rachel on 10/10/2008 at 18:37
I say stupid stuff like "Ice is the same as water", which is true on a chemical level but incorrect for practical purposes. :p
edit: Thanks for ruining it N'Al! :( Use spoiler tags! I wanted to give it a more serious try later...
N'Al on 10/10/2008 at 18:48
I don't even know whether that's the correct answer.
Cause, frankly, while that would 'loop the logic', as it were, I still don't know how you would escape death. I mean, once you've said it, what then? Secretly, I'm hoping it's that the tribe members are a race of killer robots, (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQJpza5lLA) whose heads explode when they are unable to process certain... things.
io organic industrialism on 10/10/2008 at 18:55
Quote Posted by N'Al
I don't even know whether that's the correct answer.
Cause, frankly, while that would 'loop the logic', as it were, I still don't know how you would escape death. I mean, once you've said it, what then? Secretly, I'm hoping it's that the tribe members are a race of killer robots, (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQJpza5lLA) whose heads explode when they are unable to process certain... things.
Nah, since your statement regards something taking place in the future, you have to pose the philosophical argument about whether omniscience includes knowing the future. If it does, they will know what the answer will be before you say it, regardless of whether it is the correct "game breaking" answer to this question or not. If they are so hell bent on killing you, why would they even pose a situation that could be exploited in some way?
:joke:
Gambit on 10/10/2008 at 19:01
Quote Posted by N'Al
"I will die by burning on fire."
Correct ! And by creating a logic paradox you avoid death !
io organic industrialism on 10/10/2008 at 19:46
Quote Posted by Gambit
Correct ! And by creating a logic paradox you avoid death !
Some question for you then, Gambit..
What if your answer didn't create a logic paradox, but was based on conditions depending on the words you used?
For example:
"An hour isn't a very long time"
Sure, it's not a very long time to sleep, or to live... But it is a long time to blink, or to give someone a high-five. (just for example)
Edit: There's probably a zillion examples of this. What if you said "Joe drove across the bridge on tuesday", knowing full well that your friend joe had not been in a car on tuesday? But does it necessarily mean this past tuesday? Certainly, there has been a tuesday at some point during Joe's life, that he has indeed driven across a bridge. So the statement is both true and false, depending on how you view "tuesday"
Alternately, what if it related to a difference in moral opinion?
What if your statement was "Abortion is OK"? What if the majority of people in the world are against abortion? Would the tribe consider the majority opinion when reflecting on the question, or your own subjective opinion on the topic? Or
their opinion?
Third, what if the statement has to do with information that is in your mind, but that you can't quite recall at the time?
For example, what if you ate pancakes for breakfast on monday a week before the tribe captures you. Sometime between then and now, you forgot what you ate for breakfast that day. When you make your statement you say "I
can't remember what I ate for breakfast a week ago on monday".
But, you know that probably if your wife was standing there by your side and said "Honey, remember we had pancakes".. You would be like :idea: "Oh yeah!"
Now you've remembered you had pancakes...
So when you said the question "I can't remember.."
Does "can't" in this context mean that it
wasn't mentally possible for you to remember what you had for breakfast, or that you simply
didn't remember what you had for breakfast, at the time.
Would this be a paradox? Or simply a play on words?
Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts, Gambit, and how you think the islanders would react to these responses :D
N'Al on 10/10/2008 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Gambit
Correct ! And by creating a logic paradox you avoid death !
In that case, I apologise for not spoilerising...
J'suis desolé, raph! :(
demagogue on 10/10/2008 at 20:50
Taken from (
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/riddles/easy.shtml) here:
Quote:
willywutang is hanging out on a heavily forested island that's really narrow: it's a narrow strip of land that's ten miles long. let's label one end of the strip A, and the other end B. a fire has started at A, and the fire is moving toward B at the rate of 1 mph. at the same time, there's a 2 mph wind blowing in the direction from A toward B. what can willywu do to save himself from burning to death?! assume that willywu can't swim and there are no boats, jetcopters, teleportation devices, etc.. (if he does nothing, willywu will be toast after at most 10 hours, since 10 miles / 1 mph = 10 hours)
I haven't figured out the answer yet.
