Top 20 Paradoxes in everyday life to think about

Lies and truths can be the same- but who says EITHER even exist?

It is neither true or false because if it is true, it is not false. If it is false it is not false, but true

call me my number is 805 363 1847

I feel that i don't feel anything

Wheatley doesn't understand it....

OW my brain

When your weiner is too long to fit through a doorway

Why you always lyin

The answer is chuck norris

The sentence contradicts itself. Are you telling the truth that the sentence is false? If so, then it is impossible to tell the truth by stating a false statement, making the statement go on without end. By the way, this said paradox is in Portal 2, a very good and logical videogame. Check it out.

If this sentence is false , then it means 'this sentence is false ' is false. Therefore this sentence is true that this sentence is false. Therefore this sentence is false.

Well obviously it's true for it's right there.

Come on, people. These ideas of true and false are just illusions created by humans, and humans aren't perfect. Falsity is just the absence of truth, they're not opposites. So basically you ARE lying, because you are saying this: "This sentence is not true" Just agree. That sentence ISN'T true. So it is just a sentence that doesn't have to make sense. BTW this does not help your life, so who cares.

That's true that this sentence is false, if you say another false sentence after it. For example: This sentence is false. Madrid is the capital of England. It makes both sentences false. (Correction: The next sentence is false. Madrid isn't the capital of England. Now they're both true.)

"True ill go true I think I did a good job" Quoit from Wheatly

yes because there is no period.

This sentence is not false but it's false if you think it is false

The sentence can not be a lie because i see it and it exists

Hehe so confusing The sentence below is true The sentence above is false 0_0

Portal 2 much?

it's truely false i guess.....

The statement is without context and therefor is neither true nor false

Both sentences are true. If that sentence was false, and the next claims that it was true, means that the first sentence is false while the next is true. This is not a paradox, but instead 2 sentences confirming each other. The true paradox would be, "The following sentence is false, the previous statement is true" THEN that would mean that if the next sentence is false, then the previous statement is false, meaning that the first statement would actually change due to the fact it is false to "The following statement is true, the previous statement is false" THEN AGAIN that would mean that the next statement was true meaning the first one was false, meaning that the second one is false bringing the sentence back to "The following statement is false, the previous statement is true" Therefore, this paradox is an eternal continuum that will never end due to the fact that both sentences will NEVER co-exist with each other. Confusing, wouldn't you say?

"This sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." There is the real paradox.

It's a paradox there is no answer. ( quote from Glados)

By quoting Wheatley true.

SOLUTION: Then it is True and False in certain times depending on the reader.

This paradox incomplete.

Just becuase the sentence says it is false that doesn't logically mean that it cannot be true that it is false. The sentence can be true and false in that it is true that the sentence is false.

Uh, true... I'll go true. Well, that was easy. I'll be honest , I might have heard that before, though, sort of cheated.

well if the sentence is true that would impy that it was false. then if it was false the sentence would be telling the truth, making if false...

Yes. In another reality ( which is a possibility ) something can be impossible. There is no absolutes, how could there be if there's is a possibility that there is no absolutes?

it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, it is impossible to gain more than maximum entropy so yes it is possible for something to be impossible

WOW Blew my mind

the fact that everything is possible, as stated by God, implies that something must be impossible unless God decided to bend the rule and truly make it in his will. This means that, Yes, its possible for something to be impossible, but the fact remains that impossibility can be tweaked.

if everything is possible then that means impossible is possible

Everything is possible except impossibility

No, but yes, but no, but yes, but no, but yes...

yea u just proved it. impossibility is possible. impossibility is a part of everything, isnt it?

possible is impossible and vice versa

if it's possible, it means that something can be impossible so not everything can be. If it's impossible, it means that it is impossible for something to be impossible.''Impossibility'' is therefore impossible so something is impossible i fact. Thus the answer has to be no.

No, nothing's impossible, but some things are Unfathomable if that makes any sense. Us as humans can't fathom the idea of not being able to do something someway. Even if it requires a loop hole, there is always a way to do something, maybe not traditionally, but it will be done.

The answer can mean anything, this is a paradox that makes you wonder. But the closest answer you would get is no, for you can't achieve all possibilities.

Very interesting paradox, the answer is simple, yes it is possible for something to be impossible. It is impossible for something to be impossible, thus leaving everything possible.

if its possible to be impossible nothing possible

yes because not everything is possible

No, because everything refers to a positive term- impossibility is negative. It doesn't fall under the same category because it is not something that exists; it just is. Everything only incorporates existing things.

everything is impossible until you make it possible

this is impossible... XD

No the only thing impossible is impossibility itself.

If everything is possible, then that means impossibility, the state of which something is not able to occur, exist or be done, is possible. However, if impossibility does exist due to everything being possible, then the paradox occurs. This suggests that the possibility that everything is possible is infact impossible. However, that is the only impossibility that exists, a paradox occurring and being able to continue. This implies other than infinite possibility, everything is possible, just highly unlikely.

yessince everything is possible then by cant anything be impossible

Possibly

This is a non-sensical question, meaning that the first part of the sentence is untrue therefor deserves no answer. example.. it is not true that everything is possible.

No, because imposible is only a word. If anything was possible the words possible and impossible wouldn't exist/have definitions. So it everything would not be possible or impossible.

Yes, firstly, they tell you everything is possible, if they were lying, then it is still possible. So it is your choice whether to believe them or not. Of course, if everything was possible, I will just be sitting around for someone to make a potion that lets me beat up superman

Here is one i know.. The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true. O.o this one really confused me..

Things are only impossible until they are not.

If I hate haters does that make me a hater.

By reading and thinking about the word "possible" so many times... It sounds so strange to me now.

SOLUTION: It is possible and impossible for everything to be impossible and possible at the same time.

If its impossible to be impossible then it's possible to be impossible,by being impossible to be impossible,But it's impossible to be impossible because it's impossible for something impossible to be possible. This is illogical because something specific has to be there to have "possible" or "impossible" attached to it. So that sentence is impossible. No, illogical. Just can't happen.

Not everything is possible though.

that just blew my mind

i hapen ;D

well not infinet but it wil be graduly older versions of you till the moment that you ain't possible to go back in time because of elderdom sickneses or death

If you go back in time and by by chance run into yourself all you have to do is temporarily inccapacitate your previous self and while he/she is in REM sleep say some illogical things, leave a warning note in the time machine, and kill your present self to immediatly correct the timeline. The past you will grow into the future you, see the note on the time machine, and avoid the general area where the previous future you met the past you. Pradox broken.

The universe implodes

The infinite number of yous would make more time travel themselves because theyre your duplicate and mimic everything you do unless you make there be a good, bad, ugly, and same category for your duplicates. therefore, without technology to make a moderator for G, B, U, and S into duplicates, there cant be an infinite because its untold if someone might stop the duplicates.

uff why it's needed to go infinite times.I mean nothing will happen. suppose some x billion yrs ago earth has been created.then ther's no question of infinity

Yes

I won't be infinite me...becuz when i go back in time ...then at that instant the past me would also have departed back into time and so on....

for that to be possible there would already be infinite yous as well as infinite instances where you could be. the answer is infinity squared. but is infinity possible and if it is can it squared? is anything possible? abstract thinking can lead to concrete solutions and vice-versa. or can it?

Actually it's the bootstrap paradox

There is a good movie about this. Predestination.

The there will become a earth filled with yous

You will be stuck for infinity (don't try this at home).

Try this, your walking around and meet a future version of yourself telling you to travel back in time. You do and end up telling a younger version of yourself to do the same thing. But whose idea was it really?

That is a really funny take on a well-known paradox (grandfather paradox).

His nose will grow and shrink for enternity like a bad GIF

Or, it will be like Shroders (don't know the real spelling) cat and will be both grown and ingrown

Noses always grow, just very slowly. So if he says, " My nose will grow now," nothing will happen, because it is true

If it doesn't grow, it is a lie, and his nose grows when he lies, but then his nose would grow when he told the truth.

If he's looking at pictures of hot girls, it will grow.

