Vote + to improve this toplist's ranking
Report Abuse

Top 20 Paradoxes in everyday life to think about

58 items ranked

There are some things in life that we take for granted. We never noticed about these things because we never stop to pause and think about them. But if you will take a second look at them, you will know what I mean. Below is the list of 20 things that I had compiled about the things we take for granted.

Rated 76 points - posted 5 years ago by josephling67 in category Other.
Click on up and down arrows to affect item's ranking




1.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible? Report Abuse
70 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 22 comments
Comments:
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
if its possible to be impossible nothing possible
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
yes because not everything is possible
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
everything is impossible until you make it possible
Added 7 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
this is impossible... XD
Added 8 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
No the only thing impossible is impossibility itself.
Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 9 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
yessince everything is possible then by cant anything be impossible
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Possibly
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 10 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Here is one i know.. The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true. O.o this one really confused me..
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Things are only impossible until they are not.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
If I hate haters does that make me a hater.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 12 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
By reading and thinking about the word "possible" so many times... It sounds so strange to me now.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: It is possible and impossible for everything to be impossible and possible at the same time.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Not everything is possible though.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
gone mad
Added 3 years ago by guest, -11 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
that just blew my mind
Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

2.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
This sentence is false Report Abuse
A liar paradox according to Wikipedia.
52 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 20 comments
Comments:
"True ill go true I think I did a good job" Quoit from Wheatly
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
yes because there is no period.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This sentence is not false but it's false if you think it is false
Added 5 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The sentence can not be a lie because i see it and it exists
Added 6 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Hehe so confusing The sentence below is true The sentence above is false 0_0
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Portal 2 much?
Added 9 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
it's truely false i guess.....
Added 10 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The statement is without context and therefor is neither true nor false
Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
"This sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." There is the real paradox.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It's a paradox there is no answer. ( quote from Glados)
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
By quoting Wheatley true.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Then it is True and False in certain times depending on the reader.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This paradox incomplete.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Uh, true... I'll go true. Well, that was easy. I'll be honest , I might have heard that before, though, sort of cheated.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 13 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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...
Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
How is this a paradox? There is nothing inherently truthful or false about it. Is there? Can somebody explain?
Added 2 years ago by guest, -11 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
No it isn't
Added 2 years ago by guest, -12 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Yes it is.
Added 2 years ago by guest, -8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

3.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
What happens if Pinocchio says "my nose will now grow"? Report Abuse
Because it is actually a paradox.
36 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 31 comments
Comments:
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
Added 28 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is simply another iteration of the liar paradox.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
His head would explode
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
well it wont grow because he isn't lying......and according to the legend Pinocchio's nose grow when he is in fact lying........
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
stuffz
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
his head will explode
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It throbs
Added 6 months ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The universe will explode says another website.
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
His nose won't grow he is a real boy now...
Added 6 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
His nose will grow then shrink then grow and shrink and the process will continue forever
Added 7 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
His nose does grow immediately ('now') it grows a second after telling that lie!
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 11 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by DoubleATeam, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
every day pinocchio's nose will be growing, however slowly since he is in his growing stage (adolescent). Therefore, nothing will happen.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I think pinocchio's will fall off and he will explode
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Or, the he will be telling the truth becouse the next time he lies his nose will grow.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
it will grow, because language is performative.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The actual answer is, He will turn into a real boy
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
is it possible for his nose to grow without lying?
Added 1 year ago by guest, -7 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Easy, Pinocchio will become a black hole.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 25 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Any situation where a person says an action will happen now, is always lying.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
why we gotta do the math? :(
Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 3 years ago by guest, 9 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
best one on the list, the only real paradox
Added 3 years ago by guest, -6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

4.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
if you were all powerfull and can do anything,could you create a door you couldn't open? Report Abuse
it is unanswerable
21 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 27 comments
Comments:
you shouldn't be able to open the unopenable door, well unless you change your ming about it being unopenable
Added 25 days ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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"
Added 28 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I WOULD GO BACK IN TIME AND STOP MY SELF FROM MAKING THE DOOOOOORRRR
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I'm omnipotent! I can lift it up even if it's illogical. I can do whatever I want.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
no and yes because you cant be that powerful also you cant be that stupid to not be able to open a door
Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I suppose
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 7 months ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 11 months ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Yes... But not in the physical sense. I would have to create it with out knowing.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
What if the door is invisible?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I just wouldn't
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Yes. And because I am all powerful, I can create a door I could and could not open at the same time.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Yes, I could. But then i wouldn't be allmighty, so I wouldn't do that. I don't get the paradox...
Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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?
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
A wall?
Added 3 years ago by guest, -6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
How do you know I want to open the door?
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -7 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
several weeks ago i came onto this page and clearly pointed out how each and every single one of these points was written by a moron. they have been mostly deleted. You seem clearly ashamed of how unintelligent you have proven to be.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
...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....
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

5.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Being Born is a Death Sentence. Report Abuse
When you are born, you are destined to die some day...
18 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 15 comments
Comments:
This is very true
Added 28 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Death is peaceful ,silent ......... Life is harder a.k.a Bella Swan (twilight)
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 9 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Being cleaned after bath is a Dirty sentence
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Being Born is a Death Sentence is Irony, not paradox...
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is true, as Iron Maiden said "As soon as you're born, you're dying"
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Wrong. Fertilization is because it's where life begins. This isn't a paradox rather an information.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
No! If your born you have to die! but i dont get how this is a paradox.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
of course! we are all sentenced to die the minute we're born b/c we don't live forever in our flesh
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I don't get this being a paradox
Added 2 years ago by guest, -9 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
When you die your brain is not active therefore you will not think or have any senses so technically you will not exist.
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
no one knows where we hav come from ???...and where are we gonna go when we die....
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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)
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
If you don't believe in God that is........just sayin'
Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
so when your not born you're alive?
Added 4 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