The other island riddle from that site I (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1751564#post1751564) already posted.
Turtle on 10/10/2008 at 20:53
He can walk to end B and stand in the water.
As for the omniscient tribe, I'd use the old, 'this statement is false'.
Gambit on 10/10/2008 at 20:56
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
What if your answer didn't create a logic paradox, but was based on conditions depending on the words you used?
Ah...
Then we are sidestepping from pure logic and entering the realm of interpretation and subjectivism...
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
For example:
"An hour isn't a very long time"
Sure, it's not a very long time to sleep, or to live... But it is a long time to blink, or to give someone a high-five. (just for example)
In a logical statement I think also have to provide an unit, a method of measurement and comparison. An hour isn´t a very long time compared to what ? Someone might as well say: "I am not very tall". That´s just subjective until we know who you´re comparing your height with. Not as tall as an ant ? False. Not as tall as an elephant ? True.
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
What if you said "Joe drove across the bridge on tuesday" (...) So the statement is both true and false, depending on how you view "tuesday"
For logical statements to work all the possibilities must be stated. Information reduce the possibilities of loopholes and exploitable cracks in statements.
So "Joe drove across a bridge on tuesday" is an statement that has exploitable cracks, the "it could be any tuesday" cheat. By adding "Joe drove across a bridge last tuesday." You block any crack of subjectivism by providing all information.
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
Alternately, what if it related to a difference in moral opinion?
What if your statement was "Abortion is OK"? What if the majority of people in the world are against abortion? Would the tribe consider the majority opinion when reflecting on the question, or your own subjective opinion on the topic? Or
their opinion?
Ah, but the problem here is that before we applied absolute values to statements without moral values. "The earth has one natural moon." is an statement that can be applied the true value. "Abbortion is OK" cannot have an absolute value like a "Yes" or "No".
First it has many cracks, lack of information. The statement does not declare that there are many different conditions in witch we judge the right to abort (because of danger for the mother´s life, because of rape, because the baby has anencephalia and has 0% chance of surviving after birth, because the parents forgot have safe-sex, etc).
Secondly, it will depend on cultural, religious, philosophical views on abortion. Therefore it´s subjective, moral values are subjective. Therefore any absolute value cannot be applied on the subject.
We must therefore make an aristotelican way of analising the subject matter with it´s pro´s (argumentation), con´s (counter-argumentation) and finally a conclusion. The conclusion of a deep human subject matter cannot be contained under absolute values of True or False. But you can at least state your view on the subject if you make good argumentations based on observation of human reality.
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
Third, what if the statement has to do with information that is in your mind, but that you can't quite recall at the time?
So when you said the question "I can't remember.."
Does "can't" in this context mean that it
wasn't mentally possible for you to remember what you had for breakfast, or that you simply
didn't remember what you had for breakfast, at the time.
Would this be a paradox? Or simply a play on words?
In this case it´s true. You couldn´t really remember what you ate. If you could remember it you would provide another answer: "I ate pankakes for breakfast."
The fact that it was "on the tip of your tongue" and that you managed to remember it after with exterior help (your wife) doesn´t invalidate the statement. At the time of the statement your wife wasn´t there, and even if it was in your subcouncious you didn´t manage to remember it.
Therefore "I can´t remember what I ate for breakafast." is a true statement.
But be aware that human memory can also be very subjective.
demagogue on 10/10/2008 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Turtle
He can walk to end B and stand in the water.Corollary to the riddle, or clarification, not just that he can't swim, but the edges of the island are sheer, unclimbable, un-hang-on-able cliffs. So there's no normal way of going around it or getting in the water or hanging on the edges and waiting it out.
They should have made that loophole airtight from the beginning.
There's Deadly Shadows water in that sea, too... :p
Edit: Now that I've figured this out, it's not really so much a riddle. It's exactly what you should really do in this situation.
