Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

paradoxes by their very nature are paradoxes.

Paradoxically this picture appears in the Wiki article.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

paradoxes by their very nature are paradoxes.

Was that a paradox in response to the request, or a non-paradoxical comment on the request, or something else?

Peak Warming Man said:

Paradoxically this picture appears in the Wiki article.

Well it’s certainly a strange image to use as their primary example of a paradox.

I don’t think that makes it a paradox though.

People do strange things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

paradoxes by their very nature are paradoxes.

Was that a paradox in response to the request, or a non-paradoxical comment on the request, or something else?

here you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.

Some french guy.

there are so many

did you ever feel unsafe when tailed or chased by a police car and pulled over. The immediate contradiction is that the police exist to make people safer, to assist the safe ease that people operate in the lawful space, yet the experience of being chased and pulled over is commonly a sensation of being unsafe, and inconvenience. Police tend to turn up when bad things happen, or they look for bad things, so could be seen as bad luck

ambulances have a high risk of road crashes, or running over people. They tend to turn up when some misfortune has occurred, so too could be seen as bad luck

there are people out there, paramedics and police that want to help you now, ready, even before misfortune visits you, and doctors ready to diagnose you

a lot of the work of the social (human) mind goes into limiting sociability

people tend to be as monogamous as they are in response to being polyamorous

I could go on all day, not much of the complexity of human life goes without paradoxical elements, if considered to any depth

http://steve-patterson.com/paradox-nonsense-california/

transition said:

there are so many

did you ever feel unsafe when tailed or chased by a police car and pulled over. The immediate contradiction is that the police exist to make people safer, to assist the safe ease that people operate in the lawful space, yet the experience of being chased and pulled over is commonly a sensation of being unsafe, and inconvenience. Police tend to turn up when bad things happen, or they look for bad things, so could be seen as bad luck

ambulances have a high risk of road crashes, or running over people. They tend to turn up when some misfortune has occurred, so too could be seen as bad luck

there are people out there, paramedics and police that want to help you now, ready, even before misfortune visits you, and doctors ready to diagnose you

I wouldn’t call those paradoxes though.

They are examples of illogical reactions and or unintended consequences.

What I’m looking for is a statement that is true according to some valid set of logical rules, but cannot be true according to the same set of valid rules.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

there are so many

did you ever feel unsafe when tailed or chased by a police car and pulled over. The immediate contradiction is that the police exist to make people safer, to assist the safe ease that people operate in the lawful space, yet the experience of being chased and pulled over is commonly a sensation of being unsafe, and inconvenience. Police tend to turn up when bad things happen, or they look for bad things, so could be seen as bad luck

ambulances have a high risk of road crashes, or running over people. They tend to turn up when some misfortune has occurred, so too could be seen as bad luck

there are people out there, paramedics and police that want to help you now, ready, even before misfortune visits you, and doctors ready to diagnose you

I wouldn’t call those paradoxes though.

They are examples of illogical reactions and or unintended consequences.

What I’m looking for is a statement that is true according to some valid set of logical rules, but cannot be true according to the same set of valid rules.

well, no, off the bat thinking has paradoxical components, they are the only real paradoxes, because contradiction is common of representation

• What I’m looking for is a statement that is true according to some valid set of logical rules, but cannot be true according to the same set of valid rules.

Scott Morrison is the leader of Australia…

ChrispenEvan said:

http://steve-patterson.com/paradox-nonsense-california/

I went from:
Looks interesting to
What a load of shit to
That’s exactly what I think

and I’m only half way through.

I’ll go back and read it properly later, but thanks for the link.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

there are so many

did you ever feel unsafe when tailed or chased by a police car and pulled over. The immediate contradiction is that the police exist to make people safer, to assist the safe ease that people operate in the lawful space, yet the experience of being chased and pulled over is commonly a sensation of being unsafe, and inconvenience. Police tend to turn up when bad things happen, or they look for bad things, so could be seen as bad luck

ambulances have a high risk of road crashes, or running over people. They tend to turn up when some misfortune has occurred, so too could be seen as bad luck

there are people out there, paramedics and police that want to help you now, ready, even before misfortune visits you, and doctors ready to diagnose you

I wouldn’t call those paradoxes though.

They are examples of illogical reactions and or unintended consequences.