6.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
what happens when an imoveable object is meets an unstopable force Report Abuse
not the best paradoz but still
17 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 48 comments
Comments:
They wind up in marriage counseling.
Added 19 days ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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 :)
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
BANG! Yup :)
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
just like lebron james meets paul geroge lol
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
IT GOES THROUGH IT
Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Same as below but the unstpible force remaneas.Porpisly spelled wrong for the win
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the universe explodes
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
there cannot be any immovable object neither any unstoppable force, and hence this question dosent arise !! :D
Added 5 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I watched the superbowl between the broncos and seahawks, this one doesnt fool me. The immovable object wins.
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The unstoppable force changes direction
Added 6 months ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Watch ASAPScience on youtube and it will tell you that they pass through eachother.
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
They surrender
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
They will pass right through each other Minutephysics did a video on this that's worth watching
Added 7 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
big bang? =O
Added 8 months ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 9 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 9 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
They surrender.
Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
BOOM!
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the Big Bang
Added 11 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Nothing if one exists the other doesn't exist.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The force would go through the object or destroy it.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the unstoppable force becomes the immovable force and vise versa
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I learned it from asapscience on youtube, they will pass thru each other
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The particles will pass through eachother #Physics. #Biology
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
*change *force immovable
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Child's play. The unstoppable force phases through the immoveable object. They cannot physically touch.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Then it will be Batman vs Joker
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: The existence of an immovable object means there isn't an unstoppable force and VICE VERSA.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
All physics aside...speaking in theory...they would enilate each other..it is analgous to matter and anti.matter.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The unstoppable force will pass through the imovableobject without effect to the object... like a ghost
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
easy: if there is a unstoppable force an immovable object cannot exist
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Easy: The unstoppable force stops and the immoveable object moves
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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!
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
What happens when Chuck Norris meets Bruce Lee? That's really what their asking
Added 2 years ago by guest, 19 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
woops i ment paradox not paradoz
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

7.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If everyone is unique, what makes a person really unique??? Report Abuse
We usually say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to other because everyone is a unique individual. So, if everyone is unique and we are ALL unique,,what makes us really unique? gets????=)))
15 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 17 comments
Comments:
Everyone is unique in different ways. Geez, get real paradoxes.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
whats unique about a person that makes un unique
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
WOW Who made these not paradoxes
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
nobody is really unique. Everybody is, theoretically, the same
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You mean: if everyone is unique, everyone is the same, therefore not unique
Added 5 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Fingerprints
Added 10 months ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 10 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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...
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Nice one!!!! I think everyone is unique in their own way
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: This also suggests that a person isn't unique because there are other persons. Everyone is Unique having different kinds of uniqueness.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
maybe not being unique
Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
We are all the same in that sense but we have different qualities
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Its their personality
Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
If their the same :)
Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Unique is simply unique. One can not be REALLY unique or a LITTLE unique :)
Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Everyone has a unique thing about them, but not everyone has the same unique trait therefore this is not a paradox at all
Added 3 years ago by JohnDixon, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

8.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The time travel paradox Report Abuse
If you hypothetically traveled back in time, can you kill your grandfather as a child? If so, then you'd never been born. But if you were never born, then who traveled back in time to kill your grandfather to begin with? And if you didn't go back in time to kill your grandfather because you were never born, then you'd be born. Can you hypothetically go back in time to kill your grandfather now? [Parallel Universes?]
13 points - added 10 months ago by guest - 8 comments
Comments:
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.
Added 25 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You can't go back in time, changing the most smallest thing could have a big affect in the future
Added 28 days ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The universe is destroyed... Or maybe that family is eliminated from existence. No more Jenkinson family, peeps...
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 6 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
just kill grandma after childbirth of childs parents ez
Added 10 months ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

9.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
New time paradox Report Abuse
You create a time machine and go back in time and go back to when you go back in time and go back in time with yourself and so forth. What will happen infinet yous?
11 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
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?
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
That is a really funny take on a well-known paradox (grandfather paradox).
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

10.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
the sentence after this is true, the sentence before this is false, the sentence before this is true Report Abuse
my mind exploded
10 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 4 comments
Comments:
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
Added 28 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 2 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It's all just one sentence
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Actually, you didn't capitalize or put a period so technically it's all one sentence...
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

11.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Divide by zero? Report Abuse
Yes I did it!
9 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
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.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
1divided by zero is infinity cus there are infinit groups of zero in one you learn this in kindagarden.
Added 4 months ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

12.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
New mission! Don't accept missions Report Abuse
8 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 4 comments
Comments:
I think the paradox is "New mission: refuse this mission" the one you put up doesn't make sense.
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Then you just don't do the mission and continue accepting others
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
this is dumb
Added 3 months ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Do you accept?
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

13.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
a man says," don't trust me, don't trust anyone" Report Abuse
5 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 3 comments
Comments:
If he says "don't trust anyone" your basically trusting him to nay trust him or anyone. A.K.A the Liar Paradox
Added 28 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I just won't trust him and trust everyone.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

14.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Why do we work to enjoy things we don't get to enjoy because we're working to get these things that we'd like to enjoy? Report Abuse
A concept I find strange considering society governs itself with mandates and dated dcotrines.
5 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 6 comments
Comments:
Because if we didn't work we couldn't have most things any way
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
ITs life deal with it OK
Added 4 months ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because this is life.
Added 7 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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 ;)
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
that's not a paradox, just a sad fact of life.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: yay!
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

