11BrainTwistingParadoxes

Paradoxes have been around since the time of Ancient Greeks & the credit of popularizing them goes to recent logicians. Using logic you can usually find afatal flawintheparadoxwhichshowswhytheseeminglyimpossibleiseitherpossibleor theentireparadoxisbuiltonflawedthinking.Canyouallworkouttheproblemsin eachofthe11paradoxesshownhere?Ifyoudo,postyoursolutionsorthefallacies inthecomments. 11 TheOmnipotenceParadox

The paradox states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its ownabilitytoperformactionsandhenceitcannotperformall actions,yet,onthe otherhand,ifitcannotlimititsownactions,thenthatisstraightoffsomethingit cannot do. This seems to imply that an omnipotent beings ability to limit itself necessarilymeansthatitwill,indeed,limititself.Thisparadoxisoftenformulatedin termsoftheGodoftheAbrahamicreligions,thoughthisisnotarequirement.One versionoftheomnipotenceparadoxisthesocalledparadoxofthestone:Couldan omnipotentbeingcreateastonesoheavythateventhatbeingcouldnotliftit?Ifso, thenitseemsthatthebeingcouldceasetobeomnipotent;ifnot,itseemsthatthe beingwasnotomnipotenttobeginwith.Ananswertotheparadoxisthathavinga weakness,suchasastonehecannotlift,doesnotfallunderomnipotence,sincethe definitionofomnipotenceimplieshavingnoweaknesses.

10 TheSoritesParadox

The paradox goes as follows: consider a heap of sand from which grains are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows: 1,000,000grainsofsandisaheapofsand.(Premise1) Aheapofsandminusonegrainisstillaheap.(Premise2) Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one less grain), eventuallyforcesonetoaccepttheconclusionthataheapmaybecomposedofjust onegrainofsand. Onthefaceofit,therearesomewaystoavoidthisconclusion.Onemayobjecttothe first premise by denying 1,000,000 grains of sand makes a heap. But 1,000,000 is just an arbitrarily large number, and the argument will go through with any such number. So the response must deny outright that there are such things as heaps. Peter Unger defends this solution. Alternatively, one may object to the second premisebystatingthatitisnottrueforallcollectionsofgrainsthatremovingone grainfromitstillmakesaheap.Oronemayaccepttheconclusionbyinsistingthata heapofsandcanbecomposedofjustonegrain.

9 TheInterestingnumberparadox

Claim:Thereisnosuchthingasanuninterestingnaturalnumber. ProofbyContradiction:Assumethatyouhaveanonemptysetofnaturalnumbers that are not interesting. Due to the wellordered property of the natural numbers, theremustbesomesmallestnumberinthesetofnotinterestingnumbers.Beingthe smallest number of a set one might consider not interesting makes that number interesting.Sincethenumbersinthissetweredefinedasnot interesting,wehave reached a contradiction because this smallest number cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting numbers must be empty, provingthereisnosuchthingasanuninterestingnumber.

8 Thearrowparadox

In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to be occurring, an object must changethepositionwhichitoccupies.Hegivesanexampleofanarrowinflight.He statesthatinanyoneinstantoftime,forthearrowtobemovingitmusteithermove towhereitis,oritmustmovetowhereitisnot.Itcannotmovetowhereitisnot, because this is a single instant, and it cannot move to where it is because it is already there. In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant isa snapshot. Therefore, ifit cannot move in asingleinstant it cannot move in any instant, making any motion impossible. This paradox is also knownasthefletchersparadoxafletcherbeingamakerofarrows.Whereasthe first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time andnotintosegments,butintopoints.

7 Achilles&thetortoiseparadox

IntheparadoxofAchillesandtheTortoise,Achillesisinafootracewiththetortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer startsrunningatsomeconstantspeed(oneveryfastandoneveryslow),thenafter some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoises startingpoint.Duringthistime,thetortoisehasrunamuchshorterdistance,say,10 feet.ItwillthentakeAchillessomefurthertimetorunthatdistance,bywhichtime thetortoisewillhaveadvancedfarther;andthenmoretimestilltoreachthisthird point,whilethetortoisemovesahead.Thus,wheneverAchillesreachessomewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinitenumberofpointsAchillesmustreachwherethetortoisehasalreadybeen, hecanneverovertakethetortoise.Ofcourse,simpleexperiencetellsusthatAchilles willbeabletoovertakethetortoise,whichiswhythisisaparadox. [JFrater:Iwillpointouttheproblemwiththisparadoxtogiveyouallanideaofhow the others might be wrong: in physical reality it is impossible to transverse the infinitehowcanyougetfromonepointininfinitytoanotherwithoutcrossingan infinityofpoints?Youcan'tthusitisimpossible.Butinmathematicsitisnot.This paradoxshowsushowmathematicsmayappeartoprovesomethingbutinreality, itfails.Sotheproblemwiththisparadoxisthatitisapplyingmathematicalrulesto anonmathematicalsituation.Thismakesitinvalid.]

6 TheBuridansassparadox

This is a figurative description of a man of indecision. It refers to a paradoxical situationwhereinanass,placedexactlyinthemiddlebetweentwostacksofhayof equalsizeandquality,willstarvetodeathsinceitcannotmakeanyrationaldecision to start eating one rather than the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan. The paradox was not originated by Buridanhimself.ItisfirstfoundinAristotlesDeCaelo,whereAristotlementionsan exampleofamanwhoremainsunmovedbecauseheisashungryasheisthirstyand is positioned exactly between food and drink. Later writers satirised this view in terms of an ass who, confronted by two equally desirable and accessible bales of hay,mustnecessarilystarvewhileponderingadecision.