What I’m looking for is a statement that is true according to some valid set of logical rules, but cannot be true according to the same set of valid rules.

well, no, off the bat thinking has paradoxical components, they are the only real paradoxes, because contradiction is common of representation

As said in your link, there are no “real paradoxes”.

All paradoxes are apparent; we just have to work out why they are not real.

Take the paradox, all Cretans are liars. It is true because everybody has lied at some point (assumption), but that doesn’t mean they lie all the time. So no real paradox, just a simplistic statement.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wouldn’t call those paradoxes though.

They are examples of illogical reactions and or unintended consequences.

What I’m looking for is a statement that is true according to some valid set of logical rules, but cannot be true according to the same set of valid rules.

well, no, off the bat thinking has paradoxical components, they are the only real paradoxes, because contradiction is common of representation

As said in your link, there are no “real paradoxes”.

All paradoxes are apparent; we just have to work out why they are not real.

The simplest examples in the Wiki article were the medical ones.
ie a sedative that makes you agitated.
I’m not sure about that.

take the ideas in the word formulation postpone into non-existence

that involves paradoxical ideas, in my view, of the real world, of thinking, and doing, or not doing

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

well, no, off the bat thinking has paradoxical components, they are the only real paradoxes, because contradiction is common of representation

As said in your link, there are no “real paradoxes”.

All paradoxes are apparent; we just have to work out why they are not real.

The simplest examples in the Wiki article were the medical ones.
ie a sedative that makes you agitated.
I’m not sure about that.

For some reason, the other day, I was thinking about the anti-depressants that increase suicidal thoughts…

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As said in your link, there are no “real paradoxes”.

All paradoxes are apparent; we just have to work out why they are not real.

The simplest examples in the Wiki article were the medical ones.
ie a sedative that makes you agitated.
I’m not sure about that.

For some reason, the other day, I was thinking about the anti-depressants that increase suicidal thoughts…

The anti-anxiety medication I’ve been prescribed comes with a warning that it may increase anxiety.

Paradox is a German power/thrash metal band formed in 1986.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(German_band)

Paradox – Heresy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiF1XjuTcAE

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As said in your link, there are no “real paradoxes”.

All paradoxes are apparent; we just have to work out why they are not real.

The simplest examples in the Wiki article were the medical ones.
ie a sedative that makes you agitated.
I’m not sure about that.

For some reason, the other day, I was thinking about the anti-depressants that increase suicidal thoughts…

better example is it’s fairly well known a not insignificant benefit of antidepressants is got from placebo effect

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

yo = to

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

I agree.

Which brings us to the paradox paradox:

Why do people speak of apparent paradoxes, as if some paradoxes were real, when all paradoxes are by definition apparent?

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

even notions like freedom have paradoxical aspects, if thought about

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

Or confuse it with parody, however there is no parodoxical.

transition said:

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The simplest examples in the Wiki article were the medical ones.
ie a sedative that makes you agitated.
I’m not sure about that.

For some reason, the other day, I was thinking about the anti-depressants that increase suicidal thoughts…

better example is it’s fairly well known a not insignificant benefit of antidepressants is got from placebo effect

I don’t see that as being paradoxical at all.

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

Formal logical paradoxes like ‘Russell’s Paradox’ are neither of the above IMO.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

furious said:

For some reason, the other day, I was thinking about the anti-depressants that increase suicidal thoughts…

better example is it’s fairly well known a not insignificant benefit of antidepressants is got from placebo effect

I don’t see that as being paradoxical at all.

I see that

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

Formal logical paradoxes like ‘Russell’s Paradox’ are neither of the above IMO.

I disagree.

Russell’s Paradox comes straight from unstated incorrect assumptions built into the system of logic he uses.

A dissertation on paradoxes.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

Or confuse it with parody, however there is no parodoxical.

Paradoxes seem to exist in fiction more than reality.
I suppose something along the lines of an assumption is made (its wrong) some action is taken to counter the assumption and it ends up creating the assumption you thought was real.
Say military intelligence reveals an eminent attack, people are captured and tortured to reveal information in retaliation the enemy actual does attack in response when before it wasn’t going to

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

Formal logical paradoxes like ‘Russell’s Paradox’ are neither of the above IMO.

Logicians usually regard Russell’s paradox as a consequence of accepting the untenable concept of “all-inclusive collections”.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

Formal logical paradoxes like ‘Russell’s Paradox’ are neither of the above IMO.

