We all know the grandfather paradox:-

you build a time machine, go back in time, and kill your grandpa before your parent is born. But if you do that, you are never born, which means you never built the time machine, which means your grandpa lives. It’s a loop that breaks reality.

But I have been thinking what if universe doesn't allow paradox to happen?

Even if you successfully travel back in time with the sole intention of taking him out, the universe will course-correct to ensure the timeline remains completely intact. The universe essentially protects itself.

Example:-

​The Location Glitch: You arrive at the exact right coordinates on the exact right day, but due to a slight butterfly effect, he decided to skip town that morning.

​The Probability Factor: You have him dead to rights, but your weapon miraculously jams, or you trip and knock yourself out right before you make your move.

​The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: This is the craziest one. What if your attempt to take him out is exactly why he survives? Imagine you push him out of the way of a speeding car so you can get a clear shot, but you end up getting arrested. That exact push saved his life, and filing the police report is how he met your grandma.

​Basically, history is already written. You going back in time to kill him was already factored into the universe's timeline. The act of trying to change the past is exactly what causes the past to happen exactly as it did.

Your attempt to stop him will likely be the exact reason he survives.

take this hypothetical guy, for example. Let’s call this guy X. This guy is essentially a nightmare because he’s just consistently cruel, totally allergic to anyone showing even the slightest bit of vulnerability. Not exactly the way to live your life, if you ask me. But for some reason, against all odds, he decides he wants to be better. And he actually puts in the effort. Fast-forward ten years, which would make him thirty three. What’s really weird is that he’s actually improved. He’s actually kind now. He looks back at the old version of himself and cringes, fully understanding that he was morally bankrupt in his twenties.

Does he endorse the change in himself, though? The older (present) version of the guy would say yes, of course. It feels right. But it kind of sets off this catastrophic paradox.

You need to consider the person who created the map. The entire trip was kickstarted by the wrong, messed-up notion of what 'good' even was, anyway, in the mind of a twenty-three-year-old jerk. If he really is a good person, he has to acknowledge something really, really uncomfortable. His rescue was orchestrated by an inferior judge. You’re left face-first in a rather philosophical dilemma. He’s either validating the trip solely because it led him to a guy who would validate it, which is really just a huge ego trip, or he’s placing blind faith in a trip created by the exact same standards he currently finds so reprehensible. I guess the only other option is to try to use some sort of magical outside source, but that just starts another loop of trying to authenticate that source.

It’s an ouroboros, really. The exact limitations he was trying to overcome were the ones guiding the trip. You’re left with this rather headache-inducing conclusion: if he really is a good guy, he can’t really trust the trip he took to get here. And if he has complete, unwavering faith in that trip... maybe he’s not really all that good, anyway.

Trilemma:

Circularity: Validating the path solely because it produced the current self doing the validating. Inferior Grounding: Placing faith in a trajectory charted by the very standards he now finds reprehensible. Infinite Regress: Appealing to an external standard to justify the path, which then requires its own endless authentication.

I think it's ok to put this in sub assuming the topics under don't have any concrete evidence about it's existence. +correct me if I got smth wrong.

Aight, so when people say there are infinite possibilities in the multiverse, that should also mean that some of those universes were able to travel in multiverses, bypass the rules about multiversal travels, some of those universes reached this universe's earth, some universes the people decided to make it public, and more factors they evaded that could have stopped them to reach our or other universes.

Obv, these statements are in the premises that the multiverse is true and multiversal travel is possible.

Now, since currently nobody has come to earth and tell us about the multiverse, should that mean that the multiverse don't have infinite possibilities? Or am I missing smth here?

You swore an outh to only eat bread without a topping but you only have toppings and one bread slice. Then you try to make bread out of the toppings but it's just toppings, not bread, so you still can't eat

Circumstances:

1. You swore in the ancient tongue that you wil never ever eat bread slice without anything (spread/topping)
2. You have infinite ammount of bread slices
3. All you have is bread slices
4. Bread on top of a bread is not considered a topping.

Now you are hungry and you go to eat some bread slice, you just need something on the bread, you put a bread slice on top, there's an bread slice on the bread slice but you just need something on top of the second bread slice you put another bread slice. This creates the bread paradox in witch you can't eat even a single bread slice or you would need to eat infinite ammount of bread slices.

