the defendant is his own lawyer. Also, if the crown wins, the defendant has to pay and abide by the law, so it doesn't matter what he thinks.

2nd: I have no idea what the hell the writer of that was sniffing but I can't understand it : (

3rd: I only see one error. Is that why there is two errors?
If the two errors are spelling and the fact it states it is an error when only one can be seen. Then it is merely a grammatical error, and is also true ("two" should actually be "one"). It is telling the truth. I, myself, see no contridiction in this.

I would have no say the only paradox is the 1st one, seeing as I could only understand two of them : (

**Darkmatic** · 02-03-2006 11:59 AM

Originally posted by freefalling

3rd: I only see one error. Is that why there is two errors? *
If the two errors are spelling and the fact it states it is an error when only one can be seen. Then it is merely a grammatical error, and is also true ("two" should actually be "one"). *It is telling the truth. I, myself, see no contridiction in this.

Maybe because there is only 1 grammatical error , but the statement is incorrect then the 2 errors cause confliction with the sentence cos its claiming to have 2 errors but if the statement is incorrect then it cant have 2 errors , but there are . I guess thats what you would define as a paradox .

**mongreloctopus** · 02-03-2006 01:13 PM

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is false.

**Neruo** · 02-03-2006 01:41 PM

Yeah paradoxes are fun.

But not like there is an awnser to them, otherwise it would't be paradoxes.

The one with the surprise test is a good one still

**Umbrasquall** · 02-03-2006 05:45 PM

Euathlos will have to pay no matter what because he is using Protagoras's logic to defend the case in which he loses.

**CryoDragoon** · 02-03-2006 08:29 PM

is the answer to this question "no"?

**wasup** · 02-03-2006 08:45 PM

Originally posted by CryoDragoon
is the answer to this question "no"?

Certainly not.

**freefalling** · 02-04-2006 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Darkmatic

Maybe because there is only 1 grammatical error , but the statement is incorrect then the 2 errors cause confliction with the sentence cos its claiming to have 2 errors but if the statement is incorrect then it cant have 2 errors , but there are . I guess thats what you would define as a paradox .

That's basically what I said. Except it is not a paradox, because it is not contridicting itself. It is a true statement.

**Dangeruss** · 02-04-2006 04:00 AM

If you think in absolutes.. true or false, black or white, right or wrong... then paradoxes are a common occurence. they should serve as evidence of the nonsensical nature of such thought patterns. I've never seen black, only a very dark shade of grey.

**freefalling** · 02-04-2006 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Dangeruss
I've never seen black, only a very dark shade of grey.

Black is the absence of colour. Therefore you have seen it

(just open mspaint and it's there... or close your eyes.)

**wasup** · 02-04-2006 03:48 PM

Originally posted by freefalling

Black is the absence of colour. Therefore you have seen it * *
(just open mspaint and it's there... or close your eyes.)

Well, the other guy is kind of right. "Complete" black is when something absorbs ALL of the light sent at it. Like if you put a black piece of paper out in the daytime it will probably get lighter and reflect some of the light. With complete black you can shine a really bright light on it and (hypothetically) it wouldn't get any lighter... I believe. You probably might see black when there are no lights in a room... But black is usually just "little" light reflected off of it.

**Dangeruss** · 02-04-2006 06:45 PM

No matter how tight I shut my eyes, I'll never see a darker shade of black than that time I was in a cave a few hundred feet under ground and I shut my light off. Now that was black!

My point is that we can use language to describe things, but reality is too complex to completely describe with words. the black paper and the cave are both 'black' in every sense of the word, but it's important to remember that words like that are qualitative. They can get us on the same page, but to get us on the same paragraph or the same word will take a lot more description than just one word. Can we all agree that there are different kinds of 'right' and different kinds of 'wrong?' Verbal paradoxes occur when we assume the words convey meaning 100% - which they often don't.

**Burns** · 02-04-2006 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Dangeruss
No matter how tight I shut my eyes, I'll never see a darker shade of black than that time I was in a cave a few hundred feet under ground and I shut my light off. Now that was black!

I was going to say that! I was in a cave in Tennessee once when the guide told us to close our eyes tight, then a few seconds later told us to open them. It was total and complete black. And no matter where I looked or how wide I opened my eyes, there was only utter blackness. It was so weird because usually in a dark room you can outlines or shadows of objects - but this was nothing like that. No light, no shadows, no anything. It was a bizarre feeling. ...Sorry, kinda off the topic of paradoxes...

**freefalling** · 02-04-2006 11:02 PM

I was going to say "Of course you haven't black is the absence of colour and light."
But because we were talking about the colour black, it is different. Because there would be no other way to portray black, we call it a colour.

Black is really a shade, so is gray. I had an argument on another forum about that... It was... lame : (

Thread: Paradoxes

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Paradoxes

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions