The monotheistic all powerful one.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points
*

Cannot be properly defined? “Expecting it” means “regarding it likely to happen”, according to the dictionary. He regarded it as impossible to happen, so he was not expecting it. His own logic disproving the event (him being surprised) allowed the event to happen (he was surprised).

Why does the paradox suffer if he lies about the solution? The paradox has already played out, and anything after that is just set dressing.

Just off the top of my head, maybe the judge has a camera set to gauge his reaction to the knock on the door? Or maybe he goes into denial and tries to explain his logic, thus proving the paradox? Or maybe the judge doesn’t actually care as much as he said, but trusts the logic to hold out and make for a funny story?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

You provide three flawed ways of measuring expectation; that’s the issue in a nutshell.

Its not a true paradox as the whole gambit rests on a changeable emotion, not logic.

The prisoner could wake up each morning and simply say “I expect to die today”. How would the judge determine the truth? It would be impossible.

If someone punches you in the face after saying “knock knock”, it doesn’t make it a knock knock joke, and nor is this a paradox.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

My dude. The paradox doesn’t change based on whether or not the judge knows the truth, or even if the man dies.

The truth is the man was made not to expect a thing by his own logic proving he would always expect a thing. The paradox is based on his own prediction being wrong because of his prediction. In this instance, his prediction was what his emotions would be.

A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says “why the long face?” I haven’t said how they remove the horse from the bar, so does that mean I didn’t tell a joke? Or does horse removal not actually matter to the joke?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

No. A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

In this case, there is no true premesis.

That’s the core of the problem. Your incorrect interpretation of the joke metaphor demonstrates that you don’t understand this.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 7.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 319K

    Comments