15.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If you make a new years resolution to not keep any new years resolutions would you keep it? Report Abuse
If you made a new years resolution to not keep any new resolutions would you be able to keep it because by not keeping your resolution you are keeping it.
5 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 4 comments
Comments:
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Starting when?? Time is the key to this puzzle.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
not a paradox it is an impossible thing to do unless you only have 1 new years resolutions
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

16.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
What happens if you plug a cord into a cord and into a powerstrip? Report Abuse
4 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 3 comments
Comments:
the powerstrip explodes and it ultimately leads to the end of the world and the destruction of the universe
Added 4 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
same as below ok learn it!!!!!!
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Infinet POWER. Nice if you know this refrence.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

17.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The set of all sets that dont contain themselves Report Abuse
Because it is amazing.
4 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 6 comments
Comments:
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
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Never thought of this Ill repeat it if you did not hear. Never thought of this
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
it is actually "does a set of all sets contain its self"
Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Solution: There can always be at least a single set that contains a set of all sets that don't contain themselves.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

18.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false. Report Abuse
this one is my fav =)
3 points - added 1 year ago by DoubleATeam - 2 comments
Comments:
What if they both lie?
Added 8 months ago by guest, 8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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..
Added 10 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

19.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Why do you park in a driveway and drive in a parkway Report Abuse
this is genius
3 points - added 3 years ago by colbydawg14 - 12 comments
Comments:
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.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because people like irony
Added 4 months ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is not a paradox
Added 6 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
that's more of a riddle, not a paradox :/
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
''Im gonna park in the driveway'' sounds better than '' im gonna park in the parkway''
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Because you do.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
its because an idiot invented those words
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
why do you cook bacon, and bake cookies?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 31 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Why is cargo stuff carried on a ship, and a shipment something carried by car?
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
What's a parkway?
Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is a George Carlinism
Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
nice
Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

20.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
21. Quitting Report Abuse
If you quit quitting does that make you a quitter?
2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 13 comments
Comments:
that technically means that everyone in the world is a quitter
Added 25 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I don't get this
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
yes
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 3 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
no wait yes no it yes. I dont Know Help Me find out
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
No.
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
There must be a lot of quitters in this world
Added 7 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
If you hate on haters are u a hater?
Added 10 months ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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...
Added 10 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
That means that once you start quitting you are permanently a quitter because in order to quit your quitting you will need to quit.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: You're a quitter even before you quit it.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Yup. That's because if you quit quitting means quitting- you have done that earlier atleast once. So that makes u a quitter too.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
What would you be quitting before you quit quitting?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

21.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct? Report Abuse
A)25% B)50% C)60% D)25%
1 point - added 3 months ago by guest - 5 comments
Comments:
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.)
Added 27 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
0% cause there is no question involvind those answers...
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
How is this a paradox? Its a statistical probability question.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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%
Added 2 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
technically its 66.6 infinity because 25% show up twice so its 25%, 50%, and 60%
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

22.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Have you ever considered the phrase "IGNORE ALL RULES" a rule itself? Report Abuse
Do you ignore it, or not?
1 point - added 4 months ago by guest - 1 comment
Comments:
Yep!!!!
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

23.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
A stranger says to a girl, don't ever trust strangers ? What will happen? Report Abuse
1 point - added 1 year ago by guest - 9 comments
Comments:
you run away
Added 1 day ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
stranger danger
Added 3 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
She'll probably just not trust everyone but that stranger. I guess we'll never know...
Added 3 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
A stranger was the guy's name. The girl was a very close friend of A stranger so she listened to him.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
listens to him then runs away after punching him
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
She keeps listening to strangers.
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
her head explodes
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Scream and run...
Added 8 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
So... she CAN trust strangers? Ok, my brain hurts now.
Added 1 year ago by DoubleATeam, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

24.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
What happens if your wish for the Glodenfish is to have an infinite number of wishes? Report Abuse
1 point - added 2 years ago by guest - 7 comments
Comments:
If the Golden fish doesn't except that that wish for more Golden fishes.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You spelled "Goldenfish" wrong. What is a "Glodenfish"?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: then you have an infinite number of wishes. What do you expect? Spaghetti on an iPad?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 35 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
to the second guy*
Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
To the first guy: don't bring up the laws of the universe because a "wish" just defies all laws of the universe :p
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Then you get an infinite number of wishes. Duh. Here is some thing better. I WISH TO NOT HAVE THIS WISH COME TRUE! There.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 26 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

25.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
To kill death. Report Abuse
What would happen? If death dies the all death stop but then death couldn't die so like WTF?!
0 points - added 3 months ago by guest - 1 comment
Comments:
Then comes the apocalypse
Added 3 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

26.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Existance is a paradox in itself Report Abuse
Following that law of physics that says every positive affect has a negative effect, existance itself breaks this law, because it is impossible for matter to not exist (you can break something into smaller pieces, but those pieces will always be, they cant be erased, only broken down). So existance has no negative form, no duality. therefor all life is a paradox. THOUGH this may be what a black hole is, Nature's way of balancing out existance with the 'non existance' made from the black whole, but if the black whole made non existance, than does non existance exist? Another paradox?
0 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 4 comments
Comments:
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?
Added 6 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
its called anti matter
Added 9 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 12 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

