riddles and paradoxes

[The_Atheist_Mind]

RULES: you must guess at the first one to post your own, only applies to first page.

FIRST PARADOX: if u go back in time and kill ur grandfather before he has kids, what happens?

[The_Atheist_Mind]

ok, ill start things off, i believe that there will be an infinate loop in tim because you will kill him, you will never be born, so u never killed him, so u do exist, but exactly the same as befor, with no knowledge of u killing ur grandfather, so u do it again, and again, and forever, stuck in time.

[The_Atheist_Mind]

makin me sad guys :[

[Tobias Shamtul]

i believe you go back in time AT ALL you ruin the universe.

in real life, it would paradox, and form a time loop which would destroy the universe.

and in... someones book, can't remember whos, your grandpa would be dead, and you would be dead. end of story.

[gabe]

in sczhtring theory, if you traveled back and killed your grandpa, you would still exist, but your "other self" would never be born

[The Original Chupa King]

if somebody falls down a flight of stairs, and somebody trips up the stairs, if they hit each other in the middle of the stairs, will they levitate?

[kenshinx]

you all make my head spinn..... no they dont levitate, they all falls down i guess

[Juupy froot]

FIRST PARADOX: if u go back in time and kill ur grandfather before he has kids, what happens?

Either you appear where you were right before you travelled back in time, or some kind of crazy alternate universe thing.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nothing would happen if you went back in time and killed your grandfather. Why? Because once he's dead, in the future, there would either be A- no you, or B- no grandfahter for you to go back in time to kill, and thus, no one to make the time machine.

[hafizbms]

The better question would be "WHY WOULD I WANT TO KILL MY OWN GRANDFATHER??!!"

[Dr. Strangelove]

The better question would be "WHY WOULD I WANT TO KILL MY OWN GRANDFATHER??!!"

...Topic-winner.

[ConservativePessimist]

It's impossible to go back in time and kill your grandfather. Plus what the person two posts before said.

[hafizbms]

It's impossible to go back in time and kill your grandfather

Why is it impossible??

[Mad Cow]

If there is a mime lost in the woods, and a tree falls down and kills him, would anybody care?

[Adam2006]

If there is a mime lost in the woods, and a tree falls down and kills him, would anybody care?

No, wrong place wrong time The question what was he doing the woods in the first place

if somebody falls down a flight of stairs, and somebody trips up the stairs, if they hit each other in the middle of the stairs, will they levitate?

They would just become a larger mass and fall faster due to gravity.

I leave you with my own not so much paradox but proverb.

If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

I believe it was from Stargate that i heard this

[Juupy froot]

If there is a mime lost in the woods, and a tree falls down and kills him, would anybody care?

Yes. the Mime.

[ABOTU]

Why is it impossible??

In the 2002 version of the movie "The Time Machine" *don't read this if you plan on seeing the movie and don't want it spoiled*, the main character makes the time machine so that he can save his fiance that died. However, when he goes back to save her, she ends up dying in another way. The "Über-Morlock" explains this towards the end of the movie with this quote:

"You built your time machine because of Emma's death. If she had lived it would never have existed, so how could you use your time machine to go back and save her? You are the inescapable result of your tragedy."

^imdb.com

Also, from the book See You Later by Christopher Pike:

'"Do you know what it means to violate causality?"

I was familiar with the topic from all the science fiction I had read. It was the main problem scientists had with the concept of time travel. It was why they thought it was impossible. Simply put, the problem read: How can something go back to the past and affect its future in such a way as to prevent its backward jouney through time? Science-fiction writers tend to phrase the dilemma by asking how someone could go back in time and kill his own grandmother. If the man in question kills his grandmother at a young enough age, then his own mother will never be born, and he'll never be born. The end result being, of course, that it would be impossible to kill his grandmother in the first place.'

[Devine Wrath]

The better question would be "WHY WOULD I WANT TO KILL MY OWN GRANDFATHER??!!"

That's more of an ignorant question than a "better" question.

If you don't know what a paradox is then I suggest you look it up. Or the case might be that you feel the need to position yourself into a space that lacks IMAGINATION. It's more of a "what if" scenerio than a "go ahead and do it" position.

Ex: What if you were to go back in time and kill your grandfather?

