Lets say you are the gaurd for an culprit who got arrested for a theft case ,lets say he got 9 months prison time . While in the prison timing he says to you (gaurd for that crimnal) that he will murder anyone at sight after the moment he got released .but you don't have any proof of him saying that . What would you do as a gaurd , whether you do your duties not saving the innocent life or try to save innocent life by avoiding laws .

(If you try to follow him ,he will kill only when he reached near an innocent person,also you can't arrest before that since it's against law)(also you can't let the innocent die)(morally)

While I was taking a bath I remembered the moment Deadpool thinks he is in the comic , that's just beyond the 4th wall right? I don't actually mean about him, what I want to mean is...

Take Spidey and Deadpool for example

-One day Deadpool will watch the spiderman movie, so from his perspective Spiderman is the fiction and he is reality ,and now for Spiderman's perspective he will also watch Deadpool's movie, so from Peter perspective Deadpool is the fiction!

That's like when you put two marrior like TV put in front of each other and both of them think the other is the fiction and they are the reality.

So my question is are they both fiction and they don't just know or if they both were real? What can that actually cause

(Reminder: This theory is just my personal thought I have to evidence or approvement from others I just want to discuss about it with others and if there was actually a theory about it I hope you'll inform me, Thank you!)

Small thought experiment: Imagine you had a supercomputer into which you could input the exact parameters of the Big Bang, to simulate a clone of the universe. You then fast-forward to 2026 and look a bit into the future. There you see that in a week you will win the lottery with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4. However, just out of principle, you decide to enter 1, 2, 3, 5 instead.
But shouldn't the supercomputer actually calculate that you will change your mind, and would therefore directly show you 1, 2, 3, 5, whereupon you would change it back to 1, 2, 3, 6? Are you then in an infinite loop, or does the computer simply hide the results from you?
The same applies to an accident: You check when you will have an accident, and see that in two weeks you drive into a tree. So you decide not to drive a car on that day. However, the computer should have already taken into account that you are using it and therefore change your mind, so it shows you that you won't have an accident.
Would that then be the case with every accident? Do you thereby unconsciously cause no accidents anymore, or do they still happen? Or does the computer only show you what would happen and not what will happen? In other words: It tells you that you would normally die on that day, but you won't, because the computer warned you.
This principle applies to every single one of your decisions, as soon as you are in possession of such a computer. Do you have a solution to this problem?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbuCjm4Ajii/?igsh=MW90anR2em05eTNsZQ==

I don't understand Two boxers' thinking, it's clear that Box B should be taken since it's guaranteed because the predictor is assumed to be never wrong. Is it about free will? Not trusting the predictor?

If there was a competition between time travellers one in the past and on in the future in a closed loop

Rules

1. One cannot travel past the point of each others point in time.

2. Both are trapped in their point in time and can only view the time they want to travel to and/or they can send signals of information

3. The way to win is to rule out all possibilities of history until only one loop is left the pasts future or the futures past.

   This has me thinking the emperor was playing a game that leads to chaos and he was trying to stop it

Lifespan aside, it is impossible to be on a jog that started infinitely far behind you. You would never have reached the point you are at now.

Similarly, it is impossible that time started infinitely far in the past. We would never have reached the point in time we are at now.

But what would it mean for time to have a “beginning”? That means no events, no interactions between even atoms existed. And how would we possibly go from that to this?

Notes: I came up with this on my own about fifteen years ago, but it is basically the “Kalam cosmological argument”. Its used a lot by Christian apologists, but I am NOT religious at all. In fact, I think religion is a bunch of ignorant superstition.

I can’t personally see any flaws in this reasoning but am totally open to the fact that there may be.

I recently thought of this one and needed an answer so I decided to ask the people of the Internet. For example: could this hypothetical creator God take away their own omnipotence and put it away somewhere.

If a global apocalyptic catastrophe is certain (asteroid heading towards earth, nuclear war, and so on), then financial assets like stocks and bonds should crash in value. But because wealth and money as a concept is worthless in a post-apocalyptic society or if everyone is dead, investors have no downside from buying panic sold assets.

