dare: there are no such things as paradoxes...

[hayze99]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

[alien pimp]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

yeh, i thought that shit comes down to something stupid like 1. this is like heaven and hell: since nobody seen them and told anyone what is it like so you can as well believe it or not, who can prove you wrong? same for the cat in the box, since you can't observe it you can believe whatever you please, i can say it grows wings, but only when you're not looking at it, because in those conditions it transcends dimensions and shifts shape. that's not science, that's religion.
retarded, nothing to prove here, let's move on

[bass hertz]

fighting for peace...



posting for respect.

[kay]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

Technically, it isn't a paradox. It's just an unresolved state. The cat isn't both dead and alive at the same time - we just don't know whether it is alive or dead.

[helix]

I always lie.

[abelard]

this is some next dickhead ting

[collige]

I always lie.

You lie sometimes, but not all the time.

If you do lie all the time, then that statement is not a lie.
If you don't, then that statement is a lie.
Either way, you speak the truth at least once and lie at least once.

[helix]

this is some next dickhead ting

This.

I always lie.

You lie sometimes, but not all the time.

If you do lie all the time, then that statement is not a lie.
If you don't, then that statement is a lie.
Either way, you speak the truth at least once and lie at least once.

This too.

[mikey_g]

thees a few obvious one's that have been missed

chicken or the egg??

paradox of niilism - that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning

also to state paradoxes don't exist seems to ignore all the moral paradoxes we find ourselves in. That is unless one is omnipotent. but that raises a different paradox - the omnipotence paradox - " addressing the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible. The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do."

[dubmatters]

double....

[dubmatters]

How about traveling back in time and killing yourself?

Even Stephen Hawking thinks that is a paradox. Thus preventing time travel to the past

I'll believe him over some chump on here.

[xarcane]

How about the Zenos paradox?

Achilles wants to race a turtle, and he is twice as fast as the turtle, so he gives the turtle a big headstart. By the time he reaches the starting line, the turtle has moved half that distance. By the time he reaches where the turtle was when he was at the starting line, the turtle has moved half his distance again. When he reaches that point the turtle has moved half his distance again...

Go on logically like this, and Achilles should never be able to overtake the turtle, because every time he reaches the point where the turtle just was, the turtle should have moved half that distance again. Yet we know that in reality that he will be able to overtake it. Explain.

[alien pimp]

fighting for peace?

that's an oximoron, if i remember correctly the term, not a paradox
so many people use this word quite frequently but so few know what it means apparently

I would disagree with 'fighting for peace' being an oxymoron. The phrase 'fighting for peace' contains nothing that could be considered oxymoronic (e.g. 'a capitalist communist'). 'fighting for peace' must be considered paradoxical because of the means contradicting the aim. Certainly not oxymoronic as far as I can conceive.

the means contradicting the aim is no definition or paradox as i know it, but being a pacifist soldier or a warrior for peace it is quite oxymoronic

[alien pimp]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

Technically, it isn't a paradox. It's just an unresolved state. The cat isn't both dead and alive at the same time - we just don't know whether it is alive or dead.

this!

[alien pimp]

I always lie.

same as for the earlier one saying "this statement is false"

[alien pimp]

thees a few obvious one's that have been missed

chicken or the egg??

paradox of niilism - that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning

also to state paradoxes don't exist seems to ignore all the moral paradoxes we find ourselves in. That is unless one is omnipotent. but that raises a different paradox - the omnipotence paradox - " addressing the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible. The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do."

this chicken/egg stuff is not a paradox, read the definitions guys!!!
btw, it was blatantly the egg from a evolutionist perspective

i don't know what a moral paradox is

the omnipotence paradox is a good example, but omnipotence is a made up shit, never encountered situation, never proved real, and if it also don't make any sense logically it's like solving pardoxes from star trek or olympian legends . not my game

[alien pimp]

How about traveling back in time and killing yourself?

Even Stephen Hawking thinks that is a paradox. Thus preventing time travel to the past

I'll believe him over some chump on here.

you can't travel in something that doesn't exist, like the past or the future. it's like travelling on planet mambo-jumbo

[xarcane]

So... are you going to solve the Zenos paradox or not? It's been used for millenia to demonstrate the fallibility of logic, so it seems like a good place to start for you. How is it that logically speaking Achilles should never be able to pass the turtle, but from what we perceive in reality we know he does.

[bass hertz]

So... are you going to solve the Zenos paradox or not? It's been used for millenia to demonstrate the fallibility of logic, so it seems like a good place to start for you. How is it that logically speaking Achilles should never be able to pass the turtle, but from what we perceive in reality we know he does.

the answer is speed

[alien pimp]

How about the Zenos paradox?

Achilles wants to race a turtle, and he is twice as fast as the turtle, so he gives the turtle a big headstart. By the time he reaches the starting line, the turtle has moved half that distance. By the time he reaches where the turtle was when he was at the starting line, the turtle has moved half his distance again. When he reaches that point the turtle has moved half his distance again...

Go on logically like this, and Achilles should never be able to overtake the turtle, because every time he reaches the point where the turtle just was, the turtle should have moved half that distance again. Yet we know that in reality that he will be able to overtake it. Explain.

the halves (aka turtle's advantage) decrease each cycle by 50%, until they become zero - this is where achilles is at the same point with the turtle and from there he gets ahead. you might argue halving can go on forever, i say that happens theoretically only, in real life it's enough to think achille's feet prolly have about 20cm or so, so when the halves get around that lenght he's in quite a good position
the only condition for achilles to win is that the whole race is long enough to allow achilles catch up, in other words - long enough to allow the halves become closer to zero. at some point the halves will be smaller than even achilles feet. by the time the turtle makes that infinity of halves that are in the lenght of achille's foot, our guy can have a snack, a shag and maybe enough time to grow his toenails for more halves for the turtle. that's sort of down to earth mathematical explanation
fully down to earth explanation says this apparent dilemma originates in some really intelligent guys' inability to match theoretical concepts and life facts in this universe. we are not really moving on zeros and halves and mathematical points, we're moving on physically limited and measurable positive space.