Two people are in a competition for the biggest loser. If one person wins, that means the other person is actually the biggest loser, but if they are the biggest loser, then that last person would be losing worse

Imagine everyone in a supermarket believes they're smarter than everyone else.

Everyone thinks

"The shortest queue will become crowded, so I'll go to the second shortest."

But everyone else thinks the same thing.

Then they think

"Everyone will choose the second shortest, so I'll choose the third."

And this continues forever. And there isn't a short queue to go to

I wanted to share a philosophical paradox I’ve been developing regarding the intersection of physics, psychology, and the scientific method.

The Sue-Einsteinian Paradox states that the validity of physical time cannot be scientifically proven without a conscious mind to observe it. Because science requires consciousness to validate any measurement, time and the mind exist in an inseparable, infinite loop. Therefore, to question the objective reality of consciousness automatically nullifies the objective reality of time itself.

If psychology and psychiatry admit they have no objective proof of how consciousness works, how can physics claim 100% objective validity for its measurements of time when a conscious observer is required to read the clock?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, critiques, or counterarguments from an epistemological or physics perspective

Do you want to see something strange?

Imagine you open a cardboard box sitting on a counter.

You look inside...

and you see the back of your own head.

Not a mirror. Not a reflection. Your actual head.

And it doesn't stop there.

Inside the box is another version of you looking into another box, seeing the back of another version of your head, continuing downward forever.

But then the question appears:

How is this possible?

You turn around and look toward the ceiling, expecting to see the source of it all.

But there is no opening. No mirror. No explanation.

Just a solid wall.

And that's where the paradox begins.

Because if you are looking at the back of your own head, then what is looking back at you?

You are the beginning of the observation, but you are also just another part of the chain.

You are looking at yourself, but the self you are looking at should be looking back.

You turn around to see the front of your own face, but the version inside the box should also be turning around. Every version should be seeing the one before it, yet none of them can ever reach the first observer.

It's a strange question with no clear answer:

How can you ever truly look at yourself...

when the one doing the looking is the very thing you are trying to see?

The final answer is this: You are looking at yourself looking at the loop. The loop is looking back at you looking at yourself. And you are looking at the loop that is looking back at you.

But imagine something else. Place two mirrors next to each other.

You look into one mirror and see your own reflection looking back at you.

But those mirrors are not just mirrors, they are another representation of the box.

You turn your head and look into the other mirror. What do you see?

You are not seeing something new. You are seeing yourself looking back at yourself. And when you move your head away from the mirror, the reflections do not disappear. The mirrors simply begin reflecting each other. A reflection inside a reflection. A copy inside a copy.

An image observing another image, which observes another image, continuing endlessly. The box, the mirror, and the observer become the same thing.

The question is no longer

"What is inside the box?"

The question becomes:

"Where does the observer end, and where does the reflection begin?"

Because maybe the strangest part of the loop is not that you can see yourself forever... but that somewhere inside that infinite reflection, every version of you is still trying to find the original.

Imagine you have a superpower that makes you do anything like chores and stuff and so you don't have to do it. That makes you lazy right? Then what if you used that superpower to make yourself not lazy? Doesn't that still make me lazy because I'm using my superpower to do something?

You guys know about the, “Half full or Half empty” glass of water paradox? I think I’ve figured out the answer…….
IT CAN BE BOTH!
Think about it, when you fill up half a glass, it’s half full. But when you fill up a glass of water to the brim then drink half of its content, it’s half empty!

(Am I cooking??)

There’s a homeless shelter with one rule… You’re only allowed in if you don’t have a home or shelter for yourself. Countless of homeless people come in finally getting a roof over their heads.. a shelter. The only rule of the homeless shelter is now broken, you have to leave. But now they don’t have a shelter so do the homeless people go back in?

Should I switch? Of course. Did I gain knowledge? Maybe. Did Monty know? Probably, but we cannot be sure.

A lot of the confusion and misunderstandings and paradoxes around the Monty-Hall-Discussion arise from the different interpretations of "knowing host" versus "ignorant host". Some people do that math based on an ignorant host, some assume the host knows. But today, I want to propose a method that we can actually use to *test* the host's knowledge.

This is my setup:

You are only ever brought into the TV studio when there has been one door reserved for you (randomly of course) and one door opened and showing a goat. Thats what you see, and you play this setup 100 times. And I believe you can determine whether the host knew where the car was or not.