Well, this could be after Pinnochio beccame a boy and then his nose technically would be growing as a human being.

it just will grow only after now is over because it didn't grow

This isn't really a paradox. What people often forget about Pinocchio is that his nose will grow if and only if he tells a conscious lie. If he's holds a box, shakes it and says "there's a book inside this box", his nose won't grow if there isn't a book in there, because he actually didn't lie as he didn't know the content of the box (and he didn't say that he knew, or even assumed that). His nose is a lie detector, not a fact checker: even if he says something that isn't right, that doesn't make his nose automatically grow. So if he says "my nose will now grow" it won't grow, since he has no control over his nose's growth, and won't grow afterwards, because what Pinocchio say wasn't either true or false, it was a misstated information at best.

His nose will keep changing rapidly in size, and women will go crazy.

Now doesn't mean possibly in the future, it means now.

The statement is missing something in order to be a paradox. For all we know Pinocchio could be talking about something in the future which would likely make him tell the truth. Does this mean Pinocchio can tell the future?

If Pinocchio says his nose will grow, then he will tell a lie, therefore telling the truth and making sure that the nose doesn't grow by telling the truth. In this fact, it remains a mystery, riddle, and above all, paradox because it contradicts itself.

Then his nose won't grow, so his nose will grow because he lied, but since his nose grew, he told the truth. Why did his nose grow if he told the truth?

His nose won't grow. Its like if he was playing craps and he said " I will roll a 7 " It's an unknown prediction.

His nose will be constantly growing and shooting back into his head

Well, the answer is that Pinocchios nose will not grow because he is not telling a lie if he really believes that it will grow. If he believes that his nose will grow then he is not lying, even though his nose did NOT grow. Pinocchios nose only grows if he knows the truth but tells a lie. Therefore the answer to this so called "paradox" is that nothing will happen to Pinocchio or his nose nor anything else around him

Good bye world

Bye Bye,universe

He would be lying cause his nose can't grow if he commands it to ,then it will grow but then he would be telling the truth so it won't grow but hen he would be telling a lie so it will grow(ect.)

The universe destroys itself.

His head will fall off

His head will explode, killing everyone in a two mile radius.

All of you are wrong. Since Pinocchio has genuine belief that it will grow, the fact that it WON'T will be because he does not know that it will not grow, since he believes he is telling the truth.

If he says my nose will grow, then he's basically lieing because it didn't grow, but his nose grows when he lies thus his nose will grow and he's also telling the truth, and his nose is growing for telling the truth which was also a lie

This is simply another iteration of the liar paradox.

His head would explode

well it wont grow because he isn't lying......and according to the legend Pinocchio's nose grow when he is in fact lying........

If Pinocchio says "My nose will grow now" it will not grow at that exact moment, which means he's lying, therefor it will grow. But since it grows it means he told the truth, which means that his nose grew when he told the truth.

Simple, if he says "My nose will grow now" he is lying. His nose would not grow the exact moment he finished the word "now". Now means at the exact moment, but again it wont grow at the exact moment so he is lying thus it will grow and he was not telling the truth.

stuffz

his head will explode

It throbs

The universe will explode says another website.

His nose won't grow he is a real boy now...

His nose will grow then shrink then grow and shrink and the process will continue forever

His nose does grow immediately ('now') it grows a second after telling that lie!

if he says "my nose will now grow" he is lying because he knows it won't grow just by saying the words, and since he knows it won't happen and he's saying it is, his nose will grow because it is a lie.

Okay, first off, Pinocchio's nose only grows when he lies. When he says "My nose will now grow", and his nose does grow, that would mean that he just told the truth, making it impossible for his nose to grow. Yet if Pinocchio told the truth, that would make the sentence "My nose will now grow" true, indicating that his nose must grow, yet he never lied, so his nose cannot grow at the same time that it must. That is why this is a paradox. At the same time his nose must grow, his nose cannot grow. Interesting, eh?

If he says it will grow and it does, that means he told the truth, but if he tells the truth that means it will not grow, but that means he lied and so it will grow, but he told the truth again and it.. WTF

every day pinocchio's nose will be growing, however slowly since he is in his growing stage (adolescent). Therefore, nothing will happen.

when he tells the truth, it won't happen, but if he lies it will happen (only with the nose of course). so if he does say it, it won't happen, but if it doesn't happen, than that would make it a lie, thus making his nose grow, but that would then make his first comment true, so it wouldn't grow. it's like an infinite line. there is no true answer to this.

I think pinocchio's will fall off and he will explode

Or, the he will be telling the truth becouse the next time he lies his nose will grow.

it will grow, because language is performative.

SOLUTION: Pinocchio's nose won't grow because he isn't lying, he's just merely guessing or assuming. He doesn't have the ability to see the future thus making it impossible for him to tell what isn't or what's going to happen.

The actual answer is, He will turn into a real boy

Pinocchio's nose grows when he's lying, we have no conclusive evidence that it only grows when he's lying. Initially, his nose will not grow and that will make his statement false, which will make his nose grow. Now that his statement is true, his nose will still grow because the truth doesn't necessarilly stop it from growing

is it possible for his nose to grow without lying?

Easy, Pinocchio will become a black hole.

Any situation where a person says an action will happen now, is always lying.

why we gotta do the math? :(

Only what Pinocchio truly feels will happen, he can say anything but he may not mean it in his head; that will determine what happens to his nose.

its like an infinite loop. if his statement is true that his nose will now grow, he will be lying. but then his nose grew making his statement true. BUT! his nose only grows when hes telling lies so the second statement is cancelled making it false therefor making him lie in the 3rd statement.. and so on and so on :) lovely paradox

best one on the list, the only real paradox

If you're all powerful, can you create a pickle jar you can't open?

if, "If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?" is Super Mario Galaxy then this is Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Imagine if you tell prowl from transformers paradoxes

yeah only you would have the power to undo those powers of the door so he would be able to open it

Being all powerful means that, within the realm of universal and infinite possibilities, you can do what you want. A door that can't be opened means that no amount of force exerted on it can cause it to open: thus, you'd need a door with infinite mass, which is physically and mathematically impossible. So even though you're all powerful, you can't bend these sets of rules. It is simply impossible for such an object to exist (after all, how would the door keep gathering mass ad infinitum? It's not only impossible but illogical, which no amount of omnipotence could solve).

I would explode, logic is incorrect

If you could create said door, then it wouldn't be considered as a door, seeing as it comes impossible to open, even if you could do anything. If you COULD open a door like this, then you would have the ability to open walls, floors, and even another door, which may become a paradox unto itself since you could create a door of a door of a door of a door, etc.

if I create a door which doesn't open then the thing does not consider as door

If you could do anything, then why not just smash the door down

I would create a key that could open the door.

couldn't you just move the universe around the door to open it?

Why would you do this? O.o

Well, i would just create it , and then call another powerfull man who can do everything, and i would tell him to open since i can't.EASY.But the worst thing is that i would have to call my neighboor every time i needed to open the door.LAME

Ah but if you could not open the door as a human then that would be something you couldn't do then you aren't all powerful and cant do everything

Let us say you can do anything. So let us say you make a huge stone door and then turn yourself physcally into a human. You then can not open the door because you are to weak but at the same time you can. This paradox is more so a play on words not taking into consideration what you can and can and can not do for the time.

Well, if I'm all powerful, then I could open anything except nothing, and nothing is outside the universe, so no, I can't

Better question; why would i need such a door?

The question doesnt even begin. God created the idea of a "door" and "opening a door", the ideas of "possible" and "impossible" and thus the question asserts human characteristics to God. Therefore the question is null.

define what a door is then you cant make what cant be opened and call it a door

Yeah, he just would make a clone of himself open it. It just said I wouldn't be able to open it. Cha-ching! Problem solved.

No because creating a door that couldn't open is not infinite power. It means your power is not able to do something.

you shouldn't be able to open the unopenable door, well unless you change your ming about it being unopenable

This is an omnipotence paradoxe, if it say "do anything", but says "make a door you couldn't open" thus this is something you cannot do and thus you cannot do "anything"

I WOULD GO BACK IN TIME AND STOP MY SELF FROM MAKING THE DOOOOOORRRR

Well, if you say that you are all powerful and can do absolutely anything, then you should be able to create a door that you cannot open. But, if you can do anything, you CAN open that door, therefore, you did not create a door that you cannot open. If you cannot create a door that you cannot open, you would not be able to do anything.

