11 Paradoxes That Will BLOW YOUR MIND
What is motion?
What is choice?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
Philosophers have been using paradoxes to tackle these topics throughout history and
we have compiled some of the most brain baffling.
Here are 11 paradoxes that will BLOW YOUR MIND!
#11.
“Omnipotence Paradox”- The Paradox: “Could an omnipotent being create a stone that is
too big for it to lift?”
In other words if a being is truly omnipotent there couldn’t possibly be something too
big for it to carry, but on the other hand if it was omnipotent there shouldn’t be
anything it can’t do or create.
This paradox is first seen in writing dating back to the 1100s and philosophers from Thomas
Aquinas to Wittgenstein have tried tackling the logic behind it.
It has been commonly used as an argument for atheism but philosophers who practice religion
have also used it to justify their points of view.
One common flaw that is pointed out about the paradox is that the being identified as
omnipotent has human characteristics applied to it, such as lifting, so the logic is flawed
from the get-go because if a being was omnipotent it would not need the ability to lift anything.
This point can lead further down the rabbit hole as one then must dive into the true definition
of lifting..
Does the paradox use the word lifting to mean capability?
If this was the case the paradox might go ‘is God capable of the incapable?’.
#10.
“The Crocodile’s Dilemma”- The Paradox: “A crocodile catches a child and tells the
child’s parents that if they can correctly guess what he does next he will give the child
back”.
This one dates back to Ancient Greece and has captured the mind’s of philosophers
for centuries.
As you have probably guessed there is no true solution as the parent’s will be in trouble
if they guess that he will return the child and he doesn’t intend to, therefore their
guess is wrong.
The crocodile runs into a problem if the parents guess that he won’t return the child.
In this case, if he gives the child back he is making his initial statement false and
if he doesn’t return the child, the parent’s are correct so he should return the child
but if he returns the child their guess would no longer be correct, therein lies the paradox.
No matter what the parent’s say it results in a contradiction.
But come on really?
The parent’s probably shouldn’t be haggling with a crocodile in the first place.
#9.
“Liar Paradox”- The Paradox: ‘This statement is false’.
This is a classic paradox that has been around for over 2,000 years and you might have seen
it by one of its many forms.
This is probably the most simplest version of the paradox and you can see the inherent
problem.
If the statement is false yet is stating that it is false it must in fact be true yet it
can’t be true because in order for it to be true it has to be false.
There are two common solutions that are offered: A) you reason that it is nonsense and don’t
look into it any further, but come on, that’s no fun.
Or B) you end up at the conclusion that the statement is meaningless… which also seems
like a cop out and isn’t really the point of the exercise.
There are two well-known paradoxes that follow a similar pattern to this one pinocchio’s
paradox and the customer paradox.
Pinocchio’s paradox involves the lovable lying puppet saying “my nose will grow now”.
In this scenario Pinocchio’s statement can neither be true or false because in order
for his nose to grow then his statement would have to be a lie but it wouldn’t be a lie
because he correctly predicted his nose growing.
Either way this paradox would probably only result in Pinocchio spontaneously combusting.
The customer paradox is one you might have thought about without realizing if you have
ever worked in retail or food service it involves a boss saying “the customer is always right”
and a customer replying “I am not right”.
You can see that like the others there is no real solution that doesn’t end in the
boss not looking like a liar.
#8.
“Immovable vs. Unstoppable”- The Paradox: “what happens when an unstoppable force
meets an immovable object”.
This paradox originates in ancient China from a story about an armor salesman.
The salesman claims to be selling a spear that can pierce any shield but also has a
shield for sale that he claims no spear can penetrate.
When asked what would happen in the event of this special spear striking this special
shield, the salesman can’t answer the question.
The whole idea of immovable object versus an unstoppable force, though a good thought
experiment, doesn’t work in real life because there could not be a world in which both of
these things coexist.
There have been many solutions brought forth by philosophers trying to think outside the
box but for the most part it would involve redefining the words unstoppable and immovable,
which negates the paradox in the first place.
#7.
“The Ship of Theseus”- The Paradox: “if a ship has every one of its parts replaced
with new ones, is it still the same ship”.
This paradox is an attempt to understand what the true definition of ‘the same’ is.
The predicament has its origins in the writings of the ancient Greek historian Plutarch, in
which the ship in question belonged to the legendary hero Theseus.
There have usually been two-dissenting theories, some who believe it is the same ship and those
who believed it is different.
Aristotle reasoned it was the shame ship because it retained the same purpose.
In other words, though it may have different pieces it was still Theseus’s ship and functioned
as such.
Another Greek philosopher Heraclitus posited that the ship is different and constantly
changing whether or not the parts are replaced because time changes its make-up.
He tried to illustrate his opinion by providing another metaphor saying, ‘upon those who
step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow’, basically saying
that nothing is ever the same from moment to moment.
#6.
“The Barber Paradox”-The Paradox: ‘There is a barber who only shaves those who do not
shave themselves, does the barber shave himself?’
This origin of this paradox is commonly attributed to the 20th century philosopher Bertrand Russell
who used it as an example for explaining his much more complicated math-based paradox called
‘Russell’s Paradox’, which attempts to expose the contradictions within naive
set theory.