Would you reply with "WHY WOULD I WANT TO KILL MY OWN GRANDFATHER??!!"?

Don't you think you'd be contradicting the subject? (I'm sorry but that responce you made p***sed me off.)

Edited April 15, 2009 by The Anti-Saint

[Devine Wrath]

A sign on the barber's door says "I only shave those who do not shave themselves."

Does the barber shave himself?

In my opinion, the barber does shave himself, if he didn't it would contridict the question and the barber's position, such as this one:

If I were to say "everything I tell you is a lie" would I be lieing?

Yes I would be lieing, to say I was telling the truth would contridict the statement. Basically I would be a liar by saying I lied about everything and I even lied in that last statement. If I were an honest person then I wouldn't had admitted that I was a liar in the first place, by knowing this you made the entire statement void and can not be proven thus cancelling the paradox making it a fact. Needing no evidence that I'm a liar and by stating that myself makes me even more of a liar, which means that you CAN NOT believe anything I say (Not that I am, just putting that into perspective.)

Edited April 15, 2009 by The Anti-Saint

[Wickian]

A sign on the barber's door says "I only shave those who do not shave themselves."

Does the barber shave himself?

No, because the barber himself does shaves.

Can an atheist get insurance against acts of God?

[Devine Wrath]

No, because the barber himself does shaves.

Can an atheist get insurance against acts of God?

He set up a rule for himself. If he doesn't shave himself then his work would be for nothing and that would make him a liar.

That's a good one since there are 2 drawbacks towards that.

1. He/she's an atheist, he/she doesn't believe in God.

2. If God is God, then I'm pretty sure God wouldn't allow it since it would be considered "blasphemy."

On the other hand, being an atheist, the person must be sure about himself leading him to believe that there is no God. So what would be the point of getting anti-God insurance if he/she believes that there is no God? If that type of insurance existed then there would be no atheism, just ignorance (vise versa.)

But if it did exist then I imagine that he/she CAN get it due to the fact that it exists. God must've allowed it to exist so God sees no problem with it.

Paradox solved.

Edited April 15, 2009 by The Anti-Saint

[Devine Wrath]

in sczhtring theory, if you traveled back and killed your grandpa, you would still exist, but your "other self" would never be born

Okay, but what if it where on a one track perspective, eliminate the other unverse(s) that makes it multiple. Then take that thought of being your "other self" out of play, then it would be a paradox.

[DevilDogPratt]

"A young boy went into the bush to hunt with his bow and arrow. He saw a monkey on the branch of a tree and aimed his arrow. The monkey spoke to him, "Stop. You must think before you shoot me. If you kill me, your mother will die and if you do not kill me, your father will die." What would you do?

wow thats depressing

Edited April 15, 2009 by DevilDogPratt

[Devine Wrath]

"A young boy went into the bush to hunt with his bow and arrow. He saw a monkey on the branch of a tree and aimed his arrow. The monkey spoke to him, "Stop. You must think before you shoot me. If you kill me, your mother will die and if you do not kill me, your father will die." What would you do?

wow thats depressing

That's not a paradox, it's more of a sympathetic situation than a paradox.

1. The person might one better than the other.

2. The person has a choice, which means it's a "do or die" situation rather than a "what if" situation.

If you use a "do or die" situation by using a person/personifier than you would have to examine the situation (ex: does the person favor the mother or father?)

Point being that if kills the monkey his mother will die, if he doesn't kill the monkey his father will die.

Take this for example:

FIRST PARADOX: if u go back in time and kill ur grandfather before he has kids, what happens?

This is a "what if" situation, the person needs no reason to kill his/her grandfather (thus this needs no (mild) back story.)

If the person was to go back in time (before the person was born) and kill his/her grandfather. What would happen?

That is a paradox, and it's impossible to answer that.

[BlindMessiah]

ok, ill start things off, i believe that there will be an infinate loop in tim because you will kill him, you will never be born, so u never killed him, so u do exist, but exactly the same as befor, with no knowledge of u killing ur grandfather, so u do it again, and again, and forever, stuck in time.

Well, considering time travel isn't possible, it's really just an issue of science fiction. My own personal preference on science fiction time travel is time loop time travel. In essence, if you go back in time and kill your grandfather, that's how he died in the first place, and he obviously passed on his seed before you killed him.