27.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Here is a question. Why do we consider a paradox reason for impossibility. Report Abuse
Obviously something cant be two different things. I am not talking about paradoxes of negation. I am talking about circumstantial paradoxes. Such as the grandfather paradox. (I go back in time and shoot my grandfather). What about such a paradox makes time travel impossible. It seems rather contingent to say that time travel is possible given we dont kill our grandfather. That make my will somehow influence the effectiveness of my time machine in a very improper way. Conversely, Lets cop to that notion. Let us say the grandfather paradox does not preclude the possibility of time travel. (notice even if time travel is practically impossible due to power constraints or some matter of fact, it can still be thought of as conceivable). Then what? If its possible for time travel to take place barring practical concerns, what happens if I shoot my grandfather? Thoughts?
0 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 15 comments
Comments:
cause' thats the way the world is. get used to it
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because if wwe were to time travel then we would automatically be creating a paradox that could potentially be the end of all time
Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It depends on which theory of time travel you believe to be true
Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I say you will be sitting in a couch behind death forever as he thinks about whether you should die or not lolol
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
you kill him after his children are born
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the key to the grandfather paradox is that if you shot him,you would create a parallel universe.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
tl;dr
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
what?
Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

28.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Nobody went there because it was so crowded. Report Abuse
Because if you think about it, how would it be crowded if nobody went there? Pretty confusing.
-1 point - added 7 months ago by guest - 5 comments
Comments:
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.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The space is crowded by inanimate objects, therefore no one is there, but it is still crowded.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The people in the crowd were taken there they didnt go willingly so they cannot say that they went there
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
What if the people there can't leave?
Added 7 months ago by guest, 8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

29.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Eating Pie. If you eat half of a pie, and then eat half of the remaining pie, and half of that remaining pie and so on, will the pie ever run out? Report Abuse
cos I said so
-1 point - added 9 months ago by guest - 12 comments
Comments:
No. Eventually it will become microscopic and it will still be matter. One does not simply destroy matter
Added 4 days ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
That's sort of like the weird thing where some guy said that motion doesn't exist for that same reason. First you need to go half the distance and then half that distance and so on forever. If you're constantly going half the distance then you never get anywhere.
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Continuing the previous comment: A pie is simply a collection of molecules that taste good when eaten together. So imagine this: You have eaten to the point that you have exactly one of each type of molecule in the pie. Once you remove half of those molecules, you can't call it a pie anymore (because not everything in the original pie is present).
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Once you eat a certain amount of pie, it would be infeasible to eat exactly half of the remainder. You know, knives and/or teeth are note infinitely accurate....
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Well, eventually you'd consume all but one atom, which by itself, would no longer be pie. So yes, all the pie will be consumed.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Atomic Explosion
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
nope: you are eating halves and halves of just the half of the pie. You still will have the other half of the pie
Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
In math, it would create a graph with an asymptote. In reality, there would be a point at which the pie would get to be as small as an atom and nuclear fission would occur. But is that pie? The pie is not a compound so if you take a crumb of pie, it does not contain the same ratio of ingredients in it. My head hurts
Added 6 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
eventually it will get so small that you split the atoms apart and the whole thing blows up
Added 7 months ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Zeno's paradox, very good one. Lets do it like this, we take 1/2 then we add 1/4 then add 1/8, so this is how you eat the pie and the question here is: do i ever reach 1 (the whole pie). So lets make a sum: 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... and so on. Now lets say the answer to that sum =S. Okay now take 2S and that would be the same sum multiplied by 2, so: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64... amd so on again. Now we take this 2S and subtract S, so: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... (and so on) - 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... (and so on). Actually these sums are the same only the first one starts with 1 that make S=1 so the cake will actually be finished, have a nice dessert!
Added 8 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Poor Pie. :(
Added 9 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
well eventually the atom of the pie will just get so small that you wont be able to split it any further, so technically... no it wont.
Added 9 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

30.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
In the movies, why do the Japanese Kamikaze pilots need to wear helmet when they crashed into the American ships? Report Abuse
-1 point - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 20 comments
Comments:
Maby they could be shot wile flying but there helmet saves them
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
this is not a paradox, they wore helmets because it was a pilots dress code...
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because they are like "we will win"
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Just in case they will live! ;)
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because the pilots want to look good before they die.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
So they don't die from lack of oxygen when they are flying to their targets.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because they want to protect their nice hair
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because they secretly don't want to die
Added 7 months ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
to look cool
Added 9 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
well... if the pilot got shot in the head mid flight, it would kinda ruin his suicidal plans
Added 12 months ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Added to the last comment, they needed to reach their targets in the first place, so the helmets prevented them from dying via gunfire.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Kamikaze pilots wear fur helmets because the higher you go up the colder it is
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: Where's the paradox?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because they have a less fashion sense?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Simple, because if they get seriously injured on their head before they hit a boat, they can't steer the ship towards it, since, he is incapitated/unconscious/dead.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
safety first
Added 1 year ago by guest, 7 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
how about if they get shot down before hitting the ship, he wants to increase his chances of surviving the fall so he can go back and try again
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
several possible reasons. 1-they look more like pilots 2-ww2 cockpits got pretty damn cold 3-the pilots probably wanted them anyway for various reasons
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
So that the brain-washing headphones would stay on during the entire flight...?
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
So that the helmet would add more damage to the ships
Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

31.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
New Mission! If this statement is false then ignore this mission! Report Abuse
Hellooo
-2 points - added 9 months ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
New mission: refuse this mission.
Added 7 months ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I see what you tried to do there, but since the statement is a command, it can't be true or false.
Added 7 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

32.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
New mission! Refuse this mission! Report Abuse
Figure it out
-2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
PORTAL!!!!!!!!. GLaDOS should've given this one to Wheatley instead. It's harder to fake solve.
Added 1 month ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Portal 2!
Added 1 year ago by guest, 13 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