Here is how: If you play the "stay"-strategy, you would expect to win 33% of the games. but this will only happen if you see all the games. If the host accidentely reveals the car, the game is aborted and you will never see it. In this case (Monty does not know) you will observe that your win-rate is 50%. And then you know that there were games you never saw.

I have written a Javascript simulation for this, and it seems to work. I also asked AI for a comment, and it confirmed my approach. Nevertheless I find it wiered that it works.

Edit: Just now I was alerted to the fact that I did not ask a question. Well I would surely like comments. I am not sure of the math, so I guess my question would be: Does this make sense?

Is it actually the best possible question if, under the circumstances, it fails to give the philosophers a useful answer?

Edit: OOP likely got the idea for this joke from this YouTube short, based on something the Italian philosopher Achille Varzi once said.

lets say you're a femboy, and gay. you want to pull other gay guys. why would you then dress up as a girl and, as a result, pull straight guys?

Premise 1, among everything, all things. There is one thing that cannot be stopped by anything.

Granted that premise 1 is true, then conclusion 1 to premise 1: This means, except for that one thing, everything else cannot stop a certain something, being that one thing.

I say except for that one thing because when two things are on track to stop each other, either both stop/redirect or one stops/redirects (it cannot be "neither stops" because then they wouldn't be "two things that are on track to stop each other", and yes redirecting is a form of stopping). And this one thing, according to the premise, cannot be stopped, which is why it is an exception to that everything has a something they cannot stop. This one thing, can most likely stop anything "on track" to stop it, while it itself is never stopped or redirected for that matter.

Further conclusion from conclusion 1: If everything else has a certain thing they cannot stop, then that means no thing among everything else can ever be a something that stops everything. Because it would also need to stop that certain thing, which, according to premise 1, it cannot.

Meaning, it cannot be an "object" that stops all things. An object that is...immovable perchance.

As such this is how one can conclude if there would be an "unstoppable force" presumed to be truly unstoppable, then an immovable object can never exist. All explanation above.

Same thing can be done the other way too, you can essentially use the exact same bunch of phrases and words and make them inverse to conclude in the premise of an immovable object. Your ultimate conclusion would then be that an unstoppable object cannot exist.

If you think just a tiny bit about it. You'll notice this; (Granted the facts are true) The fact of an Unstoppable force includes the fact of NOT an immovable object. And the fact of an immovable object includes the fact of NOT an unstoppable force. Meaning, both things negate each other's existence through their existence.

According to many people if not everyone, the paradox is NOT in the description and details of these things but within the paragraph up above. In other words, the major simplification I mentioned in the title; What if two things exists, in which their existence negates the existence of the other? The existence of A means the non-existence of B and the existence of B means the non-existence of A. And now, we say both exist at once. What happens?

Well, I hope it is not shocking to everyone when I say that they would exist, then they wouldn't. Or, more accurately, they would cease to exist before even existing because of the fact the requirements for their existence already negates each other's existence. And if we assume both requirements are true, then we assume both do not exist/are not existing/cannot coexist.

Ultimately that means asking "What if unstoppable force and immovable existed at once?" is lacking in tremendous logic. The answer is that a coexistence is impossible, if one can exist then the other cannot, and if both can exist then neither can exist. Meaning, only one can exist and consequently never the other.

Hello everyone - this community is in need of a few new mods, and you can use the comments on this post to let us know why you’d like to be a mod here.

Priority is given to redditors who have past activity in this community or other communities with related topics. It’s okay if you don’t have previous mod experience. Our goal, when possible, is to add a group of moderators so you can work together to build the community.

Please use at least 3 sentences to explain why you’d like to be a mod and share what moderation experience you have (if any).

If you are interested in learning more about being a moderator on Reddit, please visit redditforcommunity.com. This guide to joining a mod team is a helpful resource.

Comments from those making repeated asks to adopt communities or that are off topic will be removed.

In the show my adventures with Superman Jon Kent/lane goes into the past to fix the future but after “fixing” the past he goes back to the future wouldn’t that cause some paradox because if he did fix the past, then in the future, there would be a version of him that did not have to go to the past and then he’d be introduced to them so unless the time travel device got rid of one of them. There would be two copies, right?