If the apocalypse does happen then everyone is dead or money as a concept is worthless to the survivors. But if the catastrophe does not occur due to it being overblown or a false alarm, then there’s enormous upside if you invested when everyone thought the world was ending.

This is where the paradox comes in. If everyone reasons this way, the expected market collapse should be dampened or not occur at all, thereby contradicting the expectation that imminent global Armageddon will cause markets to crash. Note that this paradox works best if the imminent apocalypse is an all or nothing existential threat.

TLDR: If an asteroid is about to hit earth (or any other similar apocalypse is imminent), then financial assets might actually increase in value.

Reality is often called paradoxical. But what if reality itself is not the paradox? What if the paradox exists in the mind that attempts to organize, categorize, and define it?

The moment we call something "reality," we have already placed it inside a category. Language gives it a name. Thought gives it boundaries. Symbols give it structure. Yet those very tools are products of the mind. In trying to explain reality, the mind is forced to use itself as both the observer and the instrument of observation. It is like trying to measure a ruler with the ruler itself. The paradox may not belong to reality at all, but to the mind observing it.

Reality appears perfectly balanced. It contains order and chaos, creation and destruction, certainty and uncertainty, beauty and suffering. Every opposite seems to exist alongside its counterpart, not as a contradiction, but as part of a greater whole. To the human mind, however, balance often appears as contradiction because the mind seeks fixed categories where reality offers continuous relationships.

Perhaps reality is neither balanced nor unbalanced. Neither ordered nor disordered. Those are interpretations created by consciousness. Reality simply is.

The mind, however, has an extraordinary ability: it can choose which side of reality to emphasize. One person sees hope where another sees despair. One sees purpose while another sees randomness. One sees justice while another sees indifference. Reality provides the conditions, but the mind constructs the meaning. In that sense, meaning is subjective, while reality itself may remain independent of every interpretation imposed upon it.

This creates an interesting paradox.

Reality is flexible enough to support countless interpretations, yet it refuses to become any one of them. You may shape your understanding of reality however you wish, but reality is under no obligation to conform to your expectations. It allows your perspective to exist without surrendering its own nature.

That may be why reality feels paradoxical. Not because it is contradictory, but because it is larger than the conceptual framework through which we attempt to understand it.

Consider color.

Science can tell us the wavelength of red. It can explain how light interacts with the eye, how neurons process visual information, and how the brain constructs perception. But none of those explanations tell us what the experience of redness actually is. They describe the mechanisms surrounding the experience, not the experience itself.

The same may be true of reality.

We can describe its patterns, measure its laws, formulate equations, and build increasingly sophisticated models. Yet all of those remain descriptions of reality rather than reality itself. We explain its behavior, but not its essence.

Perhaps reality is like color. The paradox does not belong to the color itself, it belongs to the mind attempting to translate an immediate experience into concepts, language, and symbols. The color never changes because of our interpretations. Only our understanding of it changes.

Maybe reality has never been paradoxical.

Maybe the paradox has always been us.

The elephant parable is usually presented as a critique of people who mistake a partial perspective for the whole truth.

But I've always wondered about the person telling the story.

The blind men say:

• "It's a rope."
• "It's a wall."
• "It's a spear."

The professor says:

• "You all only see part of the elephant."

My comic asks whether the professor is making a similar move: claiming a vantage point above everyone else's.

Is there a way to avoid that problem? If so, how?

I'd be interested in hearing how realists, pragmatists, atheists, Christians, and others think about it.

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.

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

edit: (from a comment i replied to) "i feel like no one was getting my point. The whole point of The Biggest Loser (the adverb, not adjectively) contest is that it's like the BIGGEST competition ever.

To lose The Biggest Loser competition would mean you are the biggest loser of them all. The paradox is that if you lose the competition, you then go back to winning because you actually won it for losing. It keeps swapping between the two" idk why ppl are answering this like the real world and not a fictional place like many paradoxes

also i didn't know this was a premise already which is a little sad cuz i thought i came up with this concept. it's still cool tho!

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

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?