Your favorite paradox?

[bob135]

Post a link to your favorite paradox. If you have any resolutions to existing paradoxes, or your own, please share them. Here's mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Post a link to your favorite paradox. If you have any resolutions to existing paradoxes, or your own, please share them. Here's mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

Since I don't believe in paradoxes, I'll have to just go straight to the explaining.

This issue in the OP’s proposed paradox is resolved by understanding the word "rational" or "rationale".

For something to be rational is different that it being logical. Logic involves the use of principles that lead to a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be rational because a rational choice means that the choice is the one toward the better or more beneficial result or consequence. Logic implies nothing about being of better consequence. (Aristotle had it right, as with almost everything he said)

The ass in the story is stuck with a decision to be made, but no discernable means to make it. But there is one thing that forces the decision to be made anyway - time.

This is, in fact the ONLY problem that man has ever had concerning anything. Time requires that the mind make decisions before it can really gain total knowledge so as to be certain of its accuracy.

This requires a degree of impatience leading to presumption and error in reasoning. This type of error in reasoning is the cause of ALL that is known as "sin".

The ass must indeed make a "rational" decision, not necessarily a logical decision. The logic of his situation offers no help as proposed by the author. But rationale dictates that a decision be made anyway. Thus the ass merely needs to "flip a coin" in effect.

When faced with exactly equal paths to a needed goal, any arbitrary determiner is the rational decision maker. Just as indicated in the story, neither choice would have any greater benefit than the other thus any arbitration would have no greater benefit nor harm.

The proposed idea of "waiting until a more clear distinction can be seen" is a valid concept, but why wait? Why not realize (rationally) that there is no evidence to make a logical decision, thus initiate an arbitrary one and proceed.

Thus the rational ass, flips a coin and saves his soul.


{{just try to come up with one I can't resolve, I dare ya }}

 

[michabo]

I hate paradoxes in theology since I don't think they reveal anything more than their own vacuuity.

But I do like Zeno's Paradox. Not because it's a genuine paradox, but for the history it has. It is a story of philosophy, mathematics, religion, and control. It is a story about the conflict of science and religion, of math and philosophy (and the philosophy of math). It is a story about the development of calculus and our ability to deal with nothing and infinity.

Wonderful stuff.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

form is emptiness and emptiness is form.


metta,

~v

 

[JonF]

this statment is false.

 

[bob135]

The ass must indeed make a "rational" decision, not necessarily a logical decision. The logic of his situation offers no help as proposed by the author. But rationale dictates that a decision be made anyway. Thus the ass merely needs to "flip a coin" in effect.

When faced with exactly equal paths to a needed goal, any arbitrary determiner is the rational decision maker. Just as indicated in the story, neither choice would have any greater benefit than the other thus any arbitration would have no greater benefit nor harm.

The proposed idea of "waiting until a more clear distinction can be seen" is a valid concept, but why wait? Why not realize (rationally) that there is no evidence to make a logical decision, thus initiate an arbitrary one and proceed.

Thus the rational ass, flips a coin and saves his soul.

Yeah, I originally thought that solution would work. But then I wondered, say the ass thinks to himself "I'll flip a coin, if it comes up heads, I'll take the hay on the left, if it comes up tails, I'll take the hay on the right." After he sees the coin flip, he is faced with another decision, should he follow the outcome, or ignore it and take the hay that is not the one dictated by the coin flip. It seems that even after flipping the coin he is stuck in the same situation as he was before. He can invent an arbitrary determiner, but there is no rational reason to follow it.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Yeah, I originally thought that solution would work. But then I wondered, say the ass thinks to himself "I'll flip a coin, if it comes up heads, I'll take the hay on the left, if it comes up tails, I'll take the hay on the right." After he sees the coin flip, he is faced with another decision, should he follow the outcome, or ignore it and take the hay that is not the one dictated by the coin flip. It seems that even after flipping the coin he is stuck in the same situation as he was before. He can invent an arbitrary determiner, but there is no rational reason to follow it.

No no no.

He can invent a LOGICAL determiner but has no reason to follow it.

He creates a RATIONAL determiner for the reason of needing a timely course to take. He has no reason to question its determination because he has already seen that there is no logical means to decide, and thus he picks any convenient 50/50 arbitration just to get the decision made.

He had purpose in using the determiner, he has no purpose to inspire questioning it or seeking logic any further.

Remember that rationale, unlike logic, serves a purpose associated with a perceived good. In this case, the perceived good is not merely the hay, but a timely decision being presented.

Rationale says that he will get it done before he starves regardless of any logic associated with the decision.

If you attempt to be totally logical void of being rational, you get nowhere.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I hate paradoxes in theology since I don't think they reveal anything more than their own vacuuity.

