Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Furenzied on September 16, 2014, 11:21:59 am
-
First off...this is more of a kind of experiment if anything, although it doesn't have much to do with anything controversial some might bring it up anyway. that's a big no no.
This is simple, every now and again I'll put up an apparent or actual paradox and see how those reading it interpret and reason with it.
I might allow theoretical thinking and hypothetical reasoning, might have to anyway.
The first one IS solvable and does have a solution and we all know and hate it.
Which came first? The Chicken or the egg.
This is posted here because I assume more people can be serious about it here than most other places. But if absolutely necessary it can be moved...I guess.
-
The egg.
Because eggs aren't exclusive to chickens.
-
Well yeah. But what if the question was changed to: The chicken or the chicken egg?
-
Sorry, but evolutionary biology already answered that one. The mutant egg that hatched into the first chicken, which was laid by a bird that was almost, but not quite, a chicken, contained the first chicken DNA, and therefore was the first chicken egg. Ergo, the egg came first. Next.
-
Sorry, but evolutionary biology already answered that one. The mutant egg that hatched into the first chicken, which was laid by a bird that was almost, but not quite, a chicken, contained the first chicken DNA, and therefore was the first chicken egg. Ergo, the egg came first. Next.
I disagree. Even though we like to think of species such as "chicken" as a definite category, things are rarely that simple in reality. Change in species is a slow shift, and there is never a step where the parent is a different species than their offspring*. If you had a lineup of lineage where on one end it's clearly what we'd call a chicken, and on the other it's distant ancestor which is not a chicken, there is no single place along that line where it changes from non-chicken to chicken. Wherever you choose to draw the line is completely arbitrary. This is because things in real life don't fit into our nice neat categories.
So which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg? Neither came first because "coming first" is nonsensical in context of how it actually happened.
[*look up 'ring species' for more information about this]
edited to fix typo
-
Honestly...this requires bit of personal definition as to tbe definition of what a chicken egg is. Either being an egg laid by a chicken or an egg containing a chicken.
If a cat laid an egg and a lizard hatched is it a cat egg or a lizard egg?
I have a rather good one to come after this one.
-
Honestly...this requires bit of personal definition as to tbe definition of what a chicken egg is. Either being an egg laid by a chicken or an egg containing a chicken.
If a cat laid an egg and a lizard hatched is it a cat egg or a lizard egg?
I have a rather good one to come after this one.
If the egg belonged to the species of the individual who laid it. Then it would remain that species
no matter who hatched it. Though the hatch-ling might grow up thinking it was the species of
the one who hatched it.
-
Honestly...this requires bit of personal definition as to tbe definition of what a chicken egg is. Either being an egg laid by a chicken or an egg containing a chicken.
If a cat laid an egg and a lizard hatched is it a cat egg or a lizard egg?
I have a rather good one to come after this one.
If the egg belonged to the species of the individual who laid it. Then it would remain that species
no matter who hatched it. Though the hatch-ling might grow up thinking it was the species of
the one who hatched it.
It's easy enough to get one species to hatch another's egg. You can easily take a goose egg and have a duck hatch it.
Well this is going decently so far...
Ok...here's one that I personally find fascinating...
In order for motion to occur an object must be either moving to where it is or where it is not.
If you chose an instant in time to view the path of travel of an object, it can't move to where it is since it's already there,
but it can't move to where it is not because no time has elapsed for it to do so.
therefore of something doesn't happen in one instant in time, it can never happen,
So motion is not possible.
-
Ok...here's one that I personally find fascinating...
In order for motion to occur an object must be either moving to where it is or where it is not.
If you chose an instant in time to view the path of travel of an object, it can't move to where it is since it's already there,
but it can't move to where it is not because no time has elapsed for it to do so.
therefore of something doesn't happen in one instant in time, it can never happen,
So motion is not possible.
I don't see how you get "if something doesn't happen in one instant in time, it can never happen". That seems like a flawed premise to me. It's essentially saying that the flow of time can never be a necessary component for "something happening". But I don't see how you can say that since all examples of "things happening" we have are within the context of the flow of time.
-
Now i'm no rocket scientist, but this just sounds like flat-out incorrect information.
(Remember, i am NOT a rocket scientist. I'm waiting to be be corrected, not proved wrong as i have only moderate confidence in my answers.)
In order for motion to occur an object must be either moving to where it is or where it is not.
How exactly can something move towards where it already is? Unless you wrote that out wrong, we seem to have a problem already.
If you chose an instant in time to view the path of travel of an object
If you freeze time, you can't view the path of travel of an object, unless it leaves a visible trail.
it can't move to where it is since it's already there, but it can't move to where it is not because no time has elapsed for it to do so.