I'm omnipotent! I can lift it up even if it's illogical. I can do whatever I want.

no and yes because you cant be that powerful also you cant be that stupid to not be able to open a door

I suppose

What, to you, does the word anything mean? To me it meaning you can surpass the possible. If so, then if this person creates a door the he can't open than, since he can do 'anything,' than he should be able to open it, even if he made it so he can't. If he wanted to, he could surpass even his own power.

if the door couldn't be opened then it means that it has infinite inertia of rest which would mean as having an infinite mass but there cannot be an infinite mass in this finite universe! so there isn't any door that couldn't be opened.

Create a door without a handle,put it in a wall.its simply a door that does not have a opening function,doesnt mean its not a door.

The statement never said that you could never open it ,it is almost like a locked door you can't open it until you unlock the door. So being able to do anything you could also make it so you can open it again. Therefore this is impossible.

you create a door impossible to open to anything but you, then erase your power, making yourself a normal human being, and then bam, you've therefore easily made a door you can't open.

Yes... But not in the physical sense. I would have to create it with out knowing.

well, if you were all powerful, and you created a door that you could not open, then you created another being that could open the door, than you would no longer be the all powerful one. the other being would have the capability that you would not have. so, it's like a paradox within a paradox.

what if you created a person who can open the door you can't open, so indirectly you had opened it? So you yourself can't open it but you can cause a different force you had made to open it, therefore you have opened it-- if you wanted to make a door you can't open in the first place.

What if the door is invisible?

I just wouldn't

SOLUTION: Yes. And because I am all powerful, I can create a door I could and could not open at the same time.

its a paradox because if you could, then you wouldnt be allmighty. but if you couldnt, you arent allmighty in the first place because you cant make the door.

Yes, I could. But then i wouldn't be allmighty, so I wouldn't do that. I don't get the paradox...

dood if i was all powerfull i would not do something like that >:) i would do wwwwaaaayyyy more stuff :D not make a door that would just screw me over

The ability to do anything does not preclude self limitation. If it did, then someone who could do anything would always be doing everything, an obvious absurdity. As such, to create self limitations is not a violation. Lets say I am all powerfull. I create a door I cannot open. That is not to say I could not cause the door to open. Just simply that I cannot myself immediately open the door. Possible explenations?

A wall?

How do you know I want to open the door?

if you could do anything then it would have to possible to create a door that you couldn't open. That much has to be true. The question is whether you could get that door opened and then does that refute the fact you can't make an unopenable door. The easy way is to combine the two statements. Could you create a door that you couldn't open but then later open when you wanted? if this is the case then yes you could create a door that couldn't be open because at a later time being all powerful would allow you to render the door opened.

...taken directly from the favorite paradoxes of the atheists: If God is ever-so powerful, can He create a rock big enough so He couldn't lift it....

Yes. Most of these are not a paradox, only unskewed opinions on our skewed society brought to a common form.

no becuse I dont keep new years resolutions :(

No because you won't keep any, so not this one, so you pick a different resolution.

SOLUTION: Start that new year's resolution at 11:59pm on December 31st.

this is like the Pinocchio paradox. if your resolution is to not keep your resolution then in fact you'd keep it. which would mean you didn't, and so on into adinfintinium

SOLUTION: Starting when?? Time is the key to this puzzle.

not a paradox it is an impossible thing to do unless you only have 1 new years resolutions

Yes, you would, by not keeping any ones that you've made in the past, you be keeping the one you just made. Simple as that.

The unstoppable one turns

They can not pass through each other as matter can not occupy the exact same space and time. They will not cancel each other out as the force is unstoppable. They would not come to standstill. To be an unstoppable force or immovable object a large mass is required p=mv and Ek=0.5mv^2 both momentum and kinetic energy depends on mass... Hypothetically they would be made out of the exact same substance hence the great mass both possess. This would make it possible for the two objects to merge as the same element would be directly in contact with one another. This would form a high-density object with black hole like gravitation.

They would go BOOM!

the unstoppaple force will go through the unmovable object

They can't excise together

They would cancel eachother out.

If you think about it the unstoppable force would be forced into its self just enough to force the unstoppable force go the opposite way than it was

This can't happen as these two things can't exist in the same universe

The unstoppable force passes through the immovable object

the universe explodes.

The unstoppable force will turn to the side, simple. It never said "an unstoppable, unturnable force" did it?

A dent in the immovable object

the unstoppable force makes the object imoveable

They'll pass through or around each other. Most likely the unstoppable force will slide by the object's side and move on.

Who can say that the unstoppable force is a solid or liquid? it could be a plasma or something. it may just go right thru the object without harming it

the unstoppable force will (A) collide with the object and smash it to pieces cuz the object technically didn't move, or (B) the unstoppable force will ram into it and the two things will stay glued and unmoving for eternity or (C) the force disintegrates the object or (D) the force will jump over the object or finally (E) the universe will hurl its insides out

nothing

plumz

There is no such thing as an immovable object, neither an unstoppable force

In a finite universe such an occurrence is impossible as the immovable object must have inertia. This also means that the object must have infinite mass; at this point it will collapse into singularity creating this paradox moot!

It took me awhile to figure out but here's what I got: 1) the unstoppable force ricochets off of the immovable object, or 2) (this one making less sense) the unstoppable force shatters the immovable object because technically the object isn't moving, but shattering

the universe will explode

The force will be stopped and the object will be moved. It is said that they cannot exist at the same time, anyway.

They reach a state of equilibrium between the 2 forces

They cancel each other out.

surrender

Well, it depends on what you mean, but since you can't change their state in motion, they would pass through each other.

Batman and Joker.

They wind up in marriage counseling.

If you think about it (just neglect the impossibility of them to exist) an "unstoppable object" is actually also an" irresistible force " they are the same thing in respect that if something could resist it it would in fact be stoppable , given that do the math of what will happen if two equal in any way objects will meet instead ? They will either explode or simply stop ,in which case it is not a paradox at all ,an object cannot be more powerful that himself and that doesn't make it a weakness (which btw is also an answer to the omnipotent paradox :)

BANG! Yup :)

It is impossible for both to co-exist in the same universe. They would both have infinite inertia and infinite mass also to be immoveable or unstoppable. so there would be a tear in the space-time continuum.

just like lebron james meets paul geroge lol

Well, let's define the terms shall we? In order for there to be such a thing as an immoveable object, the object would have to have infinite inertia, meaning infinite mass, and nothing in the universe has infinite mass. In order for there to be an unstoppable force, it would require an infinite amount of energy, which does not exist in a universe (our universe) with a limited amount of energy.

IT GOES THROUGH IT

Same as below but the unstpible force remaneas.Porpisly spelled wrong for the win

the universe explodes

there cannot be any immovable object neither any unstoppable force, and hence this question dosent arise !! :D

I watched the superbowl between the broncos and seahawks, this one doesnt fool me. The immovable object wins.

The unstoppable force changes direction

Watch ASAPScience on youtube and it will tell you that they pass through eachother.

They surrender

They will pass right through each other Minutephysics did a video on this that's worth watching

big bang? =O

ok. This statement does not state that the imoveable object is also indestructible so therefore it would be obliterated or.. the unstoppable force would simply go around it as the statement also doesnt say that the unstoppable force is on a direct path were it cannot divert from it.

A human can drink water. However, give it too much and he/she will drown. Between that there is a balance, a boundary between how much they can and can't drink. This is like this. If I a pushed against a wall, it's likely the wall wouldn't fall over, because there is so much force it can take. I do not bounce of the wall, as the force the wall exerts back is equal to what I exert and therefore I would only bounce off if the force I exerted was more than I could exert, paradox. So let's apply this to the question. Infinity = infinity, and always will. So an immovable object meets the unstoppable force, they are equal. Now like before, as the forces are equal, the unstoppable force wouldn't bounce back. Now some may propose the unstoppable force may almost diffuse, like wind would if wind shear occurred, but that can't happen, because the forces are equal. This all means that infact the unstoppable force would have to stop. Why? The paradox has nothing to do with the immovable object but the unstoppable force. A paradox is something which is impossible (can not it exist, occur or be done) due to things that can't co-exist. This means an unstoppable force is a paradox because an unstoppable force couldn't co-exist with other unstoppable forces, as they would just be incredibly powerful but stoppable forces. Immovable objects can exist, as they couldn't defeat themselves. They can't do anything to the other. This means the the question above is not a paradox, it contains a paradox, but it's invalid.