33.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If sometime to come a time machine is invented and they came back to the past, wouldn't the past have a time machine too. Report Abuse
This may prove that the time machine was never and will never be invented.
-2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 12 comments
Comments:
Not if they didn't know how it worked.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I actually think that would be a way to get a time machine without inventing one.
Added 5 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 6 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Time machines will only be able to ravel forward in time or slow it down because you can't recreate time
Added 7 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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).
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I don't know, let's ask The Doctor.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 9 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is actually a very clever paradox.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Plain and simply, you would only be able to travel back to the time the time machine was first invented.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
what if by then we transfer to an alternate universe and then we will never know???
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

34.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
1=.99999...? Report Abuse
if 1/9=.11111... then 9(1/9)=9(.11111...) therefore 9/9=.99999... finally 1=.99999.... i know you can round but taking the numbers as they are...this is a paradox
-2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 4 comments
Comments:
I have another explanation. x=.999999... 10x=9.99999... 10x-x=9=9x x=1
Added 7 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Vi Hart from YouTube has a video about this
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The problem with your logic, is that decimals don't really exist. If it is an irrational number, it must be expressed as a radical number or fractions. 9 * (1/9) equals 9/9 which equals 1
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Nothing paradoxical here. 1 can also be expressed as 1/1 and it is still the same value. You actually proved the equation yourself, though another proof is: 1/3=.3333333. . . So .333333. . . X3=.9999999. . .
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

35.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
"I will never tell the truth" Report Abuse
Is it paradox?
-2 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 11 comments
Comments:
you just told the truth, or maybe a lie (mind blown)
Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The future tense deletes the paradox.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
no because its the only truth said
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
he means from now on
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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."
Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is not a paradox. The key word is never. This sentence is a lie. You will SOMETIMES tell the truth.
Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Don't speak
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
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.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I never tell lies.*
Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

36.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
In order to be free, we created laws that prevented us from being free Report Abuse
-3 points - added 11 months ago by guest - 3 comments
Comments:
We created laws so freedom was peaceful and enjoyable instead of everyone going around killing people and robbing.
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Well limits make us not free therefore creating the paradox.
Added 6 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Free wudnt exsist without limits
Added 10 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

37.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
If a convict is already on death row, why do they still need to use sterilized needles to inject the convict? Report Abuse
Because of Human rights?
-3 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 9 comments
Comments:
If the prisoner survives the injection (it has happened) they are free to go and therefor the prisoner would have the right to sue for the infection
Added 8 days ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
they call it humanity...
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: where's the paradox?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is the actual reason. If the prisoner is pardoned after the needle is inserted, but before the poison is given, the state is liable if it becomes infected.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 11 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
they use sterilized needles because when you buy a pack of medical needles they are pre sterilized.I personally don't know any hospitals that stock unsterilized needles.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
if there was somesort of misshap ie: the injector as i will call him/her was to suffer from a sudden stroke or other medical flaw they could fall and inject themself with the needle causing their demise , but i for one have to admit this would be irony at not its funniest but quite humerous.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The needle goes blunt, and so would be more painful after it has been used.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
if you were the one giving the needle, would you rather it be clean or dirty? i wouldnt want to have to handle a needle thats been used several times already. besides they go blunt/
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Someone's gotta make a buck here or there.... democracy at work - Lev
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

38.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
can a man die the pool of eternal life? Report Abuse
-4 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 8 comments
Comments:
is there any proof of an eternal life pool???? until we have proof we will never know
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
if he drowns
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
there is no such thing as a pool of eternal life... unless you live in Olympus
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
There is no pool of eternal life
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Well no he can not drown because when he goes in the water when you drown you digest a lot of water but in this case your in enteral life water so you digest it and your immortal so the first gulp he drinks he's immortal and so he lives forever tada solved
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Well... yes and no. In most myths, you must drink the water in the Fountain of Youth to attain eternal life, so by definiton, if the man drowned, he died via water in his lungs blocking the body's ability to breathe, and yes he would die. However, the man had ingested the water, so, in order for the man to live, the effects would have to take place posthumously (after death). If the effects are cut off after the death of the drinker then the man would indeed die, but if the drinker could be affected after death, he/she could indeed drown, then come back to life eternal.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
depend on how stupid the man was
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It depends. (a lot of things do) If the effects of eternal life are instant then no. But if they take effect over time yes. Then there is the variable of what's in the pool, how deep it is , can he swim,etc. So there are three different possibilities . 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

39.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
When an alarm goes off it switches itself on Report Abuse
Simple logic. We say alarms go "off" when the alarm switches itself on. Not really a paradox but still an interesting flaw in the English language.
-4 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
oh my gosh this is so legit
Added 6 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
SOLUTION: The state of the alarm holding itself to not work is the "ON" state.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

40.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
In order to get somewhere you must first travel half of that distance, but first you must go half of that distance, and even before that you must go half of that distance ,ect. Report Abuse
-4 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 10 comments
Comments:
You are subtracting distance, not dividing it, therefore, you do get closer, but after taking a step in that direction thus making the distance smaller.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Assuming x = 0.999 10x will be equal to 9.99 NOT 9.999
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
These people must've struggled in math. Lets take a graph of y=x. Slope of 1 and no y intercept. Between the domains 1 and 2, there are an infinite number of domains. These paradoxes are just stupid
Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Simple you are bigger than the halfway distance eventually and move more than it
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Actually, this is one of Zeno's Paradoxes. The solution is that, if you wanted to cross said distance in a finite time, you must cross an infinite amount of distances in a finite time which is considered impossible.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You can get close enough...
Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The reason this is not a paradox is because although you must go halfway, you can also go MORE than halfway in one movement.
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Infinate Series. Not a paradox, though a great math subject.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
well, the paradox is really more like this. pick a number, lets say 1, then divide by 2. so now we have .5. keep doing this until you have the lowest possible number. it isn't possibly because there is no number so small it can not be divided even lower.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Using "0.999..." to show that the nines go on forever, I will now demonstrate why this is not a paradox. n = 0.999... 10n = 9.999... Because you just move every number up one step; with infinite nines you'll still just have nines. 10n-n = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 = 9n 9n / 9 = n => n = 9/9= 1 1 = n = 0.999...
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

