this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
124 points (88.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43958 readers
1202 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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

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

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The monotheistic all powerful one.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

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

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

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] son_named_bort 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

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

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

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

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

Something like Zeno's paradox.

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

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

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

What do you pick?

[–] esc27 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I pick box A, then later pay the predictor his cut, which will work because he would have predicted I would do so.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Daft_ish 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

To some people the answer is obviously box A β€” you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it's already done and your decision can't change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That's the paradox.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think that just shows that time travel doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps. Unless you consider multiverse theory: The idea that the act of traveling to the past splits the timeline into two realities. One containing the original (to your perspective) timeline with the event(s) that caused you to travel back, and a second where you've arrived in the past to alter those events and the results there of.

Not sure I believe it, but it's a theory none the less.

Or maybe it's only possible to travel forward in time. Closer to our current understanding of the universe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Movement of any kind is a paradox if measured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

So, I like the Roko's Basalisk paradox.

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

Love the discussion of this post, btw.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (9 children)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] grasshopper_mouse 5 points 8 months ago (6 children)

If someone believes that God can do anything, ask them if he can create a rock he can't pick up

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

The god paradox can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it ? Also bootstrap paradox and grandfather paradox.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HexesofVexes 4 points 8 months ago (11 children)

In classical logic, trichotomy on the reals (any given numbers is either >0, <0 or =0) is provably true; in intuitionistic logic it is probably false. Thanks to Godel's incompleteness theorem, we'll never know which is right!

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think this lacks imagination. Why would warping basic logic be beyond a reality-creating god's abilities?

Then again, perhaps you're talking about the Abrahamic God, in which case lacking imagination is already the premise.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί