this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

118 points (87.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43974 readers

718 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

118

What is your favorite paradox or conundrum? I am partial to can god kill god? (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

291 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The monotheistic all powerful one.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

In gridiron football, if a penalty is committed close enough to the end zone, instead of the normal penalty yardage, the ball is spotted half the distance to the goal (i.e. if a defender holds an offensive player and the offense is 8 yards away from the end zone, instead of being penalized the normal 10 yards they would be penalized 4). In theory, there can be an infinite amount of penalties to the point where penalties would move the ball micrometers or even shorter without the ball ever crossing the end zone.

There's probably a name for this phenomenon, but I can't think of it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Zeno's paradox. Although in reality you'll run into problems when you need to move the ball 1/2 the Planck distance

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not a paradox but Roko's Basilisk is a fun one

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Roku's basilisk just doesn't make sense to me because any semi-competent AI would be able to tell that it is not punishing the people that failed to help create it it's just wasting energy punishing a simulacrum.

We are not going to suddenly be teleported into a future of torment. If the AI had the ability to pluck people out of the past it should have no reason to waste it on torture porn.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

So, I like the Roko's Basalisk paradox.

Basically, a super-powered future A.I. that knows whether or not you will build it. If you decide to do nothing, once it gets built, it will torture your consciousness forever (bringing you "back from the dead" or whatever is closest to that for virtual consciousness ability). If you drop everything and start building it now, you're safe.

Love the discussion of this post, btw.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Bootstrap paradox is my favourite time paradox. I loved Doctor Who's explanation.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Assuming time travel exists: is it possible to alter the past?

If an event occurs, and you decide to travel back in time to change/prevent that event: It has no longer occurred in the way that caused you to want to change it; thus you never travel back to change it, and it does occur...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

The Grandfather Paradox, I'm partial to that one as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I was playing with this recently. Suppose you are playing rock, paper, scissors with yourself from a few minutes into the future. Your future self “remembers” what you will play and so as long as you play normally, future self always wins. But change the rules a bit and play where future you goes first.

In a normal game, you should always win because you clearly see how future you played, but future you played to counter what future you remembers present you playing…

E.g. future you remembers playing paper, and so plays scissors. You see scissors and go go play rock, but that should be impossible because future you doesn’t remember playing rock.

The weird thing to me is not that the second scenario (where future you goes first fails) but that playing normally (both going at the same time) works. I think the paradox emerges when future knowledge is introduced to the past. In the normal game, future you does not expose future knowledge until the exact moment you play and cause that knowledge to exist in your present, but in the altered game, the introduction of future knowledge creates a feedback loop.

Of course the game isn’t needed. Simply seeing future you conveys the fact that you exist in the future. Should you, for example (and please don’t do this) see near future you then stab your arm with scissors, you will miss or be stopped because future you does not have a wounded arm.

I wonder what happens if future you’s arm is out of sight. would you be able to stab your arm then only for future you to then reveal a wounded arm?

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The usual answer is yes, but he survives. Basically this isn't a paradox for something actually all powerful.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] HobbitFoot 6 points 8 months ago (11 children)

Monty Hall

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

If you have a sword that can cut through anything, and a shield that can absorb any damage unharmed, what happens if you swing the sword at the shield?

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think Nietzsche already killed god decades ago. But not sure which one.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Newcomb’s paradox is my favourite. You have two boxes in front of you. Box B contains $1000. You can either pick box A only, or both boxes A and B. Sounds simple, right? No matter what's in box A, picking both will always net you $1000 more, so why would anyone pick only box A?

The twist is that there's a predictor in play. If the predictor predicted that you would pick only box A, it will have put $1,000,000 in box A. If it predicted that you would pick both, it will have left box A empty. You don't know how the predictor works, but you know that so far it has been 100% accurate with everyone else who took the test before you.

What do you pick?