ITT: Paradoxes
Post your favorite paradoxes, I'll start:
The Stability Paradox
1. The more stable something is, the less energy is needed to destabilize it
2. An infinite amount of stability would require precisely zero energy to destabilize
Conclusion: stability is inherently unstable
neat.
I like the one about Achilles and the tortoise. you can add 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32 ad infinitum and never reach the number 1
>>7320788
It does equal one though.
That picture isn't a paradox. Pinocchio's nose grows if he's telling a lie, but his statement that "My nose will grow now!" is speculation and has yet to be confirmed, i.e. it's reliant upon the effects of that statement as to whether or not he's telling a lie; prior to that, he doesn't know if it's a lie or truth.
>>7320788
something tells me you also think 0.999... ≠ 1
> The more stable something is, the less energy is needed to destabilize it.
That's basically the opposite of what "more stable" means.
>>7320847
OP goofed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_paradox
yeah a lot of paradoxes, keno's included, aren't really paradoxes at all. just examples of begging the question.
>>7321067
zeno****
>>7320813
So would the nose grow or not?
>>7321091
Impossible to say. Depending on the outcome following his remark we could then categorize the statement into true/false. Before that, it has no true/false basis.
>>7320763
The sad thing about a lot of these paradoxes is if they are actually applied outside of a theoretical context, quantum uncertainty makes them moot
>>7318344
>>7321140
notice he didn't mention political LITERATURE
>>7320763
this is why after the last muon has decayed to nothing the universe will spontaneously explode into being once more.
>>7320763
Free will is my favourite paradox.
>>7321091
Stating something that isn't true, or impossible, isn't the same as a lie. Saying "my nose will grow now" is, as stated already, his own speculation. If someone asked him "Does your nose grow if you tell a lie?" and he says "no," knowing that it in fact does this, then it would grow because he has lied.
Lying is a sociological phenomenon in which one person knowingly deceived another person. If someone asks me what the capital of New York state is and I say "New York city," that's not me lying, it's just me being ignorant.
>>7321155
Alternatively, if someone asked whether I knew what the capital of NY is and I said "yes" but I in fact don't, that's lying, no doubt so that I can deceive the other person in thinking I'm not a dumb fuck.
Tangentially (very tangentially) related:
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/
Appetizer: Professor of logic speaks about paradoxes, Aristotelian logic, plurivalent logic and Buddhism.
It's neither dumb nor esoteric. Short and intelligent. Worth a read.
>>7320763
>The more stable something is, the less energy is needed to destabilize it
what exactly are you talking about
i tried to google this and all i got was a thing about nuclear powers
>>7320763
>>his
FUCK OFF
BOARD RULESWhy did Hiroshima conflate history and the general humanities? Outside of /his/ why is philosophical discussion now only permissible on b, r9k, and pol?
>>7321091
It would be in a superposition of states until measured.
The "Pinnochio nose problem" is quantum mechanics in a nutshell and it makes just as little sense there.
>>7321147
As the guy who Hiro quoted for the sticky - if it's literature, it belongs in /lit/. If it's not, it's at risk of being removed.
I wish I had put more time into crafting the message, but when you see an 8-minute-old thread from moot's successor, you need to strike while the iron is hot.
>>7321348
"History" (Record) and "Literature" (Fiction) are the two humanities strong enough to carry boards, and they're also two relatively distinct loci with different that the other humanities converse with. Literature should be "Literature & Humanities" also.
the more responsibility a person takes on
the more freedom he has to do as he please
the more freedom a person has
the greater the implicit obligation of ensuring the existence of said freedom or suffer it's eventual dissipation
conclusion: freedom is responsibility
>>7320763
I don't really understand OP.
>1. The more stable something is, the less energy is needed to destabilize it
Shouldn't it take MORE energy to destabilize a stable system, than an unstable one?
