Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

So, earlier today, someone mentions Hypochondriacs (people who self-diagnose all sorts of diseases based on symptoms that aren't really there).  Then I thought:  "What if there is a person who, after considering that he might have a few diseases, diagnoses himself with Hypochondria, and for that reason does not take any of his other diagnoses seriously?  What do you call such a person?" 

He thinks he has Hypochondria.  If this is false, then it means that he sees symptoms of something he does not have.  But then, Hypochondria is seeing symptoms of something you don't have (sort of).

Now, why am I asking this?  Well, paradoxes fascinate me.  I sometimes wonder if things I see as paradoxes aren't really paradoxes, or at least aren't seen as such by others.  Plus I might be that guy, I want to know what the heck I am.  I really don't know where I stand on the one I just posted, but rather would like to know what others think of it.

Also, bring in more paradoxes, if you can.  They're pretty nifty brain teasers.

[ToonyMan]

This statement is false.

[Kagus]

To my knowledge, a Hypochondriac would never diagnose themselves with a Hypochondria.  Kinda the deal with crazy people.  Only the sane will think that they might be crazy.

So if you think you're a Hypochondriac, then you're not.  But then again, I'm just assuming this.


Much as I'd like to construct some sort of new term that would mean a sort of hypochondria-hypochondriac, trying to find some root words to mess with just revealed that the word "Hypochondria" has absolutely nothing at all to do with thinking you're sick.  Disappointing, to say the least.

[Christes]

I love this one:

A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on a Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on a Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all. The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, will still be an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said has come true

[ToonyMan]

I love this one:

A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on a Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on a Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all. The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, will still be an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said has come true

I love that one, sounds so reasonable, no?

[sonerohi]

That isn't a paradox though. If someone tells you that the floor is not a primary color, and you rule out the primaries, you would be shocked to find out that it is indeed a primary due to the other person using a different color-schemey thing.

[Dasleah]

By definition paradoxes cannot exist. What most people assume is a 'paradox' is either a clever play on words, an assumption built on flawed or misinterpreted conclusions, or just irony.

[Jualin]

By definition paradoxes cannot exist. What most people assume is a 'paradox' is either a clever play on words, an assumption built on flawed or misinterpreted conclusions, or just irony.

Then what may one call the grandfather paradox?

[LegoLord]

By definition paradoxes cannot exist. What most people assume is a 'paradox' is either a clever play on words, an assumption built on flawed or misinterpreted conclusions, or just irony.

But then what is this:

This statement is false.

?

Edit: somehow it seems appropriate that ToonyMan was the first to reply.

[Mr Tk]

This setence contains three erors.

It's false because there are only two errors.
But it's also true because maybe the third error is the fact that there are only two errors!


There is a whole section of mathematics and computer science dedicated to sort of thing called the Diagonal Argument. It'll make your brain melt.

[Christes]

Cantor's?  The term diagonal argument is actually a little ambiguous.

[zchris13]

And therein lies the difficulty!

[Dasleah]

By definition paradoxes cannot exist. What most people assume is a 'paradox' is either a clever play on words, an assumption built on flawed or misinterpreted conclusions, or just irony.

Then what may one call the grandfather paradox?

The grandfather paradox is still a paradox, in every sense that I said they are. It cannot come to pass in reality. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would never be born, and thus wouldn't be able to go back in time to kill your grandfather because you were never alive to kill him in the first place. Standard time travel, really. You cannot go back in time to change anything, because if you changed it, it would never have existed in a form you wished to have changed, and thus you wouldn't need to go back in time.

[ToonyMan]

This is why time machines will never be able to go into the past.  Maybe the future though...

[Dasleah]

This is why time machines will never be able to go into the past.  Maybe the future though...

Time travel into the future is certainly possible, although with the caveat of it being a one-way trip. Time only has one direction - well, to be precise, reality only has one direction, that being forwards, moving at the rate of 1s/s. The past can be argued not to exist at all, being effectively destroyed once it stops being active and starts being retroactive, leaving nothing to travel back to.

If you subscribe to the ideals of quantum mechanics, then a certain type of time travel is certainly possible using the concept of alternate realities. But then that isn't really time travel so much as it is just reality-hopping. If the classical understanding of time is a river, then in quantum mechanics it can be thought of as a a large collection of rivers flowing from a common source, but still moving forwards towards the end of existence. When you travel through 'time' you aren't so much going backwards or forwards as sideways - hopping across to another stream that may have started much earlier or later compared to your current reference. For all intents and purposes it seems as though you have indeed travelled forward or backward in time, but all you have done is shifted to a reality whose divergence point could have been as simple as it came into existence 50 years earlier or later than yours did. Any changes in this new universe bypass the usual pitfalls of time-travel related paradoxes, as you aren't actually time travelling, so you can kill Hitler, have sex with your grandma, and save Lincoln all you want.