5 Theunexpectedhangingparadox

Ajudgetellsacondemnedprisonerthathewillbehangedatnoonononeweekday inthefollowingweek,butthattheexecutionwillbeasurprisetotheprisoner.He willnotknowthedayofthehanginguntiltheexecutionerknocksonhiscelldoorat noonthatday.Havingreflectedonhissentence,theprisonerdrawstheconclusion thathewillescapefromthehanging.Hisreasoningisinseveralparts.Hebeginsby concluding that the surprise hanging cant be on a Friday, as if he hasnt been hangedbyThursday,thereisonlyonedayleftandsoitwontbeasurpriseifhes hangedonaFriday.Sincethejudgessentencestipulatedthatthehangingwouldbe asurprisetohim,heconcludesitcannotoccuronFriday.Hethenreasonsthatthe surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasnt been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoningheconcludesthatthehangingcanalsonotoccuronWednesday,Tuesday orMonday.Joyfullyheretirestohiscellconfidentthatthehangingwillnotoccurat all. The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoners door at noon on Wednesday which, despite all the above, will still be an utter surprise to him. Everythingthejudgesaidhascometrue.

4 ThebarbersParadox

Supposethereisatownwithjustonemalebarber;andthateverymaninthetown keeps himself cleanshaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber.Itseemsreasonabletoimaginethatthebarberobeysthefollowingrule:He shavesallandonlythosemenintownwhodonotshavethemselves. Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself? Askingthis,however,wediscoverthatthesituationpresentedisinfactimpossible: Ifthebarberdoesnotshavehimself,hemustabidebytheruleandshavehimself. Ifhedoesshavehimself,accordingtotherulehewillnotshavehimself

3 EpimenidesParadox

This paradox arises from the statement in which Epimenides, against the general sentimentofCrete,proposedthatZeuswasimmortal,asinthefollowingpoem: Theyfashionedatombforthee,OholyandhighoneTheCretans,alwaysliars,evil beasts,idlebellies!Butthouartnotdead:thoulivestandabidestforever,Forinthee weliveandmoveandhaveourbeing. Hewas,however,unawarethat,bycallingallCretensliars,hehad,unintentionally, calledhimselfone,eventhoughwhathemeantwasallCretensexcepthimself.Thus arisestheparadoxthatifallCretensareliars,heisalsoone,&ifheisaliar,thenall Cretens are truthful. So, if all Cretens are truthful, then he himself is speaking the truth&ifheisspeakingthetruth,allCretensareliars.Thuscontinuestheinfinite regression.

2 Theparadoxofthecourt

The Paradox of the Court is a very old problem in logic stemming from ancient Greece.ItissaidthatthefamoussophistProtagorastookonapupil,Euathlus,onthe understandingthatthestudentpayProtagorasforhisinstructionafterhehadwon his first case (in some versions: if and only if Euathlus wins his first court case). Some accounts claim that Protagoras demanded his money as soon as Euathlus completedhiseducation;otherssaythatProtagoraswaiteduntilitwasobviousthat EuathluswasmakingnoefforttotakeonclientsandstillothersassertthatEuathlus made a genuine attempt but that no clients ever came. In any case, Protagoras decidedtosueEuathlusfortheamountowed.Protagorasarguedthatifhewonthe casehewouldbepaidhismoney.IfEuathluswonthecase,Protagoraswouldstillbe paidaccordingtotheoriginalcontract,becauseEuathluswouldhavewonhisfirst case. Euathlus,however,claimedthatifhewonthenbythecourtsdecisionhewouldnot havetopayProtagoras.IfontheotherhandProtagoraswonthenEuathluswould stillnothavewonacaseandthereforenotbeobligedtopay.Thequestionis:which ofthetwomenisintheright?

1 Theunstoppableforceparadox

The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovableobject?Theparadoxshouldbeunderstoodasanexerciseinlogic,notas thepostulationofapossiblereality.Accordingtomodernscientificunderstanding, noforceiscompletelyirresistible,andtherearenoimmovableobjectsandcannot beany,asevenaminusculeforcewillcauseaslightaccelerationonanobjectofany mass. An immovable object would have to have an inertia that was infinite and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and createasingularity.Anunstoppableforcewouldrequireinfiniteenergy,whichdoes notexistinafiniteuniverse. Bonus OlbersParadox

 In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers paradox is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal staticuniverse.Itisoneofthepiecesofevidenceforanonstaticuniversesuchas thecurrentBigBangmodel.Theargumentisalsoreferredtoasthedarknightsky paradoxTheparadoxstatesthatatanyanglefromtheearththesightlinewillend atthesurfaceofastar.Tounderstandthiswecompareittostandinginaforestof whitetrees.Ifatanypointthevisionoftheobserverendedatthesurfaceofatree, wouldnttheobserveronlyseewhite?Thiscontradictsthedarknessofthenightsky andleadsmanytowonderwhywedonotseeonlylightfromstarsinthenightsky. Text is available under the Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License; additionaltermsmayapply.TextisderivedfromWikipedia.