I disagree.

Russell’s Paradox comes straight from unstated incorrect assumptions built into the system of logic he uses.

You may be right. Investigating it, it seems that Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory solves the conundrum.

i’d expect working through paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing things often creates dissonance, and dissonance has with it discomfort, and aversion

transition said:

i’d expect working through paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing things often creates dissonance, and dissonance has with it discomfort, and aversion

I don’t know.

I find it quite relaxing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d expect working through paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing things often creates dissonance, and dissonance has with it discomfort, and aversion

I don’t know.

I find it quite relaxing.

we try, don’t we, but I bet you have your moments when you feel a bit challenged

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d expect working through paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing things often creates dissonance, and dissonance has with it discomfort, and aversion

I don’t know.

I find it quite relaxing.

we try, don’t we, but I bet you have your moments when you feel a bit challenged

Sure, depends on the context.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know.

I find it quite relaxing.

we try, don’t we, but I bet you have your moments when you feel a bit challenged

Sure, depends on the context.

so you’ve agreed there are paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing some things

that brings paradox into the every-day-practical territory of thoughtful existence, saves me wrestling with you over whether it exists

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

we try, don’t we, but I bet you have your moments when you feel a bit challenged

Sure, depends on the context.

so you’ve agreed there are paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing some things

that brings paradox into the every-day-practical territory of thoughtful existence, saves me wrestling with you over whether it exists

Contradictions can certainly be said to exist, in the sense of humans perceiving and entertaining notions at odds with each other.

But “true paradoxes” are supposed to be contradictory statements that are logically sound and can’t be resolved by isolating an error in their construction somewhere.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

No

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5VMp2pTVAM

buffy said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5VMp2pTVAM

I do wish buffy would log out when she hijacks mt pooter:)

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sure, depends on the context.

so you’ve agreed there are paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing some things

that brings paradox into the every-day-practical territory of thoughtful existence, saves me wrestling with you over whether it exists

Contradictions can certainly be said to exist, in the sense of humans perceiving and entertaining notions at odds with each other.

But “true paradoxes” are supposed to be contradictory statements that are logically sound and can’t be resolved by isolating an error in their construction somewhere.

That’s how I see it, but I think it’s reasonable to point out the paradoxes in the use of the word paradox as well.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

No

Nice try.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

Before I even consider offering any answers to such a vague question, please supply an unambiguous, complete definition of “genuine paradox”.

Basically this is a discussion about what the word “paradox” means.

dv said:

Basically this is a discussion about what the word “paradox” means.

Yes, I think the Rev was concerned about paradoxes in the technical sense.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

Before I even consider offering any answers to such a vague question, please supply an unambiguous, complete definition of “genuine paradox”.

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Basically this is a discussion about what the word “paradox” means.

Yes, I think the Rev was concerned about paradoxes in the technical sense.

Mainly about whether the word “apparent” in “apparent paradox” is redundant, since by definition a “true paradox” is impossible.

Where a “true paradox” is a statement in some complete logical system that is both true and untrue.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sure, depends on the context.

so you’ve agreed there are paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing some things

that brings paradox into the every-day-practical territory of thoughtful existence, saves me wrestling with you over whether it exists

Contradictions can certainly be said to exist, in the sense of humans perceiving and entertaining notions at odds with each other.

But “true paradoxes” are supposed to be contradictory statements that are logically sound and can’t be resolved by isolating an error in their construction somewhere.

no, paradoxical requirements are common, to thought, as they are to sustained unconclusion, even concluded unconclusion, or unconcluded conclusion, i’m not inclined to define it out of existence, the lessor forms that may not qualify are probably more important to the notional essence of the idea

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dear fellow seekers after truth, please supply some examples of genuine paradoxes.

Thank you.

Before I even consider offering any answers to such a vague question, please supply an unambiguous, complete definition of “genuine paradox”.

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

A request for a detailed definition.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

so you’ve agreed there are paradoxical requirements in conceptualizing some things

that brings paradox into the every-day-practical territory of thoughtful existence, saves me wrestling with you over whether it exists

Contradictions can certainly be said to exist, in the sense of humans perceiving and entertaining notions at odds with each other.