It can't move because there is no time to do so. Success. We have no discovered that something can't move if the clock isn't ticking.
therefore of something doesn't happen in one instant in time, it can never happen
Not from my observation, no. Something cannot 'happen' in one instant of time, but it CAN 'happen' over a period of time.
So motion is not possible.
Not quite... i wouldn't have been able to type this had this been true. This seems less a paradox, more a way to blow the mind of a first grader.
As Mr. Horse once said: No sir, i don't like it. :)
-
Motion through time and space is relative. To a static observer an object
speeding past is also traveling slower through time.
So does that mean the faster I eat my cookie the longer it lasts? :D
Edited a typo.
-
"This statement is false" is an obvious paradox. But what about "This statement is true"? Think about it. It has a similar problem.
-
Wrong Tren, in the infinite area of space something somewhere is always happening, stars die, things crash into eachother and everything that is possible to happen chemically and physically happens to someone or something somewhere.
So in one instant over an infinite amount of chemicals, materials, and interactions, it is not possible for something physical to not happen.
And "this statement is true...has no paradox to it, it is what it is, being true.
however when said through a liars mouth, is when the paradox begins.
-
Wrong Tren, in the infinite area of space something somewhere is always happening, stars die, things crash into eachother and everything that is possible to happen chemically and physically happens to someone or something somewhere.
So in one instant over an infinite amount of chemicals, materials, and interactions, it is not possible for something physical to not happen.
You sure about that? Get a video camera at stop it at a random frame. Within that frame, you have given a snapshot of that moment in time. Within that EXACT moment, nothing other than what can be seen is 'happening'. What you are looking at is one tiny moment of a process, a process than can only be further observed if you go to the next frame.
Does that make any sense to anyone else? Or am i truly crazy like everyone keeps saying? (Ooo, there's one. A same person who says "i'm insane". :D )
-
Wrong sir, you have to account for how long light was exposed to the camera to make the image. :3 that's why there's blur in some images, even a picture of a digital camera has things like that.
Not to mention that what you're looking at was what happened earlier as any and all light was preserved in that medium.
-
Wrong sir, you have to account for how long light was exposed to the camera to make the image. :3 that's why there's blur in some images, even a picture of a digital camera has things like that.
Not to mention that what you're looking at was what happened earlier as any and all light was preserved in that medium.
Now you're getting into actual physics... Fine then, i'll admit it, i'm way out of my league right now (unless somebody backs me up, in which case i'll give them cookies and ice cream), so i'll just leave it to the smart people. x_x
-
It's not really possible to capture an exact moment in time.
The amount of time recorded with a camera would be it's shutter speed and film speed. A digital camera
would be shutter speed (if there is one) and speed of the involved electronics. Even if it's in the
nanoseconds or less.
Since the human eye isn't able to sense much less than a 1/10th of a second a capture of less than that
would be an effective though not technically a moment in time.
-
Ok...here's one that I personally find fascinating...
In order for motion to occur an object must be either moving to where it is or where it is not.
If you chose an instant in time to view the path of travel of an object, it can't move to where it is since it's already there,
but it can't move to where it is not because no time has elapsed for it to do so.
therefore of something doesn't happen in one instant in time, it can never happen,
So motion is not possible.
I think the premise of your posit is flawed. You must delve into the definition of motion:
"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point. Motion is typically described in terms of displacement, direction, velocity, acceleration, and time. Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to that frame." - Wikipedia entry on Motion (physics)
Time is a necessary component of motion. You cannot say anything is moving when you are looking at an instant of time, as you effectively have removed time from the equation.
I also believe it is flawed logic to assume that lack of motion indicates that nothing is in fact occurring. Motion is a relative term, as it must be observed within a frame of reference. Two bodies in motion in the same direction, speed, acceleration, etc., will appear to be motionless to one another. This does not mean that for either body that nothing is taking place at all. The only thing that could be said for certain is that no observable motion is happening between the two bodies.
-
You should know what they say about wikipedia...
Anyway...I think I'll give this a few days until I plop one in that does have an answer...although a lengthy one.
-
Time is built into the mathematical definition of motion; it we say an object is "moving", I assume we are saying it has a nonzero velocity.
Velocity is a vector quantity defined as a change in position with respect to time (v = dx/dt).
So, when we are looking at instantaneous values of velocity (i.e. when considering motion at a specific instant in time), we are talking about an infinitesimally small change in position (dx) with respect to an infinitesimally small change in time (dt). These values don't have meaning individually, so they look like zero when you try to seperate them, but their "ratio" (really the derivative of one with respect to the other) tells us that they are actually undergoing motion.
-
You should know what they say about wikipedia...
I did use Wikipedia as a convenience as one of the easiest obtainable source to support my argument. Based on my experience with basic physics I feel that the quote I used is correct.