They surrender.

The problem with an immovable object is that its unspecified which frame of reference it is being observed from, because if you were to fly by it, then it is moving relative to you and therefore it no longer immovable

BOOM!

the Big Bang

To have an un movable object it would have to have infinite inertia and that would require infinite mass which can not exist in a universe that is finite.

don't you think a black hole would form since mass is going to be pushed and crushed against each other with great force? Correct me if im wrong

Acording to me there's two answers first answer theyre atoms will pass thru each other second answer if one exists the other can not exist in the same universe

Nothing if one exists the other doesn't exist.

The force would go through the object or destroy it.

Say that an immovable object and an unstoppable force actually could coexist in the same universe as you and I, the immovable object being an infinite source of mass and velocity and the unstoppable force being a converted mass of love or other strong emotion. Since the objects cannot decelerate and they are maintaining a constant movement through space and time, It would be impossible for the objects to touch, since (as stated above) the masses cannot decelerate; they pass through each other.

well it is false. both couldn't exist, if there was an immovable object then there couldn't be an unstoppable force. to have one means you could not have the other simple as that.

an immovable object would mean that the object has infinite mass, which is impossible. an unstoppable force would have to have infinite delta V which requires infinite energy, which the universe does not have. so it is impossible, even for a hypothetical.

the unstoppable force becomes the immovable force and vise versa

I learned it from asapscience on youtube, they will pass thru each other

The particles will pass through eachother #Physics. #Biology

*change *force immovable

Actually, both an unstoppable force and an immovable object can both be described as things with no chang in velocity, so, theoretically, they can be the same thing, and, thus, the unstoppable force could transfer the energy required to be "unstoppable" to the immovable object giving the appearance of "phasing through" the immovable object, rendering the once unstoppable forac eimmovable until another unstoppable force transfers its energy to it.

Child's play. The unstoppable force phases through the immoveable object. They cannot physically touch.

Then it will be Batman vs Joker

SOLUTION: The existence of an immovable object means there isn't an unstoppable force and VICE VERSA.

All physics aside...speaking in theory...they would enilate each other..it is analgous to matter and anti.matter.

The unstoppable force will pass through the imovableobject without effect to the object... like a ghost

easy: if there is a unstoppable force an immovable object cannot exist

Easy: The unstoppable force stops and the immoveable object moves

To the person who posted that infinite mass is impossible ... we can't actually say that for sure. Black holes are said to contain infinite mass, due to their heavy gravitational pull on anything that goes near them. Another reason is that light can't exit a black hole, and therefore there would have to be something infinitely large to attract something like light itself.

Basically, space-time won't allow it, so the universe rips itself apart and we all are obliterated into elementary particles that were created in the big bang, and gravity pulls all of it back to the center into a pinpoint location that is heated beyond comparison. Then the universe is created again!

first of all there is nothing such as immovable object....f=ma hence finite amount of force always causes finite acceleration. a body cannot exist in universe when it has infinite mass....it will simply collapse itself into nothing...............also it is now known that the universe is finite. so infinite force also doesnt exist

What happens when Chuck Norris meets Bruce Lee? That's really what their asking

Had this one before, the unstoppable force has no rule against being reflected and changing direction, it is still unstoppable with a new trajectory. The other outcome, it simply goes through each other.

woops i ment paradox not paradoz

But there is still hope, you see if you created a time machine you could only go back to when you created the time machine because that's when the worm hole was mad

*Cough* Einstein-Rosen bridge* Cough*

Yes, the universe creates the time machine, someone goes back in time and gives the time machine to someone else, they wait then give it to the person who gave it to you's past self, and they go back in time and give it to you.

You can only go back so far as the time machine was invented, so there is still hope that time travel will be possible in the future

there would be a time machine because you can only go back as far as the time machine excisted

yeah but it is still invented in the future and so it would still be a machine from the future this is just thinking on the wrong way because it isn't that they invented time machines earlier

Wha?

Use a T.A.R.D.I.S., it apparently fixes everything the Doctor seems to screw up.

no because the future couldnt have happend yet

According to Brian Cox, it is very possible to create a time machine, but you could only ever travel to the future and you wouldn't be able to come back. Therefore, no the past would never get a time machine until the day it is invented.

This depends on if the time machine "SENT" them to the past of "TOOK" them to the past. ;-)

Not if they didn't know how it worked.

I actually think that would be a way to get a time machine without inventing one.

A time machine will only be able to travel back in time if it can break the speed of light and exit the space-time limit, called the light cone. All of that is technically impossible however some theories about the distortion of space and light speed in and around black holes could lead to travel in to the past.

Time machines will only be able to ravel forward in time or slow it down because you can't recreate time

The past would have a time machine, but the time machine was not invented in that moment but the past would still have a time machine in that time frame.

At first, let assume that you can only travel to the time when the time machine was invented so then your assumption could be false. Now, let assume that you can alter the reality by time traveling so if you create a paradox (like killing your parents before you were born or killing yourself when you meet yourself in the past) then you create a bifurcation in spacetime with two alternate realities. So in one reality you were never born and it means you wouldn't be able to exist in the first place and it means that after the act of killing the people that were your parents in another reality this alternate reality would cease to exist with you as a time traveler. In another reality it would seem like you've never traveled in time because of complications (quantum fluctuations would be strong enough to prevent you to cross your own time line). Even the simple act that you appeared in the past would alter the reality. To send back in time just a little grain of sand with mass of about 10^(-8)kg means that you would need to borrow energy that this mass contains from the current time and send it back to previous time and the bifurcation with such a big inequality in energy conservation would be able to exist only for a Planck time (10^(-43) s). Conclusion: Either way, time machine is in fact really impossible (except for universes that satisfy the Gödel solution with closed timelike curves but this is very artificial solution).

I don't know, let's ask The Doctor.

yes the past would have one too but time travel still might be possible. you would hide the machine so no one sees it and even if the pass has one it does mean it is possible for time travel then

time travel doesn't work like that. think of time as an arrow. then, you travel outside of the spacetime continum, and land on a farther back portion of the arrow. it's kinda like that.

This is actually a very clever paradox.

Plain and simply, you would only be able to travel back to the time the time machine was first invented.

what if by then we transfer to an alternate universe and then we will never know???

this paradox should have been done with only the first two sentences. the sentence after this is true. the sentence before this is false. that is a real paradox. there is no need for that third sentence.

Lots of people have pointed out that there is only one sentence. Although if it were "The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false. The sentence before this is true." it would still not be a paradox as there is nothing contradicting the 3rd sentence. The third sentence says that the 2nd is true, so, that means that when the 2nd sentence say "The sentence before this is false", it is correct, therefore when the 1st sentence says that the 2nd is false, it is incorrect, because the 3rd says it is true. Boom

my 8 year old brother came up to me just to say that this is only 1 sentence...

It's just like your saying lord rama is a lady and then saying aishwarya bachan is a man. It won't be a paradox

If you sure smart enough, you would have noticed that there is only 1 sentence

AHA! TRICK QUESTION!!! This is only one sentence!!!!

Well considering there is a comma in between there and the fact that there is only one peiod at the end, it is only one sentance because it is commas. So i cat answer this question truthfully, can i?

hey the last part of your sentence confirmed the second part. the first sentence is false. the second sentence is true. the third sentence is true. besides falseness is an illusion of the human mind, and cannot be described as false anyway.

Thanks you just killed me?!?!?!?!

this is only one sentence :D

Hopefully it didn't, because the sentence is there, true.

This paradox can't be solved, because there aren't three sentences. The author has just compiled three main clauses, punctuated by commas, which is grammatically and, regarding punctuation, incorrect.

That makes sense if you work backwards.

This is known as a card paradox, this guy originated off of "this sentence is false", but if the sentence is false the that would make it true, bur if it were true then the sentence must be false, but if it was false then is it's true that it's false and that makes it true to be false, and thus the cycle of this continues

It's one sentence. No full stops. Not even capital letters! But still, one sentence; Commas are not used at the end of a sentence.