41.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
nothing is impossible Report Abuse
if nothing is impossible then the possibility of something being impossible doesnt exist, or is impossible
-5 points - added 1 year ago by guest -

42.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The pope travel around in the bullet proof “Pope Mobile”. Report Abuse
Why does he need a bulletproof “Pope Mobile”? Blind faith…or 3 inches of bulletproof glass?
-6 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 2 comments
Comments:
this isnt a paradox
Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
haters are always around.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

43.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Good cannot exist without evil and vice versa Report Abuse
One cannot be defined without the other e.g. you can only define up in comparison to down.
-7 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 11 comments
Comments:
Evil is the absence of good.
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
To the person that said neutrality exists, neutrality tends to be evil in and of itself. If someone is about to be shot and you are indifferent and do nothing then you have committed an act of evil by not attempting to save another's life.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
For starters, good and bad is down to perspective. But, there's always neutrality - you don't have to be good or bad, just indifferent
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This paradox is just a debate of whether humans are the only ones who perceive good and evil. After all we did invent the words good and bad, and they are indeed defined by their opposites, yet, good and evil are just matters of opinion. Example: Hitler thought that he was cleansing the world while everyone else thought he was a maniac.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
As Shakespeare said, "There is no good or bad, thinking makes it so." It's just a comparison of opposites.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
That isn't a paradox but it is true. Cold can't exist without warm, dark can't exist with out light, even compassion and love can't exist with out selfishness and hate. Everything we are is based on hate. We shouldn't try to eliminate all the evil from the universe , because then there would be no good at all there would just be. Sometimes this balance changes , but with out change... Reality would't exist either. Oh, and I'm 12 and lonely... And mexican... still fun figuring this stuff out by my self.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
There must be an opposition in all things.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. Evil works the same way. Evil is only the absence of good.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
evil and good are made up terms... dont take it literaly anyway oxford diction states eveil is the oposite of what you find moral and vice versa
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
evil is definitely not the absence of good. A simple example would be walking down the street and seeing a neighbor. You could A) do the nice thing and say hi, maybe a conversation, offer to then help mow his lawn. B) keep on walking (the absence of good) or C) pick up a rock and throw it at him . So doing B is in a way the absence of both. Evil is not absence of good. Is good the absence of evil then if you go by the previous statement?
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
pretty sure that evil is the absence, not the opposite, of good.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

44.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Can you dream within a dream? Report Abuse
And if so, would you be able to dream within that one? Could this lead to a never ending series of dreams within dreams?
-7 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 21 comments
Comments:
I've dreamed within dreams before. It's really disorienting. It also happens all the time in movies. In the movie Hugo, he dreams about the fire that killed his dad but when he "wakes up" he's in a dream where he turns itno an atomaton
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You would eventually enter limbo
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
yes i have done this before
Added 3 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Thats like looking into a mirror that and seeing the mirror behind it infinately
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I guess it is possible (mabye?)
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I did it once.
Added 8 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I did it once...
Added 9 months ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Actually you can't have a dream within a dream. Instead you could simply dream that you fall asleep and wake up but simply what occurs is the dream scape changes. Dreams are made of memory's put together by your subconscious mind. There is no secondary level in the Dream scape
Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Yes. And I have done so before. It was weird.
Added 11 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
One word: inception
Added 1 year ago by ThatEpicGamer, 12 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You ever seen those tv shows where they just keep waking up, dream after dream until finally in reality? Yeah, you can have a dream in a dream. I've had one. It was weird. I had a dream that I was dreaming about telling my friend I had a dream inside of a dream in which I told her about the dream inside the dream...
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I have! No lie it is weird feeling!
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Maybe that is just what life is?
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
dream on
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
A dream within a dream? INCEPTION!
Added 2 years ago by guest, 20 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I don't know about never ending series of dreams within dreams. But I have had up to 5 dreams within each other! usually they were all quite simple dreams!
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
According to Edgar Allen POE, "Is all that we see or seem, but A DREAM WITHIN A DREAM"!
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY..U CAN PERCEIVE JUST A SIMPLE ROPE AS SNAKE ESP AT NIGHT. BUT WITH TORCH LIGHT=REASON YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT IS REAL
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I've had dreams in my dreams
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Watch the new movie called "Inception"
Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Perception is reality
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

45.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The wise saying goes like this” If at first you don’t succeed, try again until you do.” Report Abuse
Obviously the guy who came up with this saying never tried Sky diving!
-8 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 5 comments
Comments:
I guess he wasn't trying to put real paradoxes on this website either.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Or unless you work in the bomb defusal team...
Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
so basically, the more times you fail, the more chances you have of getting it right. NOT
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Maybe he was a minesweeper... a very lucky one... but then he was also a sadist wanting people to suffer ? -Lev
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
or tried to slam a revolving door...
Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

46.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Scientists say that Aids comes from monkeys and is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluid. Report Abuse
How did it spread from monkeys to man???? Going back to the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution…..?!
-10 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 6 comments
Comments:
How is this a paradox?!
Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
A major theory (and the one I buy into most) is that the explorers and settlers of Africa (because humanity is thought to originate around the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) consumed monkeys and got the blood into open cuts and sores on their hands and faces (which is inevitable with their nonexistent medical knowledge).
Added 6 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Some people dont care about race ;)
Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
wrong. AIDs was created at Portland down in britain. The myth comes from it being code-named Green Monkey Desease.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It got to man through bodily fluid, yes. Evidence proves that very primitive humans would use monkey blood in ceremonial drinks and food. The virus AIDs evolved and became effective towards humans.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Some things are better left unknown.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

