I just don't understand it!

[Elyam Deoradhán]

-----------------------
A man travels back in time, he goess to see his Grandma when she was a child.He then kills her.This means that he can't have existed so who killed the Grandma?
-----------------------


Depends on what theory you go by. I can't remember the name but I know one theory that would render this possible: there is more than one you existing at all times, pretty much one for each milli-second of your entire life, and each in a different realm of time. If you went back in time to kill a person, they would only be dead in that single time realm and would continue to live on in the all the others. So technically when you went back to the present she wouldn't have been killed. You could go into the past a thousand times and change a million things, but when you return nothing would have been changed because time is supposedly "separated" according to that theory. Does that make any sense?

[Blackboar]

Welcome Elyam! Checked out the Newbies thread?

I think that makes sense. Do you mean in one parllel universe (There are supposed to me 11) because I think it involved with that after reading Universe in a Nutshell. My head is still hurting from that book!

Oh I get you now! Yeah, sounds about right!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elyam Deoradhán
Depends on what theory you go by.

You're not thinking of the multiverse theory, are you?

[Elf.Freak]

maybe he didn't go into the past in the past...ok...that doesn't make sense!

[Blackboar]

Originally posted by Blackboar
Well, I guessed that kinda aswered my question
My brother gave me another one, this one I can explain.

A cat is in a box, it is neither dead or alive.

My brother explained this one (I can't understand it propaply, he tryed to make it simple for my tiny little brain but he is a professor in phsics so he must have found it hard )

He explained it in 2 ways: One the cat is in neither state until you open the box and it collapses into one.
Two, In one parallel universe the cat is dead and in the other it is alive, once you open the box you'll know what universe you are in. A bit like the movie called "Sliding Doors"

What do you think about the cat one?

[Earniel]

No! Not Schrodinger's cat! I once spend a whole easter holiday trying to figure it out. I didn't really get it. I believe it's a metaphysical problem or something.

I've read it a little differently though. You take a box where you can't see through, inside you put a cat and a bottle of poison. When the box is closed you can't know whether the bottle broke or not. So you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box. So technically the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until you check.

I believe it meant to explain something about electrons. That you can either measure the speed or the position of an electron but never both at the same time. But I'm not sure, it's very probably that I'm mixing things here.

I always like Pratchett's take on Schrodinger's cat with Greebo.

quote out of head:
Technically a cat in a box can be a. alive, b. dead and c. bloody furious. The box opened and Greebo went of like a Claymore Mine.

Neh neh neh. I still laugh when I think of it.

[Andúril]

Let's split the first "paradox" into individual premises.[list=1][*]A man travels back in time[*]he goes to see his Grandma when she was a child.[*]He then kills her.[/list=1]To me, it seems that 3 is impossible, because if it did actually happen then 1 could not have happened. He might have gone back in time and saw Grandma when she was a child, but something must have happened to stop him from killing her. If the first two premises are accepted, then the third cannot be accepted.

I dont think it's an "unsolvable riddle", just illogical.

A barber in a village in Southern Greece shaves all the men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave him self?

No. The barber is a woman.

Is the following bolded statement true or false: this statement is false.

*mind goes into self-referencing infinite regression*

I have an index card. One side says "the statement on the other side is true." The other side says "the statement on the other side is false". Which side is true and which is false?

More damn infinite regression, in the form of:

X = Y is false
Y = X is true
Therefore Y = (Y is false) is true.
Therefore X = ((Y is false) is true) is false.
Therefore Y = (((Y is false) is true) is false) is true
Therefore Y = ((((Y is false) is true) is false) is true) is damn this.

A man jumps off the top of a building. He's commiting suicide. As he passes the sixth floor, a bullet flies out from a window and kills him. But the police still would rule it as suicide 'cause he was gonna die anyway. Then, they find that there is some construction going on at the fourth floor, and a safety net was strung up. The man would not have died 'cause he would have hit the net. Now it's a murder.
The person who shot the gun that fired the bullet was an elderly man. He was having a fight with his wife. He never loaded the gun, just threatened her with it.
The couple were the suicidal's parents. The mother had decided not to supply the man with any more money. The man had then loaded his dad's gun, hoping his dad would shoot his mom when they were fighting.
But the man's dad missed his mom, and instead hit his son while he was falling by the window. Because the son had loaded the gun.....The police ruled that it was a suicide. The man had killed himself.

Crazy, isn't it?

Nope. Just because someone has thrown himself off a building does not mean that that person is dead, thus it cannot be called suicide, but rather attempted suicide. People have been known to fall off buildings, break bones, but live.

The fact that there was a safety net at the fourth floor is of no consequence to the correctness of "attempted suicide" because it is clear that the man is trying to kill himself in the second sentence. He merely did not know about the net.

The bottom line is that the father should be put away for manslaughter.

[Elyam Deoradhán]

Originally posted by Blackboar
Welcome Elyam! Checked out the Newbies thread?

I'm not a welcome-thread person. I prefer to jump right in.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You're not thinking of the multiverse theory, are you?

I have no idea. It's been so long I can't remember.

[Blackboar]

Originally posted by Elyam Deoradhán
I'm not a welcome-thread person. I prefer to jump right in.

Fair enough! Thats what I did!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I believe it meant to explain something about electrons. That you can either measure the speed or the position of an electron but never both at the same time. But I'm not sure, it's very probably that I'm mixing things here.

Nah, it's the wave/particle duality of light.

[Elenka]

Sliding Doors? I saw that movie. It was kinda confusing, but I liked it.

Someone already said this but here goes.

1)Person goes back in time
2)Sees his granny
3)Kills her

It doesn't work, because 1 can't have happened if 3 happens. Therefore, 1 and 2 happened, and either this person kills granny, but in a parellel universe where things are different because Granny died, or it is impossible.

These riddles are making my head spin. But I'm addicted, so I must keep reading and lay awake at night thinking of them....

[Lady of Rohan]

I give up!

[Lady of Rohan]

maybe he was an adopted child. So then if he kills the family that adopted him grandmother then his blood grandmother is still alive!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Nah, it's the wave/particle duality of light.

So I was mixing things.

Thanks for correcting.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Blackboar
A man travels back in time, he goess to see his Grandma when she was a child.He then kills her.This means that he can't have existed so who killed the Grandma?

I think this shows that going back in time is impossible.

[Andúril]

I don't know about that. I think it shows that going at time T2 back to time T1 and killing your direct ancestors is impossible. Oh well...

[Evenstar1400]

brain..... cannot....... process............. being............ fried...............BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP! CAUTION! UNSTABLE BRAIN! DO NOT CONVERSE WITH!

[Sylvee Estel]

Wow those are confusing. My poor little brain doesn't understand!

[Elf Girl]

Mine doesn't understand either, but is double-jointed. (as I have mentioned)

[Blackboar]

That's what my math's teacher tells me!!
I like this one!

Is the satement in bold true or false:This statement is false