But “true paradoxes” are supposed to be contradictory statements that are logically sound and can’t be resolved by isolating an error in their construction somewhere.

no, paradoxical requirements are common, to thought, as they are to sustained unconclusion, even concluded unconclusion, or unconcluded conclusion, i’m not inclined to define it out of existence, the lessor forms that may not qualify are probably more important to the notional essence of the idea

I’m not saying there are no paradoxes. I am saying that all paradoxes are “apparent”, so the “apparent” prefix is redundant.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

Before I even consider offering any answers to such a vague question, please supply an unambiguous, complete definition of “genuine paradox”.

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

A request for a detailed definition.

Where a “true paradox” is a statement in some complete logical system that is both true and untrue

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

A request for a detailed definition.

Where a “true paradox” is a statement in some complete logical system that is both true and untrue

What is a “complete logical system”? Are you familiar with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: If a (logical) system is consistent, it cannot be complete?

If you word a sentence, just so, using an auto-antonym you are able to produce a statement that is both true and untrue…

furious said:

If you word a sentence, just so, using an auto-antonym you are able to produce a statement that is both true and untrue…

I would say that the statement is neither true nor untrue.

Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the time gives it proof.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

A request for a detailed definition.

Where a “true paradox” is a statement in some complete logical system that is both true and untrue

What is a “complete logical system”? Are you familiar with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: If a (logical) system is consistent, it cannot be complete?

Are you familiar with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

Yes, but not recently.

How about if I replace “complete” with “consistent”?

If twins doctors went back in time and killed their grandfather would it be a pairofdocsparadox

I also think those signs that say “Dispose of litter thoughtfully” are a bit backwards because it is only litter if you don’t dispose of it thoughtfully…

furious said:

I also think those signs that say “Dispose of litter thoughtfully” are a bit backwards because it is only litter if you don’t dispose of it thoughtfully…

Rubbish.

Peak Warming Man said:

furious said:

I also think those signs that say “Dispose of litter thoughtfully” are a bit backwards because it is only litter if you don’t dispose of it thoughtfully…

Rubbish.

Good to see you in furious agreement on this.

furious said:

I also think those signs that say “Dispose of litter thoughtfully” are a bit backwards because it is only litter if you don’t dispose of it thoughtfully…

Approved

dv said:

furious said:

I also think those signs that say “Dispose of litter thoughtfully” are a bit backwards because it is only litter if you don’t dispose of it thoughtfully…

Approved

Or water slides that have warnings slippery when wet

dv said:

Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the time gives it proof. 

He was a deep thinker alright but his maths was probably shit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Contradictions can certainly be said to exist, in the sense of humans perceiving and entertaining notions at odds with each other.

But “true paradoxes” are supposed to be contradictory statements that are logically sound and can’t be resolved by isolating an error in their construction somewhere.

no, paradoxical requirements are common, to thought, as they are to sustained unconclusion, even concluded unconclusion, or unconcluded conclusion, i’m not inclined to define it out of existence, the lessor forms that may not qualify are probably more important to the notional essence of the idea

I’m not saying there are no paradoxes. I am saying that all paradoxes are “apparent”, so the “apparent” prefix is redundant.

in the field of what causes dissonance i’d expect a lot of contradiction and paradox (what causes it) is largely unabstracted, it’s avoided, so’s not apparent (potential conflicts in categorizations for example)

the limits of complexity people are comfortable with has a strong effect on depth of abstraction likely to occur

a lot of the working of minds are bluntly inhibitory also, psychic discomfort you know, not insubstantial in effect

so, to your question, are their unapparent paradoxes at work, i’d say yes, do they exist outside minds or (representational) computation, i’d say not to my knowledge, but they may

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

no, paradoxical requirements are common, to thought, as they are to sustained unconclusion, even concluded unconclusion, or unconcluded conclusion, i’m not inclined to define it out of existence, the lessor forms that may not qualify are probably more important to the notional essence of the idea

I’m not saying there are no paradoxes. I am saying that all paradoxes are “apparent”, so the “apparent” prefix is redundant.

in the field of what causes dissonance i’d expect a lot of contradiction and paradox (what causes it) is largely unabstracted, it’s avoided, so’s not apparent (potential conflicts in categorizations for example)

the limits of complexity people are comfortable with has a strong effect on depth of abstraction likely to occur

a lot of the working of minds are bluntly inhibitory also, psychic discomfort you know, not insubstantial in effect

so, to your question, are their unapparent paradoxes at work, i’d say yes, do they exist outside minds or (representational) computation, i’d say not to my knowledge, but they may