47.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Banks always charge interest on the amount of money that is overdrawn in your account. Report Abuse
Where do they think the money to pay the interest will come from? If you have the money, wouldn’t it be true to say that you would have used the cash already?
-10 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 2 comments
Comments:
I always like to use an anecdote in this circumstance: If we were both on a deserted island and you had the only money on the island, let's say a $5 bill, and I want to borrow this money, but you say you want interest to be paid on it. How do you pay interest when there is a finite amount of money to begin with? Obviously there is the possibility to print more money in our economy, but that devalues the currency if it's over-printed. The current debt crisis is due to banks constantly charging interest when technically it shouldn't exist, each year the economy gets worse because the banks are greedy. Eventually we'll hit a global collapse, because right now, even if the US sold every item in the entire country, they wouldn't come close to paying off their debt. Mark my words, there'll be a major overhaul of the banking system in the coming decades.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Banks are stupid to begin with. The reason there is so much debt is because if you borrow money, you owe that amount back PLUS interest. There is always interest. They're always getting more money back than they loaned. Which is why the world is in an economic crisis.
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

48.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Why does Superman, who can stop bullets with his chest, ducks when the gun is thrown at him? Report Abuse
-10 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 11 comments
Comments:
His only con is that he doesn't think
Added 4 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This isnt a paradox...
Added 8 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
He can't die, but he can feel pain.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because while Superman is invulnerable to most everything, the actor portraying him is not.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 16 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This isn't a paradox.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Just because it's funny, DC Comics is a Tautology. "DC" stands for "Detective Comics", so why do people say comics twice?
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Superman wasn't created by Stan Lee and isn't even apart of the Marvel Universe. He was created in 1938 by Jerry Siegel who wrote for DC Comics...
Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Human stimulus, to dodge things thrown at him????
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
maybe he suffers from some sort of metallophobia as well as his debatable incoherent weakness to kryptonite ... i do have a love for marvel but but superman isnt stan lee's best work (though definetly a classic)
Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Is the gun made of kryptonite ? -Lev
Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because gun is bigger than bullet :P:P
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

49.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
They say the end of the world will come one day. Ok I can accept this. Report Abuse
Which day??? +0 GMT or EST time?
-11 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 9 comments
Comments:
To the person who deserts would turn to snow lands and snow lands into deserts that is a paradox
Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Next monday at 9:00
Added 4 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
We will all die before any universe or galaxy collides with us. The sun is a star meaning it will soon expand and burn us all. And the moon is slowly leaving earths orbit and will soon cause earth's axis to go crazy and turn deserts into snow lands and vice versa.
Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Hey Guess what NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
to the person who said timey-wimey stuff... Doctor Who! I got you.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
To the person who said that the galaxy that's going to collide with ours in 2 million years: The galaxy you're referring to is the Andromeda galaxy and it's going to happen in the next 4.5-5 billion years, not 2 million. The collision would take place over hundreds of millions to a billion years, and unless we chance upon the unlikely event of colliding with another star in the Andromeda galaxy, the collision won't have a severe side effect, other than the very nice light shows and pictures you'll have of the changing skies (Imagine the significant changes in the night sky as you go through your immortal life.)
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I like the comment below , and I agree " time doesn't exist " but actually the galaxy right next to us is going to combine with ours, destroying the earth in the process. It will happen in 2 million years . I'm going to become immortal so I actually have to worry about that. Sucks for me... :/
Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
this isnt a paradox and time doesnt exist as we percieve it so the likely hood of a cosmos comforming to our misguided counter is very low i dont know which day ... or why you would post this on a paradox thread dumbo :@
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

50.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
The logic of Catch-22 Report Abuse
-12 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 2 comments
Comments:
The logic of a catch-22/paradox isn't a paradox.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
A catch-22 is a logical conundrum in which a person is trapped no matter what they do. So, its logic reasons of a so-called "paradox." The logic of paradox is a logical conundrum in which a person is trapped no matter what they do.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

51.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Researches show that 1 out of 4 people suffer from a mental ailment of some sorts. Report Abuse
Think about this, you have 3 normal friends and you are the 4th person, so are you the crazy one?
-12 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 12 comments
Comments:
Researchers say that for an entire population, not a small sample, in fact you need at least 30 samples to assume that a sample is even normally distributed, because in such a small sample of people it is very possible you're all suffering from a mental ailment. And even if you are the crazy person, how would you be able to see the other 3 as normal, if you're craziness thinks they're normal to you then that would mean they're all crazy as well.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
And now consider of you and 2 other normal men so you are not the 4th person so you are not crazy.
Added 10 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
how can the researchers be sure they're not crazy as well? And if they were tested then who tested the one that tested the tested? It's an endless cycle of "who's crazy and who isn't?" because we all might or might not be crazy in our own way since we all have different perspectives and cannot know what another being thinks or feels completely.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
maybe you are all normal, and there are two crazy people somewhere else
Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
We're all the crazy ones. Is that bad?
Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
mental ailment is a umbrella term
Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I think there's a theory going against that. I believe all statements of this sort to be false because you can take 4 people out of a crowd that you are CERTAIN have no mental disorder. Therefore, none of the four would prove this fact.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
2 out of 4 is the equivalent of 1 out of 2.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
You are picking 4 people, the researchers took a random sample.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
THIS IS NOT A PARADOX! everybody is minorly insane but this phrase doesnt mean you are the crazy one; and i qoute "Think about this, you have 3 normal friends and you are the 4th person, so are you the crazy one?" so called normal people can be insane to becuase being normal (boring) and nothing else is a mental disorder.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Does that include insanity wards in hospitals... ??? -Lev
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I think the count is low - should be 2 out of 4
Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