Time is a required component of most equations in respect to motion, and I believe can only really be removed when simplifying equations; not due to time not being a necessary component of motion, but because the equation components still include velocity and/or acceleration, both of which require time as a component. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mot.html
Although in some matters Wikipedia may not be accurate due to the nature of how information is submitted to it, however I don't think it should be wholly discounted as a reference, especially if the article in question has correct citations in it.
-
Well...many seem to negate the hypothetical aspect of logic...
How about this...
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
-
Classic one. Here is my answer:
If an immoveable object, IO, collided with unstoppable force, UF, then UF would be deflected off it's original coarse based on the angle of impact with IO. Thus IO will not have moved based on the impact, nor will UF will have been stopped, just redirected.
-
Classic one. Here is my answer:
Not a paradox if you include the appropriate hand gesture.
-
No hand guestures involved, but the answer to this paradox could potentially break some of the laws of physics. Although it is a perfectly legitimate answer and completely logical.
-
Technically an unstoppable force and immovable object are already breaking laws of physics.. I take it my answer is not really what you're looking for?
-
Well given the fact that even in a deflection, no matter how slight, creates a loss in energy kind of removes the possibility of the force being unstoppable. Especially when that means that if given enough slight deflections that the force would indeed stop.
-
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
I don't know if either or those is even possible. However, if it were my guess would be that the unstoppable force would simply pass through the immovable object.
-
Well given the fact that even in a deflection, no matter how slight, creates a loss in energy kind of removes the possibility of the force being unstoppable. Especially when that means that if given enough slight deflections that the force would indeed stop.
Well through the law of conservation of energy, energy is never destroyed, it is just converted to another form. In a normal collision, it would be transformed into motion of the object being hit (potentially also transforming some of the energy into heat or light). If the force is truly unstoppable, it would not transfer any energy on impact (assuming that an unstoppable force can exist while the law of conservation of energy holds true). If it deflected but maintained the same momentum in the new vector, it's energy would remain unchanged.
-
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
I don't know if either or those is even possible. However, if it were my guess would be that the unstoppable force would simply pass through the immovable object.
You got it!! That's the answer!! :3
-
I'm not sure there -is- any -single- correct answer to some of these situations :p
-
Some, but like I said, not all. This is one of them.
Great job Yip! Conglaturations for figuring it out. :3
*gives celebratory cookie pizza*
-
Let me explain the answer a bit, (sorry for double post but it's going to be a long one.) There is no such thing as an immovable object. In order to make something move you just have to move yourself as it's relative. The object is simply one where no matter how much energy you put into it, it will keep moving, so if it is traveling at 10 mph, it will always move at that speed even if force is applied in the opposite direction it's moving.
So the unstoppable object is the same as the immovable force. Given that if such an object would exist, in order to not be changed by anything it would have to have an infinite mass and infinite density. According to the properties of such objects they then cannot interact with eachother by changing anything about the other object, so the only possible interaction in that instance is noninteraction, passing through eachother.
-
*gives celebratory cookie pizza*
Mmm Mmm, pizza made with bits of cookie and celebrities. :goldthpt:
-
Now here's an unsolvable one.
No discussion about religion please.
Can an omnipotent being create something so heavy it can't move it?
-
Forget that last one.
This one just makes me crazy. Are mirrors invisible? Or more like, can you see what a mirror looks like?
-
Are mirrors invisible? Or more like, can you see what a mirror looks like?
Mirrors "look like" the things they are reflecting. So yes, you can see what mirrors "look like". ;)
When you get down to it, how we see what an object "looks like" is by how that object alters the light that reflects off of it. Changing the light's path is altering the light, so as long as we can detect that the light's path has been changed, then yes we can see what the mirror "looks like". In the same way, we can see what a lens "looks like".
However, mirrors can be invisible in the sense that it's possible to use them in such a way that the observer cannot detect the mirror's presence. But it's also possible (and common) to use mirrors where the observer can clearly see there is a mirror there.
-
Going back to the thing I mentioned earlier in the thread, "This statement is true" has similar problems to "This statement is false", though in some ways it's worse because it's harder to detect.
The core of the problem with "this statement is false" is that it is completely impossible to determine whether it is true or false; if you test to see if it could be true, it will fail that test, but if you test to see if it could be false, it will fail that test also. "This statement is true" is also impossible to determine whether it is true or false; if you test to see if it could be true, it will pass that test, but if you test to see if it could be false, it will also pass that test.
In a way, things like this are more dangerous because many people upon seeing that passes the "could be true" test simply stop there and assume that it's true. To be fair, I doubt anyone has been harmed by accepting "this statement is true" specifically. But in general, accepting that a proposition is true when it has not been properly demonstrated can easily lead to inaccurate beliefs, which can easily lead to harm. For this reason, I think its good to recognize the problem here so you are less likely to fall into it when it can be harmful.