I’d say we are using different versions of “apparent”, but that’s OK.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Paradoxical ideas are faulty ideas, either poorly conceived or poorly expressed, or both.

doubtful that’s right

You have to be careful yo avoid confusing “paradox” with irony, or the simple exposure of real contradictions in attitudes etc.

the bigger picture is medicine can have placebo benefits, effects so, and presently there is some focus on practitioners giving out medicine for the placebo benefits, adverse attention, and if you consider the idea of doctors removing (or having removed) all the placebo effects of medicine, the magic of the witch doctors, even if just reassurance parrying against existing or potential anxieties, medicine starts to look very different. I think there are paradoxical aspects involved in contemplating that

the magic of the witch doctors

That could also be a nocebo

The irresistible force meets the unmovable object.

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

mollwollfumble said:

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

Didn’t Zeno’s paradox get kinda sorted already?

mollwollfumble said:

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

In the first one the time intervals between the sounds would become smaller than the time needed to generate the sound.

so it’s back to the game of semantics, or some kind of no true paradox fallacy

so it’s back to the game of semantics, or some kind of no true paradox fallacy

i blame 5G

SCIENCE said:

so it’s back to the game of semantics, or some kind of no true paradox fallacy

I think the semantics is unavoidable.

Why do you think “no true paradox” is a fallacy?

mollwollfumble said:

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

I could work through those, but instead I’ll present another one on similar lines, based on a New Scientist puzzle:

There are 4 snails, each sitting exactly at the corner of a 2 metre square. Each snail starts to move towards the snail in the next corner, in a clockwise direction, moving at 1 metre/hour.

How long before all the snails meet in the middle?

The answer is 2 hours, because each snail is always moving directly towards a snail that is moving in a perpendicular direction, so has zero velocity relative to the other snail’s location at any instant.

The more interesting question (which NS didn’t ask), is how many times does each snail circle the centre of the square. The answer is they circle an infinite number of times in 2 hours.

So how does that work?

good point

true free will is a true paradox

SCIENCE said:

good point

true free will is a true paradox

certainly strong norms that protect the operating space for freedom involve paradoxical aspects

free will is the operating space to actualize through agreement, which doesn’t necessarily require approval (of others)

anyway, to stir rev up, i’ll say he’s ventured in here with the new nazi physicalism, hostile toward paradox

SCIENCE said:

good point

true free will is a true paradox

Is it?

Why?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

good point

true free will is a true paradox

Is it?

Why?

Societal norms programmed in as you grow up, intelligence limitations as well perhaps.

transition said:

anyway, to stir rev up, i’ll say he’s ventured in here with the new nazi physicalism, hostile toward paradox

Not at all.

I love a good paradox, especially when it is resolved.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

good point

true free will is a true paradox

Is it?

Why?

Societal norms programmed in as you grow up, intelligence limitations as well perhaps.

How does that make it a true paradox?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Is it?

Why?

Societal norms programmed in as you grow up, intelligence limitations as well perhaps.

How does that make it a true paradox?

As in true free will doesn’t exist as you have inbuilt limitations imposed by society.
So you may not think certain things as they are considered abhorrent for example.
So we almost have complete free well
Just trying to think of paradoxes in real life as they mostly seem to exist in fiction as some sort of time travel type event

I don’t think this is really related to the original theme of this thread, but it’s QI nonetheless:

What-is-Simpsons-paradox

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

Before I even consider offering any answers to such a vague question, please supply an unambiguous, complete definition of “genuine paradox”.

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

A request for a detailed definition.

surely the correct answer there was “yes”

SCIENCE said:

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Before I respond, was that an example in response to my request, or a request for more information?