But I do like Zeno's Paradox. Not because it's a genuine paradox, but for the history it has. It is a story of philosophy, mathematics, religion, and control. It is a story about the conflict of science and religion, of math and philosophy (and the philosophy of math). It is a story about the development of calculus and our ability to deal with nothing and infinity.

Wonderful stuff.

Bring it on.

 

[AlanGurvey]

Me and Him are one... not two

 

[MoonlessNight]

this statment is false.

That statement is neither true nor false nor does it have any real meaning. I never liked paradoxes like that because they assume that every statement is either true or false, which means that I could be lying when I say "Hello."

My favorite paradox (which isn't really a paradox, but then again how many of these really are?) is that if you take a circle of radius 1 and a circle of radius 2 centered at the same spot it is easy to draw a one to one correspondance between the points in the circle (draw a straight line from the center to the outer circle and you'll hit exactly one point in each circle, moreover for every point in either circle you can only draw one line in this fashion). Yet the outer circle has a larger circumfrence.

Despite how often we use continuity it really is counter-intuitive. Which, incidentally, is why I give Zeno's paradoxes more credit than they are usually given.

 

[bob135]

No no no.

He can invent a LOGICAL determiner but has no reason to follow it.

He creates a RATIONAL determiner for the reason of needing a timely course to take. He has no reason to question its determination because he has already seen that there is no logical means to decide, and thus he picks any convenient 50/50 arbitration just to get the decision made.

He had purpose in using the determiner, he has no purpose to inspire questioning it or seeking logic any further.

Remember that rationale, unlike logic, serves a purpose associated with a perceived good. In this case, the perceived good is not merely the hay, but a timely decision being presented.

Rationale says that he will get it done before he starves regardless of any logic associated with the decision.

If you attempt to be totally logical void of being rational, you get nowhere.

If I understand you correctly, LOGICAL=sound reasoning and RATIONAL=optimal consequences of reasoning. So in this case you are arguing that survival is the optimal consequence, and since each pile of hay has equal value, it is logical to assign them equal chances, and rational to pick one. He has to get this done somehow, he must use some system to pick them, I'm just wondering how he decides what system to use, and why, since any system in consideration would be equally efficient in ensuring his survival. Does he just decide to pretend that the other pile of hay doesn't exist? I'm just trying to understand the thought process here.

 

[TooCurious]

Am I the only one who thinks the donkey should drag the hay from both piles into the middle, mix them together a little, and then eat from the combined pile? I probably am the only one, because I am silly.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Sort of a paradox... but fun:

1. Epimenides is a Cretan
2. Epimenides says "A Cretan always lies"

Did Epimenides tell the truth?

 

[JonF]

Sort of a paradox... but fun:

1. Epimenides is a Cretan
2. Epimenides says "A Cretan always lies"

Did Epimenides tell the truth?

why yes he did, the quantifier gives this version of the liars paradox an answer

 

[ReluctantProphet]

.. I'm just wondering how he decides what system to use, and why, since any system in consideration would be equally efficient in ensuring his survival. Does he just decide to pretend that the other pile of hay doesn't exist? I'm just trying to understand the thought process here.

For the same "rational" effort he was already into, his mind settles on the idea that "this method" will be good enough. An animal usually chooses based on what he is looking at when he came to the conclusion that there was no reason to look toward anything else. But any decision making arbitrator would work for a human as long as it didn't bring additional negative consequences.

Time is actually the big issue. Any mind is limited to its ability to come to a fruitful decision within a specific time limit - "The early bird gets the worm."

The rational mind settles on "good enough for now".

 

[MsAnne]

Your favorite paradox?

I only have one.

 

[_CJ_]

It's a catch 22 situation. In order to reach the true solution, you have to agree(cause it's relative anyway). But you have to reach the true solution first before you can agree.

-ring!-(little doors open)

My mind has been microwaved down.

Paradoxes is excellent stuff

 

[Abbadon]

Am I the only one who thinks the donkey should drag the hay from both piles into the middle, mix them together a little, and then eat from the combined pile? I probably am the only one, because I am silly.

But which pile would he go to first to drag to the center?

this statment is false.

Me and Him are one... not two

Both are resolved with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

The problem with these is that they're thinking "0 or 1", instead of "0 and/or 1". There is a grey area in life.

 

[JonF]

But which pile would he go to first to drag to the center?




Both are resolved with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

The problem with these is that they're thinking "0 or 1", instead of "0 and/or 1". There is a grey area in life.

fuzzy logic doesn't apply since it is apparent from context his statements are to be taken as propositions

 

[RealityCheck]

Sort of a paradox... but fun:

1. Epimenides is a Cretan
2. Epimenides says "A Cretan always lies"

Did Epimenides tell the truth?

Depends. Was he referring to all Cretans or a specific Cretan?

A simpler version: A man says "I am lying." Is he lying or telling the truth?