It's all just one sentence

Actually, you didn't capitalize or put a period so technically it's all one sentence...

Wouldn't you be stuck in an infinite loop?

Time is a straight and cannot be changed in any way, shape or form. Similar to what the comment below says, but, everything you will/have tried to do to kill your grandparent will have already failed because time cannot be changed.

You would always fail at killing them, because some believe that time has a self healing quality, making you unsuccessful every time you try. For example, if you were trying to go back in time to save someone from dying, they will always manage to die somehow, because time works like that. Or, maybe you couldn't go back and kill them because time machines weren't invented then, and you can only travel as far back as when the time machine was built. Or, it would make the universe implode.

It would create an eternal time loop

And thats why travelling back in time is impossible

refer to the self consistency principle to answer this "paradox"

ACTUALLY THINK I DID IT THIS TIME! It will create a new time line, when you weren't born, and a timeline where every is fine, and it didn't happen. The only question is, in which time line will you be?

A paradox happens-Logical Troll

You wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather no matter how hard you tried, as is the law of time

Well, time will somehow stop you, like depleting the bullets in your gun, or getting you into an accident in the past.

You couldn't go back farther than when the time machine was created.

The real question here is: Why are you killing your grandfather?

The problem is that when you time travel, it hasn't happened before, but it's already happened, and you theoretically travel into a parallel universe (well, actually, you might have never existed.)

also known as the grandfather paradox, the power of the universe will always somehow stop you from killing your grandfather, (losing him) or something like that.

You can't go back in time, changing the most smallest thing could have a big affect in the future

A parallel universe where you had never been born would be created. When you went back to the future (present?), nothing would have changed because you would still be in the original universe where your grandfather had never died.

The universe is destroyed... Or maybe that family is eliminated from existence. No more Jenkinson family, peeps...

This paradox breaks one rule of time: when time travelers go into the past, what they do, always happened. So it would be impossible to kill your grandfather before his wife was pregnant, and impossible to kill his wife before she had the baby. So that means something, ANYTHING will stop you from killing your grandfather. you can kill anybody ells, as long it's not your grandfather or grandmother.

This is my explanation for basically every time-travel-affecting-the-future/present scenario: Every time a person travels backwards or forwards in time, they create a new reality. If Marty goes back in time, the original reality to which we are introduced continues from the exact moment as if he had not. The time to which he goes in the past is a new reality, and when time in that reality reaches the time of the beginning of the movie (before any time travel), that is the development of the second, slightly different reality. When he travels back to the time at which the movie began, he creates a third reality that is different still from the other two. This leaves us with three realities: the reality that involves no time travel whatsoever, the reality that involves Marty staying in the past and aging alongside his parents, and a reality that involves Marty rejoining the developed form of the second reality, only as a younger person who was not involved in the development of the second reality. And "boom" goes the dynamite.

just kill grandma after childbirth of childs parents ez

If time is a fourth dimension, then you must be theoretically able to travel back in time and interact with the other three dimensions. This implies that you, in fact, can kill your grandfather as a child. This suggests the existence of parallel universes, an infinite number of them for that matter. This way you never altered the universe you traveled from, but another parallel universe, which will branch out to create a different history. Another solution to this paradox is that (after killing your grandfather) every time you traveled back to the future at the point in time where you traveled to the past in the first place, you actions in the past will automatically cancel themselves so that the trip back is possible to begin with.

Would be better worded "Trust me, Don't trust anyone."

Trust no one! (X-files reference anyone?)

Trust everyone else then

I'd ignore him and walk away

Don't trust him.

If he says "don't trust anyone" your basically trusting him to nay trust him or anyone. A.K.A the Liar Paradox

i will trust him before he says it but not trust him after he says it but i bare in mind the previously he was true

I just won't trust him and trust everyone.

The answer is: "I don't know".

It's not the answer, but, the question you ask too get the response that is there true meaning that defines their outlook on Life! 1 or more points of views answering there doubts also questioning there understanding?

The answer depends on the question being asked.

Probably this might be the answer.. Or this could be the answer. 1 question =2 answer 1 (1 question ) = 2 ( 1 answer) .. Remove 1 question and 1 answer. Hence , 1=2

21! IT IS ALWAYS 21!

There is no answer because there is not enough information provided

Technically speaking, "What" is the answer to this question. After all, it does say what is the answer to this question.

Not confusing. I dont even get it like what the freak.

the answer is: What is the answer to this question?

Peanut Butter.

What

The answer to that question is the answer to that question.

This is the answer to your question.

An answer

no. "what" is not the answer to that question.

Anything. You haven't defined what the answer could be.

The answare to this question is the answare to this questio. Therfore, the answare to this question is indeed the answare to this question..

Waffles!

it is not a question

What isn't the answer to this question

Well nothing is an answer so there is an answer but it's nothing

Nothing, it is an answerless question.

The answer is dependent on the person answering the question. You asked for the answer, not the correct answer so this is my answer, which is an answer to the question shether it is correct or not.

uniqueness is difference. If everyone is unique, everyone is different. What makes a person unique is that everyone is different. If everyone is unique, that doesn't mean that everyone is the same because everyone is unique. Uniqueness doesn't mean that everyone is totally different, it just means that everyone has some special qualities of their own. Every person is a human, every human lives on Earth. Every human needs to drink water to live. But that doesn't mean no one can be unique. You can be unique by having brown hair and someone else has pink hair and someone else has blonde hair, even though you're all still human.

Your unique just like everybody else

This isn't a paradox. You're saying that all humans share A SINGLE TRAIT. That doesn't stop each individual's other zillion characteristics from being different. Besides, each one is unique in a different way, thus even so this trait isn't common.

Because we are different in different ways, but not all of our qualities are just as different than those of others, some characteristics are way out there, while some are only slightly different than those of others. Some are even the same! So really, we are all REALLY unique because we are all different from each other in different ways and amounts, and with different combinations that make up our person. Y'know?

maybe that he is the only one who isn't unique like all the others. say all the others had super powers. the one guy would stand out by either having different power, unique (LOL) power, or no powers whatsoever

One word: Fingerprints

Agreed The fact that we all are unique is not a unique factor in us . But other factors in us make us unique

Not everyone is the same so it is not true both ways

The fact that we are not the same.

The is way to many combinations in this universe to make a perfect duplicate, so we can always say we're unique

The Answer: Our DNA.

We are all unique and in that we are all the same therefore no one is unique. You're unique just like everyone else.

Everyone is the same in the sense that we all have unique qualities. What make us unique is the variation.

Everyone is unique in different ways. Geez, get real paradoxes.

whats unique about a person that makes un unique

WOW Who made these not paradoxes

nobody is really unique. Everybody is, theoretically, the same

You mean: if everyone is unique, everyone is the same, therefore not unique

Fingerprints

Everyone is unique in different ways. It is not like uniqueness is a specific quality. it is rather a general term which covers a wide basis of charecteristics

The proper theoretical thing to say is that we have unique DNA; this is quite the question to ask, because as assured as I am that you've created this page I'm pretty sure if you're studying paradoxes you know what DNA is...

good question. if we are all unique, then saying everyone is unique is like saying that it is normal, but then saying that someone is normal is like calling them unique, but then that is like calling them normal, and so on and so fourth.

Nice one!!!! I think everyone is unique in their own way

SOLUTION: This also suggests that a person isn't unique because there are other persons. Everyone is Unique having different kinds of uniqueness.

maybe not being unique

We are all the same in that sense but we have different qualities

Its their personality

If their the same :)

Unique is simply unique. One can not be REALLY unique or a LITTLE unique :)

Everyone has a unique thing about them, but not everyone has the same unique trait therefore this is not a paradox at all

why do children have to act like adults????

*Blinks*

We do enjoy after working .it is not like work is an unending process .

Because work is the only way to get stuff because lazy people said so.

Because if we didn't work we couldn't have most things any way

because this is life.

Because of, for some, the journey is what brings happiness, not the destination, therefore they set a goal, and enjoy the journey towards the goal, where they will feel they're getting better, and therefore closer to the goal, and feeling better is enjoyable, therefore working towards things we enjoy is not nessesarily because we want to get the things, but may be merely because we want to go on that journey - or, that's what I believe ;)

that's not a paradox, just a sad fact of life.