52.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Statistics say there are billion of stars in the universe. Regardless of whether this is true or not, we believe this statistics in blind faith. Report Abuse
How come whenever we see a sign saying “WET PAINT” we still want to verify this?
-13 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 6 comments
Comments:
Get out of the gene pool, mouth-breather. You want proof? I guess those blinking dots in the sky at night are just fireflies caught up in that giant blue muck surrounding Earth.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because people are crazy
Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
So I see a wall with paint on it that says "WET PAINT" so I can hypothesizes that the paint is most likely wet. Then I could view what wet paint looks like on a different wall and compare it then search the area for the painter and ask him if the paint is still wet. If he says "yes it is wet" because he would have no reason to lie to us, has painted walls before and his guess matches previous observations we can assume he has told us the truth. Using all of this information I could say that most likely this paint is wet and that would be a theory since I haven't touched the paint but given all the facts and the lack of refuting facts around me it is the most likely wet paint. In a similar way to how I came up with that solution without touching the paint, I do not need to send a rocket so I can count every individual star to say their are billions of stars because pictures and facts have come from a reliable source that has not been proven wrong and they are using other observable facts to support their theory's.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because , unless you just saw it put up, you don't know how long the sighn has been there. IT MAY BE DRY!! Curiosity man.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
NOT a paradox
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
we can SEE the billions of stars you tool!!!
Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

53.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
They say evolution adapt our body according to the environment. Report Abuse
Why does the catfish need over 27,000 taste buds??? What is so tasty at the bottom of the pond?
-14 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 3 comments
Comments:
Something we don't now about...yet...
Added 8 months ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
i was gonna say the comment above me but he/she beat me to it , anyway this isnt a paradox
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It's a sensory organ used to analyse its surroundings. obviously....
Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

54.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Why soap bubbles are always clear regardless of the color of the soap? Report Abuse
-14 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 3 comments
Comments:
this aint paradox
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the bubble is so thin that the color of the soap is transparent in the bubble.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Very thin film of soap renders it clear.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

55.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
How come glue in a tube does not stick on the tube itself? Report Abuse
-14 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 10 comments
Comments:
The glue is still wet inside of the tube. You can also never get every single bit of glue from the inside so it does actually stick. If it dries on the inside it also sticks. THIS IS NOT A PARADOX!!!!!!
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Something that the tube is made out of stops the glue from sticking to the tube. Simple. : P
Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
specific linings
Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Try to stick any thing metal with an another thing with any glue By the way this paradox confused me at first Good on
Added 9 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Black Magic
Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Best paradox yet. Thank you Josephling67.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -7 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It is not because of air it is because of the moisture in the air which causes glue to harden.
Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Really?
Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is a horrible paradox. Its because the glue is not exposed to air in the tube. Therefore it does not harden or stick.
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because it stays wet in the tube...
Added 3 years ago by guest, -6 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

56.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
You have a Roasted Almond candy bar. Why does the wrapper say it may contain traces of almonds? Report Abuse
-15 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 7 comments
Comments:
because it's the law to have a nut allergy sign on a wrapper even it it's plain obvious.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the creator of that bar is stupider than mr bean hey by the way
Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
because the creator does not know that almonds contain almonds
Added 4 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Just think about it. These are paradoxes.
Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
This is starting to get irritating. THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE NOT PARADOXES!
Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
umm.... artificial almonds... duh
Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Legalities
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

57.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
Isaac Newton came up with the concept of gravity when an apple fell on his head. Report Abuse
How come nobody ever ask what happened to the apple? If the apple was so important, why didn’t anyone tired to preserve that legendary apple?
-16 points - added 5 years ago by josephling67 - 13 comments
Comments:
How come most of these weren't actually paradoxes?
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
It didn't fall on his head.
Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
I ate it for breakfast.
Added 4 months ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because what the object does is more important than the object itself.
Added 8 months ago by guest, -1 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
After discovering the concept of gravity he finally ate that apple
Added 10 months ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Because it became applesause.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
The comment below mine is AWESOME!! : D
Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
He was actually sitting in Woolsthorpe Manor looking out the window at the apple. He made up the story of it hitting him on the head later in life to seem more clever.
Added 2 years ago by guest, 15 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
the story is an urban legend.he did observe an apple falling from a friend's tree which sparked his train of thought which led him to research the concept of 'gravity'
Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
it's not true, besides, he did not come up with he concept. it was already there. he didn't even discover it, he just looked at it and created a way to analyze and understand it.
Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
How did he suddenly realized that apple have fallen due to some force .... while he never had the same feeling for his **** in the commode ... hope it never elevates ???
Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
Not a paradoxe but a bad understanding of discovery process. In retrospect, it sounds like the Eureka should be immediate, but for a scientist experiencing a breakthrough, realization of the significance comes slowly and by packets. At a time the theory was formed, sure the apple was long gone. At the time collegial and societal recognition of the significance of the finding, much more so!
Added 3 years ago by guest, -7 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
he ate it...?
Added 4 years ago by guest, 3 points Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking

58.

Vote + to improve this item's ranking
Vote - to decrease this item's ranking
chesse Report Abuse
-17 points - added 4 months ago by guest - 1 comment
Comments:
Chess or cheese?
Added 1 month ago by guest, 1 point Vote + to improve this comment's ranking Vote - to decrease this comment's ranking
ShareRanks is about ranking things that are top, most, greatest, or even worst in all categories.
Use arrows to rank one item in versus another.
Top 10 Top 20 Paradoxes in everyday life to think about are especially marked