Author Topic: Paradoxes.  (Read 14191 times)

How does the term "Paradox" become the term "Paradox"?

Also, no matter what happens to your past, yu will ed up in the same way, with a different life.
That is how it is.
Say for example, you kill your grandfather, who is your father's father.
No worries, about you dying, you'll always appear in the end.
How?

Say you want to go to New York.
Yu can walk there, take the bus, or taxi.
From say, California.
You're grandfather is California.
You're New York.
Your father is Walking.
The bus and taxi are still available as extra options.
If you kill your grandfather by going into the past, it'd create a paradox that would, ultimately, destroy the universe.  This is, technically, why time travel is impossible.  Any step you make into the past would conclude that you've altered it with the future, and that its current state has now been influence by events that have yet to occur, leading to no source, and, again, destroying the universe.  Unless you're travelling to a seperate universe with a different time frame.  But, I'm still skeptical about parallel universes.

Even more so, if what we could travel in time, then the concept of time would have to be a particle recording device that recreates itself in seperate places at an infinite rate.  Which, if looked at fundamentally, is ridiculous to consider.

Regardless, everything you said is not true.  The chances of you being born, once the past has been disrupted, is very minute.  Even if your grandparents were to perform intercourse, your father probably wouldn't have been the sperm cell that hit the egg.




After indivudually reading every page word by word I have lost the will to live


That's called an optical illusion, not a paradox.
Technically, if the image were to be real, it'd be a paradox.  But, since a paradox can't exist, it is, indeed, the illusion of a paradox.


Technically, if the image were to be real, it'd be a paradox.  But, since a paradox can't exist, it is, indeed, the illusion of a paradox.
I don't see how that image would defy itself, it's simply tricking the mind into perceiving multiple depths on a single object.  If it did actually exits, it would simply be in defiance of dimensional boundaries, or it would be constructed so it would look like that from a certain perspective.

I don't see how that image would defy itself, it's simply tricking the mind into perceiving multiple depths on a single object.  If it did actually exits, it would simply be in defiance of dimensional boundaries, or it would be constructed so it would look like that from a certain perspective.
The shadowing and the placement implies that it's a physically impossible object.  If the poles are not bent and they're placed this way, then it's a paradox.

I believe the term Paradox Illusion applies, although I'm not very comfortable with the way they use paradox, since the only self-contradiction here is very implied.

The statement below is false.

The statement above is true.



That's not a paradox, that is a broken cube with the right camera angle.

I think, therefor I bump.