SOLUTION: yay!

ERROR will happen.

if he believes it, it isn't a lie. it is just a wrong statement, therefor his nose would not grow.

he said it will grow that means the next time he lies it will grow making this sentence a fact not a paradox and if he dies before he tells that lie then it is a lie but he is dead so who cares

This is just question 3 all over again

Aye, m8.

mind blown…

- if A is then D is also correct, therfore there is a 50% chance then neither A nor D is correct - if either B or C is correct, paradox. Because then, there is only a 25%

It doesn't matter about the percentage after the a b c and d. You have a 25% chance because it's random

50% because there is two 25% so is a 50% chance you will select the right 25%.

So the answer would be 25% but this is made impossible by the fact that there are 2 options of 25%. If there was one answer of 25% is the only way this would be possible as there are 4 answers and one is correct. Boom.

there is no question so there is no answer, except multiple choice questions with four answers have a 25% chance of being correct, with the mistake of two being the same the chances are 50% if the answer is 25%, and 25% for both c and d

the answer will always be incorrect cuz the real answer is 33.3333% you have the choice of 25%, 50%, and 60%. those are 3 answers and 1/3 of 100 = 33.3333%

The answer is 75% because 25%+25% is 50% and there already is a 50% so that makes it 3/4 chance. Therefore, there is no answer because 75% is not there.

It would be 25% because you choose one answer out of 4 possible answers and a probability of 1 in 4 is 25%

There is no answer to the question, so all of the answers are wrong. It is just like saying How many people are there on Earth? a)1 b)2 c)3 d)4 Not a paradox, just a failed question, although slightly more complicated

It's simple: If I had to answer how high the chance is that I will be correct, I would choose B) 50%. If I had to answer the answer that would give me the highest chance of getting it correct, I would choose either A) 25% or D) 25% (They are the same). If I had to answer which of the two answers I had to choose to get the highest chance of having my chosen answer correct, I will answer B) 50% (There is a 50% possibility that A is right and a 50% possibility that D is right). I end up having 2 answers resulting for B, and 1 answer resulting for either A or D. This means that I most likely should go for answer B, because the chance that this answer is correct is 66.66666667%.

50% because there is 4 answers so it would be 25% but there are two 25%. so two out of four answers is 50%

0%... Regardless of the fact that there are four options does not change the fact that there are still only three answers. Human thinking and elimination would omit D since it has the same answer as A and A is not omitted instead simply because as humans we more likely to "prefer it". Now you only have 3 options to work with and three answers, not four. 100/3=33.3...% That answer is not there at all. Therefore no matter which answer you pick, it will remain incorrect.

you end up in a circle.....there are 4 options assuming one is correct you have a 25% probability(1/4 chance) so the correct answer is 25%..but 25% pops up twice in 4 options so that makes it 50%(2/4=1/2) which brings us back to 25% and so on and so forth. It has a lot of self referencing and assumptions.

1 in infinity, because of all the combinations of questions you can have.

It depends on how many answers there are

Alright guys, there is no answer. 0%would be false because that would make it a correct Answer, causing it to be false. Not 25% because that would make it 50 Not 50% because that would make it 25 Not 75% because that would imply that both 50% and 25% are correct, which is impossible. 100%... I'm not even acknowledging that.

I get it... If you were to specify something to answer, you would click 25% (4 answers), but 25% percent pops up twice. Not a paradox, just a trick question.

The ACTUAL question that you are being asked to answer is "what is the chance you will be correct"? SOLUTION: 100% Since there is no wrong answer because the question doesn't specify WHAT you have a chance of being correct AT! A, B, C, and D have NOTHING to do with that question. *drops mic, walks off stage*

0 because if I just chose one they each have 25. That means that the new probability is 50. There are now 3 answers that could be right so it has to be 75. 75 is not a choice so it's 0. (Sorry I couldn't find the percent sign.)

0% cause there is no question involvind those answers...

How is this a paradox? Its a statistical probability question.

it would be 50% because 25 shows up twice and you can't have 2 of the correct answer and then that leaves two answers left which is 50%

technically its 66.6 infinity because 25% show up twice so its 25%, 50%, and 60%

Parkway is a road typically near a park. Driveway is always on a public road you drive on. No paradox here. Just ignorance by folks who don’t drive.

because the namer was drunk

they're 2 different things the english language just makes the words sound alike

This is not a paradox, just an oddity of the English language.

**** you that's why

That's what everybody generally calls them, you don't have to.

Parkway is actually named for roads that went through parks as in places (central park is an example), not for the verb "park"

Because, the drive way is where you drive to when you go home. You drive the way toward the drive way! :D

This is like Iceland and Greenland. They ether got confused, the guy who named them is a troll or the guy who named this stuff is an idiot.

because people like irony

This is not a paradox

that's more of a riddle, not a paradox :/

''Im gonna park in the driveway'' sounds better than '' im gonna park in the parkway''

SOLUTION: Because you do.

its because an idiot invented those words

why do you cook bacon, and bake cookies?

Why is cargo stuff carried on a ship, and a shipment something carried by car?

What's a parkway?

This is a George Carlinism

nice

And if I wasn't chosen, then I'm SOL, and no matter how hard I tried, I could never be one of the chosen.

God is a paradox unto itself

shen me

I don't get the paradox???

What?!?

I love this paradox

This is Russell's paradox, this simple answer is if it does than it doesn't and if it doesn't than it does, Bertrand Russell said this himself

No it's just not possible.

Yes

what if it was phrased "Rule #1: Ignore all rules"

You can follow the rule, and still follow a few rules afterwords. What's that, you say? That's breaking the rules? Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

No, because it's just a phrase and a suggestion.

No because the definition of rules are newly created guidelines that we have to follow... So telling someone to ignore the newly created guidelines is not a rule just a fresh slate.

Yep!!!!

That is correct if you do the second sentence first.

You can't start the paradox, number 2 can't be false because that would contradict number 1 and it can't be false because that would make number 1 false making number 2 true

Both true, it's complicated for your minds to understand.

What if they both lie?

this is not gonna solve. If the sentence after this is true, the sentence before this is false that will make the sentence after this is false, and the sentence after this is true..

Yes, because if you quit quitting, then you were a quitter before you made your decision to quit quitting.

It would be the last time that you would ever quit something, but because you actually quit it, you are a quitter. Because you quit quitting, you will never quit anymore. It would be, as I said, your last quit.

Yes, because you quit something.

that technically means that everyone in the world is a quitter

I don't get this

yes

If you quit one thing, it doesn't really qualify as a quitter... its like making muffins in H.E, doesnt make you a baker

no wait yes no it yes. I dont Know Help Me find out

No.

There must be a lot of quitters in this world

If you hate on haters are u a hater?

If you succeed at something that means that you are failing at failing but if you are failing at failing then you can't possibly succeed. But if you didn't succeed than you succeeded at failing which means that you succeeded which means that you failed at faling...

That means that once you start quitting you are permanently a quitter because in order to quit your quitting you will need to quit.

SOLUTION: You're a quitter even before you quit it.

Yup. That's because if you quit quitting means quitting- you have done that earlier atleast once. So that makes u a quitter too.

What would you be quitting before you quit quitting?

Oh wow actually that is relatable

Being born is living eternal life because you go to Heaven. :)

This is not a paradox

But when you die either it will be the same as the time before you were born or, if you believe in it, you go to Heaven

Yes, but for the meantime, you're alive!!!!

yea but not bieng born is not existing at all.

It is, we're all now a second closer to death then before.

Ok. So it is.

This is very true

Death is peaceful ,silent ......... Life is harder a.k.a Bella Swan (twilight)

Your body regenerates itself quicker than parts die, to a certain age - it's how you grow and mature. Thus, you are not dying as soon as you are born, but dying possibly after puberty has ended. Otherwise, one could argue you are dying from the moment which follows sperm entering the egg, not just after birth.

Being cleaned after bath is a Dirty sentence

Being Born is a Death Sentence is Irony, not paradox...

This is true, as Iron Maiden said "As soon as you're born, you're dying"

SOLUTION: Wrong. Fertilization is because it's where life begins. This isn't a paradox rather an information.

