But it sounds good to me.
Hi guys.
I am currently doing a project for Typography class. What we have to do for a start is to look for any kind of paradox. Do you have any suggestion? I would really appreciate all your help. I've thought of one which is basically about the paradoxical nature of poverty. I wanted to contrast the 2 situations between poor population, who desperately need food/medication, and another side of the world where people struggle to lose weight and be skinny. If you have any other idea please give me a shout! Truly appreciate it.
I am currently doing a project for Typography class. What we have to do for a start is to look for any kind of paradox. Do you have any suggestion? I would really appreciate all your help. I've thought of one which is basically about the paradoxical nature of poverty. I wanted to contrast the 2 situations between poor population, who desperately need food/medication, and another side of the world where people struggle to lose weight and be skinny. If you have any other idea please give me a shout! Truly appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
コメント(23)
Those are not paradoxes, those are oxymorons [military intelligence and Microsoft works].
The easiest example of paradoxes are literary paradoxes, if that helps.
EX "Cowards die many times before their deaths."
Another paradox is the Grandfather paradox "time paradoxes":
"Suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler's parents (and by extension, the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather." -Wikipedia
The easiest example of paradoxes are literary paradoxes, if that helps.
EX "Cowards die many times before their deaths."
Another paradox is the Grandfather paradox "time paradoxes":
"Suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler's parents (and by extension, the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather." -Wikipedia
#1 ジミー!!!!!:
>> The statement below is false.
>>
>>The statement above is true.
Actually, that is not necessarily a paradox right? Saying that " 'A' is true" is false, doesn't mean that 'A' is false also, it just says that the claim about 'A' being true is false, hence no real information about 'A' exists. So theoretical, the paradox you just gave can exist without being a contradiction, which would mean that it won't have to be paradoxical. At least that is how I interpret it, please correct me if that is wrong :3
>> The statement below is false.
>>
>>The statement above is true.
Actually, that is not necessarily a paradox right? Saying that " 'A' is true" is false, doesn't mean that 'A' is false also, it just says that the claim about 'A' being true is false, hence no real information about 'A' exists. So theoretical, the paradox you just gave can exist without being a contradiction, which would mean that it won't have to be paradoxical. At least that is how I interpret it, please correct me if that is wrong :3
12 Miszou:
What you quoted is a variation on the liar's paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
As for your comment, you'll have to read up on what logic calls the law of the excluded middle - in other words the idea that a statement is either true or false, and never anything else. If we accept the law of the excluded middle, then saying that "A is true" is false can only mean that A is false. The reason being that if A was anything other than false, it would be true, and thus "A is true" would be true as well.
If we don't accept the law of the excluded middle, and we believe that there is another option besides true and false (e.g. "meaningless"), then you're correct, because "A is true" could be false in the case that A was meaningless. But doing this leads to other problems - see the link for more info.
So is law of the excluded middle valid or not? Depends on which rules of logic you're using. That's mathematicians for you.
What you quoted is a variation on the liar's paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
As for your comment, you'll have to read up on what logic calls the law of the excluded middle - in other words the idea that a statement is either true or false, and never anything else. If we accept the law of the excluded middle, then saying that "A is true" is false can only mean that A is false. The reason being that if A was anything other than false, it would be true, and thus "A is true" would be true as well.
If we don't accept the law of the excluded middle, and we believe that there is another option besides true and false (e.g. "meaningless"), then you're correct, because "A is true" could be false in the case that A was meaningless. But doing this leads to other problems - see the link for more info.
So is law of the excluded middle valid or not? Depends on which rules of logic you're using. That's mathematicians for you.
An easier one for people to understand is the paradox:
"I always lie".
It's another "liar paradox".
It's not possible to say whether it's true or false.
If you always lie, but you have said you always lie, then it means you are lying about being a liar. double negative etc etc.
"What would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object?"
Logic dictates that if one exists, the other cannot, so the whole question is nonsensical.
"I always lie".
It's another "liar paradox".
It's not possible to say whether it's true or false.
If you always lie, but you have said you always lie, then it means you are lying about being a liar. double negative etc etc.
"What would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object?"
Logic dictates that if one exists, the other cannot, so the whole question is nonsensical.
15 Ｊ美ー
> An easier one for people to understand is the paradox:
> "I always lie".
> It's another "liar paradox".
Actually this isn't a paradox. If someone says "I always lie", but in actuality they sometimes lie and sometimes don't, then there is no contradiction. They're simply lying. This is discussed in the wikipedia link I posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#Non-paradoxes
> An easier one for people to understand is the paradox:
> "I always lie".
> It's another "liar paradox".
Actually this isn't a paradox. If someone says "I always lie", but in actuality they sometimes lie and sometimes don't, then there is no contradiction. They're simply lying. This is discussed in the wikipedia link I posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#Non-paradoxes
fenomas,
you're right, I should have mentioned the law of the excluded middle to make it more clear :3 Glad you always fill in the correct terms, i should be less lazy and look them up before posting ^^;;
And indeed, when using 'always' the paradoxes don't hold, since a false 'always' doesn't have to mean 'never' but instead can also be 'sometimes'. I think that mistake is easily made.
you're right, I should have mentioned the law of the excluded middle to make it more clear :3 Glad you always fill in the correct terms, i should be less lazy and look them up before posting ^^;;
And indeed, when using 'always' the paradoxes don't hold, since a false 'always' doesn't have to mean 'never' but instead can also be 'sometimes'. I think that mistake is easily made.
One last question:
I have finally come up with a metaphor that will communicate a paradox. I want to use the idea of 'power of cell phone' as a metaphor to convey the a paradox of power i.e. Each new power won by man [over Nature] is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. - C.S. Lewis. Cellphone is a device invented for a private use right? But in saying that our privacy is also being invaded by having a cellphone, right?
Another metaphor I thought of is a 'power of education'. Like, how education is supposed to be put in good use. At the same time education can also be a tool used to destroy us?
I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense here. -_-''''
I have finally come up with a metaphor that will communicate a paradox. I want to use the idea of 'power of cell phone' as a metaphor to convey the a paradox of power i.e. Each new power won by man [over Nature] is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. - C.S. Lewis. Cellphone is a device invented for a private use right? But in saying that our privacy is also being invaded by having a cellphone, right?
Another metaphor I thought of is a 'power of education'. Like, how education is supposed to be put in good use. At the same time education can also be a tool used to destroy us?
I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense here. -_-''''
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
