dear RIA: i bring you...a paradox!

[Crunka]

well, the universe is vast and infinite and there are high estimates of probability of sentient alien life, however, there is no evidence of it.

that is another paradox (i hate them)

[Prince Tomb]

yup thats one of my favorites tho heres another
the master of defense can never beat the master of offense and the master of offense can never beat the master of defense

[Ganon5]

That's not really a paradox. But it would make sense that if the universe is infinite and there is a chance (no matter how tiny) of sentient life, then it must exist.

Now there's just the whole 'infinity' concept to wrap our heads around...

(@ Crunka's last post)

[Prince Tomb]

its actually a japanese samuri proverb but it works

[Prince Tomb]

That's not really a paradox. But it would make sense that if the universe is infinite and there is a chance (no matter how tiny) of sentient life, then it must exist.

Now there's just the whole 'infinity' concept to wrap our heads around...

(@ Crunka's last post)

true but that tiny percent is then multiplied by infinity therefore making it also infinity

[Crunka]

it is considered a paradox....it's name is Fermi Paradox.

[Prince Tomb]

ok this isn't really a paradox but it is an interesting question
why do they sterilize the area and needle used for a lethal injection? kinda pointless ya think?

[Lamentations]

what would happen if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Why do paradoxes exist for things that don't exist :/ It is like trying to use logic on something that is not founded on logic.

But it would make sense that if the universe is infinite and there is a chance (no matter how tiny) of sentient life, then it must exist.

And indeed if time is infinite then in fact anything is possible on such a timeline. Also on the time scale thing there must eventually be more places in time where the conditions for new life are met. This ignores the rules of entropy but, pah, minor details.

[GRX Dragon]

worst. myspace. quote. ever.

"Only remember the past and the future, but not the present, as it's already happened..."

1) How can you remember the future? PARADOX!
2) Why has the PRESENT (which means now) already happened?
3) If your reason for not remembering the present is because it's already happened, why would you want to remember the past? Hasn't it already happened?

*brain asplode*
---

taken from RI


---

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!

To remember the future is to know why you fight for, the present has already happened for it is what we fight. Remember not the past except as a key to the future.

Edit: I read that wrong last night, thought it was a similar question. The real answer is pretty close however.


We must remember the future, so that we may have the unwillingness to lose a fight.
We must forget the present, so that we can nullify all pain unto us.
We must remember the past, so that we can never forget the pains brought unto us from the enemy we seek the destruction thereof.

[GRX Dragon]

what would happen if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Don't mean to double-post, but I didn't get a chance to answer this last night, went to sleep beforehand.

Answer: the unstoppable force will simply bounce off an immovable object. Just because you can't stop something doesn't mean you can't bounce it off.

[Commisar Gaunt]

The unstoppable force will merely be diverted... good idea

[Crunka]

hmm...that sounds like a good theory...

[Untelligent]

On the subject of the population of the Universe being infinite...
To quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

4. POPULATION: None.

It is know that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average poplation of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

tl;dr: Owned.

[Prince Tomb]

On the subject of the population of the Universe being infinite...
To quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

4. POPULATION: None.

It is know that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average poplation of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

tl;dr: Owned.

damn he found where i got my paradox lol but i researched it after reading the books and da whole zero thing is crap but yea

[Lamentations]

average toniclation of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the toniculation of the whole Universe is also zero

but by definition, 'average' shows this to be fallacious.

[Lord Doom]

On the subject of the population of the Universe being infinite...
To quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

4. POPULATION: None.

It is know that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average poplation of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

tl;dr: Owned.

average toniculation is average.

[Prince Tomb]

average toniclation of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the toniculation of the whole Universe is also zero

but by definition, 'average' shows this to be fallacious.

dude don't diss the HitcherHiker's Guide to the Galaxy it is all knowing like Santa Claus and Vintus    

[Crunka]

if the irresistible object bounces of the immovable one, it still stops, even if it's by a millisecond.

[GRX Dragon]

if the irresistible object bounces of the immovable one, it still stops, even if it's by a millisecond.

Untrue. I give you an example of the Apollo missions in space. In Apollo 13, they bounced off the moon not even by hitting it but by going around and thrusting into the gravity field. I also give you the theory used in the Lost in Space movie: theoretically, if an irrestible object is going at a high-enough speed, when it hits the immovable object (which is the sun), the gravitational magnetic field will cause the irresistible object to warp to another area in space. This is also a similar theory to what we use for creating power from black holes (we being the American/English alliance of scientists, not including myself mind you).

I also give you another example that even in space, something normally immovable is logically movable due to it's very own gravitational field. But even if that were not so, we have two magnets in our hands. The immovable magnet which one hand is holding on to does not move, however the irresistible magnet will find itself unresisting to the immovable magnet.


Finally, the paradox originally given has to do with an unstoppable force and an immovable object, not an irresistible object. I admit I don't entirely know how it goes in quantum physics, however I do know how to think outside of the box, or at least think above the Earth anyways. Also, remember, just because our language considers something immovable-doesn't mean it is immovable in the universe.

Edit: I will try to give the proper theory on the latest paradox by tomorrow (or today? lol) since I'm going to bed now.

[Grand Poobah Marx]

if the irresistible object bounces of the immovable one, it still stops, even if it's by a millisecond.

Not so.  Newton's 3rd Law of motion.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It would, at the exact same speed, bounce off at a perfect reflection from the immovable surface, this is discounting friction and air resistance.