No! If your born you have to die! but i dont get how this is a paradox.

of course! we are all sentenced to die the minute we're born b/c we don't live forever in our flesh

I don't get this being a paradox

When you die your brain is not active therefore you will not think or have any senses so technically you will not exist.

no one knows where we hav come from ???...and where are we gonna go when we die....

and also every step you take leads you to the place of your death AND if i may continue onward; a breath is like a death-clock counting down to you final breath (it inescapable because if you try and stop breathing to pause the clock you will die anyway - this is the curse of humanity)

If you don't believe in God that is........just sayin'

so when your not born you're alive?

This is how it goes your mission is to not accept this mission do you accept

New mission: refuse this mission.

I see what you tried to do there, but since the statement is a command, it can't be true or false.

yes because if you don't tell the truth the statement itself is not true but if that statements isn't true, then he will never tell the truth

Well, technically you could say its a lie, because if its a lie, you are lying right there, but its not like ALL your other comments are lies. You could tell truth in some other places; this sentence just happens to be a lie.

it totally is a paradox its can be compared to the grandfather paradox if he says he isnt telling the truth and he is lying then he is telling the truth but if hes telling the truth then he is lying this keeps repeating so on and so forth

No it's not a paradox, but it's a lie, because he would have to eventually have to tell the truth. For example: "what's your name?" "John." See?

this statement isn't a paradox. It is a declaration of what is to come. Unfortunately, the future DOES NOT EXIST! You can "create" your future. However, you cannot "travel" to the future. You will only ever be IN THE PRESENT. Because, no matter where you go, there you are. You are only ever "PRESENT" in the "PRESENT". If you go to the future, it is no longer the future because you are PRESENT. Therefore, the statement "I will never tell the truth" CANNOT be a paradox!

you just told the truth, or maybe a lie (mind blown)

The future tense deletes the paradox.

no because its the only truth said

he means from now on

saying that is lying, so if the statement was a lie, than he would tell the truth, but if he was telling the truth, than it would be true that he would not tell the truth, making him lie, and it just goes on and on and on.

You are saying you'll never say the truth. That means you are lying when saying that, which means that you are telling a lie, so you'll always tell the truth.

SOLUTION: You are simply stating to us that you will never tell the truth. It has to be more like: "This sentence isn't the truth."

This is not a paradox. The key word is never. This sentence is a lie. You will SOMETIMES tell the truth.

Don't speak

To make this a paradox we must assume that a person either always lies or always tells the truth. Otherwise they were just lying at the moment they said it.

I never tell lies.*

Spiritually thinking, in the end of my death is left a empty vessel; out to start ones Life right too are true form! Free from Sins mind control, Brain waves Goodbye Cells of the Flesh and blood💀😘

You are your brain.

You are your brain. Your body just holds things your brain needs to live, so your brain gave you the different abilities to get all the things you need to live so your brain can live as well

I'll just ignore the mission. I won't refuse it or accept it.

PORTAL!!!!!!!!. GLaDOS should've given this one to Wheatley instead. It's harder to fake solve.

Portal 2!

The two portals are exactly the same size, so it simply wouldn't fit even if they weren't exactly the same size, the outer parts of the larger circle wouldn't really be a functioning part of the portal, as the any object that was big enough so that it would have to use that extra, outer part of the larger portal, it wouldn't go through, as it would be too big to fit out of the smaller portal. However, if the portals were not perfectly round, like they are but instead, say, an oval you could rotate it, and it would fit. And then... well... i guess while one side of it went in, it would slowly come out of itself... and... uh.... One of the tables might be split in half... either that, or the portal would break... I think... Actually, let's just say they have to be circles for it to work.

A black hole is essentially the result of too great a mass occupying a volume that cannot contain it, such as the entirety of a star collapsing within itself. It creates a magnetic field so strong not even light can escape. The ratio of mass to volume required for a black hole to form is unique from one region of space to another, and since between any two points there are infinitely many points, it is incalculable. However, each black hole has a calculable "point of no return," aka an "event horizon." This is a radius that marks the distance at which an object will take permanent orbit that can only be changed by an outside force (rocket jets, collision, etc.). Once within the radius, no object can escape on its own and will move inevitably toward the center. It is unknown what happens at the center or to the atoms that reach it, but anything that does reach the center would be so strongly affected by the gravity that it collapses into the most compact possible form. Humans would become so compressed that they'd be invisible to the naked eye. This happens long before reaching the center and takes a matter of milliseconds. But don't worry, the intense heat radiating from the center would incinerate a person before this happens. Terrifying, right?

its called anti matter

In regards to the previous comment, actually, conversion of matter to energy happens naturally all the time. The mass of a nucleus differs calculatably from the sum of its parts due to the strong nuclear particles slowing down enough to be measured as mass. As for the original post, this is a good metaphysical paradox, but it's ruined by the flawed attempt at a scientific explanation. The laws of "science" -- in this case, I assume you meant the laws of motion -- do not apply to things which don't exist; why you even bring them up, I can't fathom.

It is possible for matter to not exist. A nuclear bomb splits an atom turning matter into energy which creates the explosion (conversion of matter into energy does not happen naturally as far as I know). Also science generally accepts that all black wholes come from collapsing stars.

There's infinite sets and only a finite universe.

i figured this out when playing portal. if you place a portal in front of you and one behind you then you can see your self in the portal, making you inside it, but you also know that you arent in it since you are just right there. so the answer is yes it contains its self, but also doesn't

The set of all sets doesn't contain itself because the set of all sets comes with the box and everything inside. So technically the set of all sets dose contain itself.

Never thought of this Ill repeat it if you did not hear. Never thought of this

it is actually "does a set of all sets contain its self"

This is a common Russelian Paradox which prompted the change in the definiton of a set, allowing it to contain itself because it applies to itself.

Solution: There can always be at least a single set that contains a set of all sets that don't contain themselves.

He goes out of town......?

He's bald

Trick question he doesn't shave AT HOME!!

He uses Nair.

He shaves in a neighboring town. After all, "no one else shaves for others IN THE TOWN", and it was never established that they couldn't leave the town.

what if the barber is a woman? problem solved

Nothing would happen.. You need to have power to power the strip and the cord and if you're creating a loop with the cords, there's no power.

the Milky Way just blows up

Your house burns down.

It's like if you link two sides of a battery. The cord will get too hot and it'll get on flames and cause fire.

the powerstrip explodes and it ultimately leads to the end of the world and the destruction of the universe

same as below ok learn it!!!!!!

Infinet POWER. Nice if you know this refrence.

If you divide a number by zero you get the full number because it wasn’t divided. There is the paradox because if it wasn’t divided how can you say it was divided.

4/2: you have 4 cookies and you want to divide them between 2 of your friends. Answer: every friend gets 2 cookies. 2/0: you have 2 cookies and you want to divide them between no one. Answer: ****. See? the reason dividing a number by zero gives an unidentified answer is because the question itself doesn't make sense. Dividing number A by B is finding out which number that if multiplied by B, gives A. And since every number that's multiplied by zero gives zero, then it's impossible to divide any number by zero.

Imagine that you have zero cookies and try to split them evenly with zero friends. See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that you have no friends. And you are sad that you have no friends. (Siri told me this)

just saying, 1 does not equil 1/0, it equils 1/1

Technically, we have been dividing by sero all along, the number 1 is equal to 1/0 which is also equal to 1 divides by zero. So we can divide by zero all we want, if i have 10 apples and i have 0 friends i cant share it with any of them, but if i divide by 0 i cannot have them either, therefor NO APPLES FOR ANYONE!

everything will explode

Is one divided by zero equal to infinity? NO. If it were infinity, that would mean that you could multiply whatever number you wanted by zero and get one, which is clearly not true. No number multiplied by zero is going to produce one. Thus, it is undefined. With zero divided by zero, however, it is indeterminate because any number multiplied by zero will return zero.

1/0 would be infinity and negative infinity because 0 is not positive nor negative. So it is undefined.