A request for a detailed definition.

surely the correct answer there was “yes”

I concede it is possible that the paradox paradox (which contends that there is no such thing as a true paradox) is a true paradox.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

btm said:

A request for a detailed definition.

surely the correct answer there was “yes”

I concede it is possible that the paradox paradox (which contends that there is no such thing as a true paradox) is a true paradox.

we don’t have the 4 GB of evidence before us currently, but we’re pretty sure a good fraction of SSSF discussions involved argument over semantics, definitions, and whether words defined in such a way that they could not possibly be strictly correctly instantiated, might be better redefined in such a way that they could be

there was much undefined contribution to the same too, we are confident

i’d reckon, of psychology, things that attract and repel (emotions and desire) are ripe territory for paradox

people can be attracted to things that they dislike for example, and the opposite

people can envy or be jealous (with contempt) of what they’d like or want for similarly

thinking (of any type, that does) to any substantial depth is faced with, creates contradictions itself even, it’s unavoidable, so involves patches, fixes, bridging devices, expedients, obliviations, whatever has structure and is structuring for some purpose, even if largely unabstracted

turns out there really is no perfect thought, no perfect thinking, no perfectly ideal thinking machine.

some of it has to do with flipsides, which is potentially strange and contradictory territory. While on that subject, familiarity is sort of opposite strangeness, so it’s possible, perhaps even quite common, that familiarity could make less apparent aspects of that unnoticed, that should otherwise be strange. It’s work to make the familiar seem strange, but often yields.

paradoxical and strange have some overlap, anomalies I guess, better said

I reckon physicalism, in the case it’s motivated by some secret idealization (to explain everything), where it lends to hostility toward anomalies in psychology, is quite interesting, so too when it becomes part of the force of culture

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

I could work through those, but instead I’ll present another one on similar lines, based on a New Scientist puzzle:

There are 4 snails, each sitting exactly at the corner of a 2 metre square. Each snail starts to move towards the snail in the next corner, in a clockwise direction, moving at 1 metre/hour.

How long before all the snails meet in the middle?

The answer is 2 hours, because each snail is always moving directly towards a snail that is moving in a perpendicular direction, so has zero velocity relative to the other snail’s location at any instant.

The more interesting question (which NS didn’t ask), is how many times does each snail circle the centre of the square. The answer is they circle an infinite number of times in 2 hours.

So how does that work?

That’s only infinity, easy peasy. The examples I gave required numbers greater than any infinity.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know a couple of paradoxes that aren’t familiar to most people. There’s a paradox I like called “deafening peals” that relates to infinity.

You know how it is possible for a person is capable of experiencing an infinite number of events in finite time, because infinite series such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 … sum to a finite number, such as 1 in this case. So if a person experiences an event after 1/2 an hour, then another after a further 1/4 hour, then after a further 1/8 hour, then after a further 1/16 hour etc then after a sum total of 1 hour they have experiences an infinite number of events.

Now because time is symmetrical, you can run these events in reverse order. So suppose a person hears a deafening sound-spike at 1/2 an hour to midday, 1/4 of an hour before that, 1/8 of an hour before that, etc. (If you want to get mathematical, call each event a Dirac delta function).

A person can’t hear the last sound spike because they heave already been deafened by the previous sound. And so on. They can only be deafened by the first sound spike. But because of the definition of infinity (for every sound-spike there is a sound-spike before it) there is no first sound spike. So the person cannot be deafened, and retains his hearing to the end.

——

Another one is a version of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles steps 10 metres on first step, half that on second step, a quarter on the third step, an eighth on the fourth step, stepping faster and faster in proportion on each step. The tortoise is 20 metres away.

How many steps does it take for Achilles to step more than 20 metres? It can’t be infinity because by an infinite number of steps he’s only travelled 20 metres. And it can’t be a finite number because Achilles only travels <20 metres in a finite number of steps. And you can’t say that Achilles never gets more than 20 metres because Achilles does actually pass the tortoise.

I could work through those, but instead I’ll present another one on similar lines, based on a New Scientist puzzle:

There are 4 snails, each sitting exactly at the corner of a 2 metre square. Each snail starts to move towards the snail in the next corner, in a clockwise direction, moving at 1 metre/hour.

How long before all the snails meet in the middle?

The answer is 2 hours, because each snail is always moving directly towards a snail that is moving in a perpendicular direction, so has zero velocity relative to the other snail’s location at any instant.

The more interesting question (which NS didn’t ask), is how many times does each snail circle the centre of the square. The answer is they circle an infinite number of times in 2 hours.

So how does that work?

That’s only infinity, easy peasy. The examples I gave required numbers greater than any infinity.

None of them require infinity, let alone greater than infinity.