In truth the Barber Paradox isn’t technically a paradox because a man who only shave men
who don’t shave themselves can’t really exist.
Either way it still quite the conundrum to think about if you can suspend your disbelief.
There have been some solutions proposed for the puzzle, most notably creating a scenario
in which there are two barbers who could then in effect shave each other and still fit the
specifications of the question.
Which would in turn make the answer a clear ‘no’.
#5.
“Buridan’s Donkey”- The Paradox: “a hungry donkey sits between two bales of hay
the exact same size and same distance away, because they are both equal he cannot choose
one over the other so he perishes from starvation”.
This fable-like paradox has been contested over since the time of Aristotle but takes
it name from Jean Buridan a french philosopher who was a staunch believer in the philosophy
of determinism.
Determinism essentially stipulates that anything that happens has a direct cause and couldn’t
have happened any other way, thus eschewing any notion of free will.
As you may have guessed the paradox of ‘Buridan’s Donkey’ is actually making fun of Buridan’s
determinist views as it illustrates a situation that favors free will.
Buridan believed that if two options presented to someone were exactly equal that they would
not be able to choose between the two, but obviously the donkey would choose one of the
hay bales before succumbing to starvation.
There have been many other forms of this paradox over the years, one of the most popular variations
being “a man is both equal parts hungry and thirsty but he cannot decide whether to
eat first or drink first so he expires”.
That man has apparently never heard of soup.
#4.
“Bootstrap Paradox”- The Paradox: A man travels back in time and gives The Beatles
copies of their own music before they made it, they then release these copies making
them the originals”.
This theoretical paradox has existed in several forms and is a popular element of many science
fiction stories involving time travel.
If an event like this occurs it forms what scientist’s a causal loop where a person
or object in effect creates itself, thus having always existed yet having no real origin.
This is similar to the “Grandfather Paradox” in which a man travels back in time and marries
his grandmother, becoming his own grandfather.
Another theory that is a possible solution to the closed loop conundrum is that of there
being multiple dimensions.
If that were the case the object or person in question might not exist in a closed loop
but instead as many different versions from other dimensions that in turn cause new versions
(which possibly vary) to be created at a different times in a multitude of dimensions.
So when a man thinks he’s going back in time he really isn’t, he’s just going
to the present in a dimension where the Beatles are just getting started.
#3.
“Arrow Paradox”- The paradox: “If time is made up of instants and you stop an arrow
in flight at any particular instant it isn’t traveling, in other words the arrow is at
rest during any given instant.
Which means that the arrow is at rest for the sum of the instants, and therefore motionless.”
This paradox is one of many that are attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno and
though there are inherent flaws in the arrow paradox it has lead to some intense debates
on the relations between perception and physics.
Aristotle was one of the first to attempt solving Zeno’s puzzle.
He stated that the Arrow Paradox incorrectly is based on the idea that time is comprised
of separate instants and even so within a so-called instant there is no such things
as motion or rest because for one concept to be true you would have to have the possibility
of the other.
Physicists and philosophers alike have disagreed on whether or not Aristotle’s argument is
valid due to its own flaws but Zeno’s Arrow Paradox and Aristotle’s solution helped
give birth to the concept of instantaneous velocity which is an essential part of modern
physics.
#2.
“Pop Quiz Paradox”- The Paradox: “a teacher announces to his class on a Friday
that there will be a pop quiz next week that will be a complete surprise.
One upstart student declares that it is not possible for a quiz to be a surprise because
the quiz can’t be given on the following Friday as if it hadn’t been given by the
end of the day Thursday they would know the quiz was on Friday.
So using the same logic the quiz can’t be on Thursday because by the end of Wednesday
they would know it would have to be on Thursday because it can’t be a surprise on Friday.
You can apply this same rule to to Wednesday and Tuesday.
So the quiz would have to be given on Monday, but that wouldn’t be a surprise because
of the prior deductions.
So all of the students go home thinking that there can’t possibly be a pop quiz next
week and fail to study.
To their surprise and dismay the Teacher gives them a pop quiz on Tuesday.”
This paradox has been seen in other forms most notably of the Unexpected Hanging Paradox
in which a prisoner is told by a judge he will meet his fate sometime next week and
uses a similar path to deduce he can’t possibly be hanged the next week.
These paradoxes have been used to open philosophical discussions regarding the definition of surprise
and the difference between observable concrete truths and truths that are tied to perception.
#1.
“Lazy Bones Paradox”: The Paradox: “If you get sick and your destiny is to get better
then you will get better whether or not you go to a doctor.
If your destiny is to not get better then going to the doctor won’t matter anyway.”
This paradox is usually used to spark discussion of fate and free will.
Some philosophers say that it is a moot point because there is no such thing as destiny,
while others would agree and say that everything is up to fate and yet still more philosophers
try to somehow wrap the idea of destiny and choice together.
The main problem is the choice aspect, does one choose to go to the doctor because their
destiny mandates they be get better?
Or is it destiny that made them sick and they choose to ignore destiny in trying to get
better?
Is it possible to ignore destiny?
Who knows, but our brains hurt.
Do you believe more in destiny or free will?