It iis quit possible to do so however it is a math rule not to. Research 1 is equal to 2

we have to say undefined to make people understand it.....in my personal opinion i think it is infinity....people wont accept it because if 1/0=infinity then 2/0=infinity which can cause people to end up with the opinion that 1=2......this is based on a misunderstanding that 0 and infinity are governed by simple arithmetic laws..both are beyond human comprehension quite frankly......as absurd as it sounds infinity is a number let me rephrase that an idea that is so large that it is most similar to something that is nothing that is 0.......call me crazy but in terms of ideas and nature 0=infinity..................forget dividing by zero and infinity.....zero and infinity by itselves are paradoxes

It's undefined.

Dividing anything by 0 is impossible. End of story.

Don't say infinity because that means a number times 0 equals infinity. WRONG!!!

20/4 = 5 because you can subtract 4 from 20, 5 times. Subtracting zero can be done an infinite amount of times

That's not it. 1/0 is saying that a number multiplied by 0 equals 1, however, there is no number which, multiplied by 0, is equal to a number other than 0. 1/0=n is the same as n x 0 = 1.

A paradox is a logical impossibility for a human being to do. So it is quite impossible.

the ONLY way shooting him will have an effect on you is if your parents have NOT been born prior to when you kill him.

cause' thats the way the world is. get used to it

Without the laws of energy or whatever ripping apart the universe, time travel would require a bubble, in the dimension of time, for you to travel in as you yourself would age as you travel

because if wwe were to time travel then we would automatically be creating a paradox that could potentially be the end of all time

It depends on which theory of time travel you believe to be true

Time travel doesnt work like that. In reality the only way to travel back in time would be to reverse the flow of time itself, meaning, you would not exist because you haven't been born yet.

I say you will be sitting in a couch behind death forever as he thinks about whether you should die or not lolol

you kill him after his children are born

Technically if you time travel it is impossible to live in the same universe when you return, because the butterfly effect will cause different weather to happen elsewhere and could eventually (or instantaneously) destroy reality. Every time a time traveler breathes he creates an alternate dimension, so if we killed our grandfathers nothing will happen to your grandfather because there is the infinite possibility of ornate coincidence, keeping you away from your grandfather. If you did kill your grandfather, which is impossible during time travel anyway due to coincidences, you would literally destroy the fabric of space and time, setting across the (not just visible) universe an intense wildfire that would destroy all existence. But if that did happen, there would be a seperate dimension in which this didn't happen anyway and in said time period you never time traveled, or maybe you did but you were set back by a coincidence and tried to do it again, but everything above will happen again anyway. Somewhere in a parallel universe, this text was never written by me, never will be or someday will. There are so many possibilities stated by this "paradox" that when approached logically there is a solution: It can't happen.

you wouldn't exist in the first place if you killed your grandfather, which means you didn't kill your grandfather since you don't exist.

SOLUTION: The very fact that you we're born means that somewhere, sometime, somehow, you failed to kill your grandfather meaning all of us can't kill our grandfathers, or fathers, or even time travel.

the key to the grandfather paradox is that if you shot him,you would create a parallel universe.

One interpretation of time travel is that a new split is made in the multiverse, so you'd essentially be screwing over another copy of yourself. You could also argue that because you are already born, therefore the repercussions of your actions (and inactions) are already being felt, and you therefore did not kill your grandfather.

you may or may not exist depending n the time you shot your grandfather, because you can still time travel and shoot your grandfather after your dad was born. and if you shot your grandfather, he will get hurt or worse-die.

tl;dr

what?

If the new mission is: not to accept missions than, you should accept missions, because you didn't accept the new mission.

New mission, fml

accept and then porposely fail and then go to mcdonalds after a hard day

It doesn't say not to accept the mission given right then

A mission doesn't start until it's accepted. Accept the mission and don't accept any more.

i accepted the mission before i could complete it, so it wold simply be the last mission I do

You don't, that's what.

If you dont accept the mission youre accepting it by refusing it. If you accept it your also refusing it hence a circle paradox

I don't accept it. They said don't accept it, not don't do it.

this is a paradox because your mission is to not except any new missions including this one. There for if you accept this mission you fail the mission but if you fail the mission then you also accept the mission. its a circle paradox.

I think the paradox is "New mission: refuse this mission" the one you put up doesn't make sense.

Then you just don't do the mission and continue accepting others

Do you accept?

They never said it was crowded with people…

Crowded by what is the question?!

"There" hasn't been defined as a particular place. Therefore, "there" could be ANYWHERE or NOWHERE at all.

this is a figure of speech not a trick question nor something to think about. saying nobody could be you and your friend group... eg none of my friends went there because it was so crowded.

The space is crowded by inanimate objects, therefore no one is there, but it is still crowded.

The people in the crowd were taken there they didnt go willingly so they cannot say that they went there

I was thinking something like this the other day... One road was really traffic-y so we went on a back road that lead to the same place. So, I thought, what if everyone went on the backway, should we go on that main road? What if everyone decided to go on the main road because they thought the backway would be crowded? I don't know... just throwing thoughts out there.

What if the people there can't leave?

If the stranger says don't ever trust strangers, then the girl won't trust what the stranger said, and therefore trust the stranger.

Get to know the stranger, making him not a stranger. Then can be sure if you're decision was a good one or not.

she will mace him and then call the police " who are strangers themselves" as she maces them to and then they shoot her. so yea. she is killed for listening to a stranger

well, if he told her to not trust a stranger then not trust him and wouldn't just go back and forth between trusting him or not in one second, I know I wouldnt

Simple- she wouldn't trust any stranger not even this one. By listening to what he says , it does not mean that she is trusting him for something. It is just that she is following his advice.

Considering shes a girl she wouldnt have heard him beacuse she was looking into his eyes. Then when she realized what he said it would be to late... She is already in a bed.

Is he really a stranger, because if he is, you would not trust him, because their are some who can be trusted with lives (not recommended, though).

She would trust everyone because he's a strangers so he pretty much said "don't trust me, AT ALL."

you run away

stranger danger

She'll probably just not trust everyone but that stranger. I guess we'll never know...

A stranger was the guy's name. The girl was a very close friend of A stranger so she listened to him.

listens to him then runs away after punching him

She keeps listening to strangers.

her head explodes

Scream and run...

So... she CAN trust strangers? Ok, my brain hurts now.

It seems to me there are four possible door combinations: Open/Open Closed/Closed Closed/Open Open/Closed By the description provided, the first door is closed, so that leaves us only two remaining combinations: Closed/Open Closed/Closed There is a 50/50 chance that the second door is faster. I don't see the paradoxical nature of the doors? One way is strictly faster than the other, and there are several solutions. For instance, how long does it take to open a door? How long does it take to walk to the second door (only close enough to determine if it is open or not). This is as much a paradox as saying "If you flip a coin, it might come up heads! PARADOX!"

Negative infinity is not the opposite of infinity, because infinity goes both ways, its positive, but negative, it all but in this case its none.

Wrong the opposite of infinity is negative infinity

*Mind Explodes* falls to the floor needs life alert

well infinity = 0. okok... a 3 dimensional object makes 0 an infinitely small space. call me crazy but 0 is infinitely infinite. so dem sneaky lil goldenfishies will leave because u asked for infinitely 0 wishes. which brings up the question of having 0 wishes. that wish will not come true because you have already used one wish, making that wish untrue. so dont ask for endless wishes because thats what they do. they ruin all yo dreams.

You spelled Goldenfish wrong

That depens... if the goldenfish has a rule of not asking for more whishes... (works with 3 wishes) ask the first wish to make the 2nd wish a Rule-free wish... and use the third wish for infinate rule free wishes.

If the Golden fish doesn't except that that wish for more Golden fishes.

You spelled "Goldenfish" wrong. What is a "Glodenfish"?

SOLUTION: then you have an infinite number of wishes. What do you expect? Spaghetti on an iPad?

to the second guy*

To the first guy: don't bring up the laws of the universe because a "wish" just defies all laws of the universe :p

Why want an "Infinite" number of wishes if neither you or the "Goldenfish" will exist forever. The laws of the universe wouldn't allow that. There's not an infinite amount of mass or energy to sustain the existance of you or the fish to exist forever. I think for that to work, you and the fish would have to be ghosts.

Then you get an infinite number of wishes. Duh. Here is some thing better. I WISH TO NOT HAVE THIS WISH COME TRUE! There.