Like to explain where the > infinity comes from?

i’d venture, that denial of the paradoxical aspects and contradictions (whether abstracted and known or otherwise) involved in the challenges of consciousness (of human nature, expressions of the thinking machine), features in behavior controls, that it’s a powerful part of ideology in modern times

the trajectory changed about decade and half ago, the tolerance turned around

transition said:

i’d venture, that denial of the paradoxical aspects and contradictions (whether abstracted and known or otherwise) involved in the challenges of consciousness (of human nature, expressions of the thinking machine), features in behavior controls, that it’s a powerful part of ideology in modern times

the trajectory changed about decade and half ago, the tolerance turned around

First, I’m not saying there are no paradoxes, just that all paradoxes are apparent paradoxes. It’s just that sometimes we don’t know what the resolution is.

Second, do you have any evidence, or even a few examples, of your hypothesised trajectory change?

I’m sceptical that any significant change happened in 2005.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d venture, that denial of the paradoxical aspects and contradictions (whether abstracted and known or otherwise) involved in the challenges of consciousness (of human nature, expressions of the thinking machine), features in behavior controls, that it’s a powerful part of ideology in modern times

the trajectory changed about decade and half ago, the tolerance turned around

First, I’m not saying there are no paradoxes, just that all paradoxes are apparent paradoxes. It’s just that sometimes we don’t know what the resolution is.

Second, do you have any evidence, or even a few examples, of your hypothesised trajectory change?

I’m sceptical that any significant change happened in 2005.

the politics in the country was swinging to the right, that may be an indication, and you see it in other countries since, a corresponding trend

real paradoxes do exist in the field of human motivation and reasoning

even your apparently much read NS changed, do you remember when it became littered with advertisements

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d venture, that denial of the paradoxical aspects and contradictions (whether abstracted and known or otherwise) involved in the challenges of consciousness (of human nature, expressions of the thinking machine), features in behavior controls, that it’s a powerful part of ideology in modern times

the trajectory changed about decade and half ago, the tolerance turned around

First, I’m not saying there are no paradoxes, just that all paradoxes are apparent paradoxes. It’s just that sometimes we don’t know what the resolution is.

Second, do you have any evidence, or even a few examples, of your hypothesised trajectory change?

I’m sceptical that any significant change happened in 2005.

the politics in the country was swinging to the right, that may be an indication, and you see it in other countries since, a corresponding trend

Eh? in 2005? Do you remember what happened in 2007?

or did you mean some other country?

Even if it was swinging to the right, what does that have to do with paradoxes?

transition said:

real paradoxes do exist in the field of human motivation and reasoning

How do you know they are real?

How can they be, when by definition a paradox is not real?

transition said:

even your apparently much read NS changed, do you remember when it became littered with advertisements

What does that have to do with paradoxes?

Anyway, being littered with adverts makes it cheaper, so I’m quite happy for it to be littered with adverts.

the dominate force is (has become) variously commercialization, in this age, private wealth (maintenance and growth of) dominates the culture

the culture evolved to include very powerful notions, or ways, that are intolerant of anything that works against that above

transition said:

the dominate force is (has become) variously commercialization, in this age, private wealth (maintenance and growth of) dominates the culture

the culture evolved to include very powerful notions, or ways, that are intolerant of anything that works against that above

Anyway, better go and do your things :)

there was a time, for example, the social sciences (whatever related, to generalize) were criticized for being (too) ‘soft’, the soft sciences

too bad if it was representing aspects of soft reality, essentially soft, where might it get pushed or steered, to more conform to hard science

the money largely steers it, and reality is tightened up that way, or through that, marketing and advertising are a force today never seen seen in the history of man previous, never seen by our ancestors on the african savanna, nothing like it

broadly shared notions and open reference and discussion about the paradoxical aspects of conscious existence are potentially the enemy, the displacement of abstraction of them involved useful exploit potentials

people may oft be inclined to eliminate paradox, totally, rather than accommodate, and the former beyond some point requires shades of contempt, conferred, imbued, a work of hostility, absolutism, devious contempt I would say

if you reduce the space, harshly impoverish it, the shared space of common contradiction people face, involved in conscious existence, then the generosity in the human (spirit) declines, gets bastardized

I have been reading TATE on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It seems that some people think that messrs Dunning and Kruger over-estimated their ability to assess the ability of people to assess their own abilities.

Whether these people were qualified to reach such a conclusion, I do not know.