May 14th, 2014
Paradoxes
Time travel is a very tedious and misunderstood concept, because it hasn't been tested yet. Because we cannot prove the method in which someone would perceive time travel, we can only conclude plausible well-defined theories as the closest way to perceive time travel. There is no fine line of possible fallacy or effect of such fallacy within the idea of timeline travel. These errors can be defined or explained as paradoxes, which is a result of either a series of events with defined beginning or simply events that contradict each other.
Not all paradoxes are caused by time travel. In fact, some paradoxes are hypothetical events that aren't contingent on time travel.
The Barbershop Paradox is a perfect example.
Uncle Joe and Uncle Jim are walking to the barber shop. There are three barbers who live and work in the shop—Allen, Brown, and Carr—but not all of them are always in the shop. Carr is a good barber, and Uncle Jim is keen to be shaved by him. He knows that the shop is open, so at least one of them must be in. He also knows that Allen is a very nervous man, so that he never leaves the shop without Brown going with him.
Uncle Joe insists that Carr is certain to be in, and then claims that he can prove it logically. Uncle Jim demands the proof. Uncle Joe reasons as follows.
Suppose that Carr is out. If Carr is out, then if Allen is also out Brown would have to be in, since someone must be in the shop for it to be open. However, we know that whenever Allen goes out he takes Brown with him, and thus we know as a general rule that if Allen is out, Brown is out. So if Carr is out then the statements "if Allen is out then Brown is in" and "if Allen is out then Brown is out" would both be true at the same time.
Uncle Joe notes that this seems paradoxical; the two "hypotheticals" seem "incompatible" with each other. So, by contradiction, Carr must logically be in.
Types of Common Paradoxes
1. Logic Paradoxes - These paradoxes often self-reference or infinitely regress themselves, and thus can simultaneously make sense to common knowledge and coincide with its wording.
Examples would include the Drinker Paradox and the Raven Paradox.
Drinker Paradox
Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it can't be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ' that person ' drinks ' everybody ' drinks, everybody includes that person.
Suppose that at least one person is not drinking. For any particular non-drinking person, it still cannot be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because that person is, in fact, not drinking. In this case the condition is false, so the statement is vacuously true due to the nature of material implication in formal logic, which states that "If P, then Q" is always true if P (the condition or antecedent) is false.
Raven Paradox
The logic of the Raven Paradox simply goes as the following:
Suppose you watch ravens fly into a field. you count how many colors you see. After counting ten ravens, you notice all of them are black. You count 25 more and notice all of those ravens are black as well. You count 15 more. You believe it simply isn't coincidental that the first 50 ravens you count are the same color, so you come up with this conclusion:
1. All Ravens are Black.
2. Therefore, all non-black things are non-ravens.
If this holds true, then observing non-black objects increases the chance of those objects being non-raven. If observing an object that is black, then there is a higher chance of that object being a raven because ravens are only black. With that said, a fruit that is black has a higher chance of being a raven than a fruit that is non-black. By applying equivalent values to the fruit and ravens, we contradict logic.
The Bootstrap Paradox
The bootstrap paradox, or ontological paradox, is a paradox of time travel in which information or objects can exist without having been created.
This is a good example of what a bootstrap paradox can be.
Please excuse this stub blog, as I will continue to add on to this.
Not all paradoxes are caused by time travel. In fact, some paradoxes are hypothetical events that aren't contingent on time travel.
The Barbershop Paradox is a perfect example.
Uncle Joe and Uncle Jim are walking to the barber shop. There are three barbers who live and work in the shop—Allen, Brown, and Carr—but not all of them are always in the shop. Carr is a good barber, and Uncle Jim is keen to be shaved by him. He knows that the shop is open, so at least one of them must be in. He also knows that Allen is a very nervous man, so that he never leaves the shop without Brown going with him.
Uncle Joe insists that Carr is certain to be in, and then claims that he can prove it logically. Uncle Jim demands the proof. Uncle Joe reasons as follows.
Suppose that Carr is out. If Carr is out, then if Allen is also out Brown would have to be in, since someone must be in the shop for it to be open. However, we know that whenever Allen goes out he takes Brown with him, and thus we know as a general rule that if Allen is out, Brown is out. So if Carr is out then the statements "if Allen is out then Brown is in" and "if Allen is out then Brown is out" would both be true at the same time.
Uncle Joe notes that this seems paradoxical; the two "hypotheticals" seem "incompatible" with each other. So, by contradiction, Carr must logically be in.
Types of Common Paradoxes
1. Logic Paradoxes - These paradoxes often self-reference or infinitely regress themselves, and thus can simultaneously make sense to common knowledge and coincide with its wording.
Examples would include the Drinker Paradox and the Raven Paradox.
Drinker Paradox
Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it can't be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ' that person ' drinks ' everybody ' drinks, everybody includes that person.
Suppose that at least one person is not drinking. For any particular non-drinking person, it still cannot be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because that person is, in fact, not drinking. In this case the condition is false, so the statement is vacuously true due to the nature of material implication in formal logic, which states that "If P, then Q" is always true if P (the condition or antecedent) is false.
Raven Paradox
The logic of the Raven Paradox simply goes as the following:
Suppose you watch ravens fly into a field. you count how many colors you see. After counting ten ravens, you notice all of them are black. You count 25 more and notice all of those ravens are black as well. You count 15 more. You believe it simply isn't coincidental that the first 50 ravens you count are the same color, so you come up with this conclusion:
1. All Ravens are Black.
2. Therefore, all non-black things are non-ravens.
If this holds true, then observing non-black objects increases the chance of those objects being non-raven. If observing an object that is black, then there is a higher chance of that object being a raven because ravens are only black. With that said, a fruit that is black has a higher chance of being a raven than a fruit that is non-black. By applying equivalent values to the fruit and ravens, we contradict logic.
The Bootstrap Paradox
The bootstrap paradox, or ontological paradox, is a paradox of time travel in which information or objects can exist without having been created.
This is a good example of what a bootstrap paradox can be.
Please excuse this stub blog, as I will continue to add on to this.
Posted by msantiago49 | May 14, 2014 8:00 PM | 0 comments