The monotheistic all powerful one.
My favorite paradox is the “Stay signed in” option Microsoft gives you when signing in. Because despite keeping you signed in on every other site in existence, Microsoft, who is usually hooked into your OS, does not. Thus, stay signed in runs contradictory to one’s expectations.
I thought the paradox is why it keeps fucking asking me - I said yes dammit.
They aren’t offering to do it, just asking if it’s what you want.
Gotta check and be sure you’re being annoyed as much as possible.
I like George Carlin’s version: “If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself can’t lift it?”
Yes. Yes he can. It’s only a paradox to our comprehension.
I don’t see why that’s a paradox. It’s like asking if infinity is bigger than infinity, where both infinities are aleph 0.
Weird attribution, man :) That one, and a lot of others like it, come all the way from the 12th Century and thereabouts. Carlin’s influence is awesome and deserved, but I don’t think it stretches that far :)
“Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?”
"All of the “is infinite power so powerful that it could overpower its own power” type questions just annoy me.
Is infinite power so powerful it can do something that it can’t do?
Yes it can. And then it can do that anyway. Otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite."
So you’re saying he would wait for it to cool down before eating it?
It’s a copy pasta from another thread, just like the comment I replied to.
I was gonna say that but didn’t know the exact phrasing
Why do blind people hate skydiving?
Because they can’t see anything?
Is a fart a ghost?
Not a paradox but Roko’s Basilisk is a fun one
Roku’s basilisk just doesn’t make sense to me because any semi-competent AI would be able to tell that it is not punishing the people that failed to help create it it’s just wasting energy punishing a simulacrum.
We are not going to suddenly be teleported into a future of torment. If the AI had the ability to pluck people out of the past it should have no reason to waste it on torture porn.
Any person alive during the time when the Basilisk is being created is at risk. Also, if you create a good AI instead, then you didn’t help build the Basilisk so if anyone else does, you’re screwed.
What if this is that simulation tho.
Then AI already exists and you have no memory or recollection of either helping to create it or accidentally contributing to its non-creation and therefore you being tormented by the AI would serve no moral purpose.
Any torture you would be experiencing in that simulation would simply be that the AI desires to torture, and you happen to be one of its victims.
Roko’s basilisk would still not be in play
I guess I would say the paradox of tolerance. I’m sorry but I’m just gonna yoink the definition from Wikipedia because I’m not great at explaining things:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Bonus least favorite paradox: You need experience to get a job and you need a job to get experience.
I think the job experience is less of a paradox and more of a Catch-22. True nonetheless
I don’t think so. I interpret paradoxes as being either philosophical impasses (ie, 2 conceptually true statements conflict each other in a way that makes you question where one statement’s truth ends and the other statement’s truth begins) or a situation in which a solution is unintuitive.
A Catch-22 is more of a physical and intentional impasse, where obstacles are intentionally set up in such a way that people are unable to make a choice. For instance, in the original example of a Catch-22, there is no philosophical argument saying that only insane people are allowed to not fly - it is an arbitrary rule that some higher-up established. And likewise, it is entirely arbitrary to define insane as being willing to fly.
I guess to simplify my stance, it’s a paradox if it makes you think “the universe has made this unsolvable” and it’s a Catch-22 if it makes you think “some asshole made this unsolvable”
The phrase, “You have to be intolerant to be tolerant” doesn’t sound like a contradiction to you?
I think you’re missing the point. The question is about a tolerant society.
Regardless of if the society itself is stable, for the society to be tolerant it must be intolerant of the intolerant, and therefore a tolerant society must be intolerant.
By treating tolerance as a binary (it’s either completely present or completely absent) you’ve removed your argument very far from reality. The goal in reality is to be as tolerant as possible, and the most tolerant stable state simply has some (limited) amount of (very specific) intolerance in it.
Again leaving out the second half of the quote.
They always do.
Saw this a while ago and it solves that “paradox” nicely.
The real paradox is this opinion coming from Twitter
It doesn’t though. Pure unlimited tolerance would include tolerating someone’s breach of contract, logically speaking. Also, this is a dangerous road to go down, because you can rephrase pretty much anything as a contract and justify your actions or beliefs with people breaking it.
Pure unlimited tolerance would include tolerating someone’s breach of contract, logically speaking.
That “pure, unlimited tolerance” is what they mean by tolerance as a moral standard. Tolerance as a contract is “we have each entered into an agreement to be tolerant of each other. If you are not tolerant of me, you have broken the terms of our agreement, so I will not be tolerant of you.”
I don’t see a slippery slope here; I’d be interested to hear more about why this is a dangerous road to go down.
A contract just codifies an existing power dynamic, because its terms depend on the negociating powers of the people agreeing to it. It doesn’t say anything about the morality of the terms or the context in which it was signed. Very extreme and on-the-nose example: “We have agreed to only allow white people, you have breached that contract …”. This works just fine if your moral system is based on contracts, but it’s obvously immoral. There’s also the conundrum of people never explicitly agreeing to the social contract they are born into, and even if they did, it’s not like they have much of a choice.
Imo pure tolerance is a real paradox, because you cannot tolerate intolerance, and that makes you intolerant yourself. You can’t achieve it, but you probably should not want to in the first place. There are certain things we will and certain things we won’t tolerate in a modern society, and that is completely fine. The important thing is that we recognize this and make good decisions about which is which.
The reason these discussions often break down right about here is because the participants have in mind completely different working definitions of “tolerance.”
For example, the social contract comment above assumes an active definition like recognizing others’ personal sovereignty, i.e. their right to act and not be acted upon. To aid understanding, we can represent mutual tolerance between people as a multinational peace treaty between nations. Intolerance is equivalent to one of these nations violating the treaty by attacking another.
Defense or sanction by neighboring states against the aggressor doesn’t violate the treaty further, of course, since it is precisely these deterrents which undergird every treaty. Likewise, condemning and punishing intolerance which threatens the personal sovereignty of others is baseline maintenance for mutual tolerance, because there’s always a jackass who WILL fuck around if you don’t GUARANTEE he will find out.
Conversely, another popular notion of tolerance — the one you may have in mind, as I once did — is a passive definition that amounts to tacit approval of others’ value systems, i.e. relativistic truth, permissive morality, etc.
This kumbaya definition is a strawman originally used by talking heads because, I suspect, it quickly invokes well-worn mid-century tropes, especially for those who grew up in the era, of namby-pamby suckers and morally compromised weaklings which still trigger strong feelings, like disgust and contempt, that reliably drive ratings and engagement. These days the only regular mention of this term is this manufactured paradox using the bad-faith definition, so the original idea is commonly misunderstood.
I’ve always hated the intolerance paradox, because it is the same logic used to justify atrocities of all sorts. Trying to make society safe for a preferred group, and targeting anyone who takes offense to that idea.
Movement of any kind is a paradox if measured
Not sure if its what you’re talking about but I really like the Ship of Theseus thought experiment, if an object is the same object after having had all of its original components replaced. Always makes me think of if an exact clone of you is created (same thoughts, memories, etc…) should that be considered you?
The controversial thought experiment about Star Trek transporters.
Where an individual is dematerialized in one location, transmitted as a signal somewhere else and rematerialized somewhere else.
Were they killed when they were dematerialized, cloned and a newly born entity that is an exact clone rematerialized at the other end?
Are they just killing people and recreating copies everytime they transport people?
What’s really gonna crumble your cookie is, “Does it matter?”
Explained in https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1
Even in the trek universe, some people refuse to take transporters. I’d pry be one of them. You have no idea if you’re killing yourself every time, and its just clones out the other side.
Are they just killing people and recreating copies everytime they transport people?
Yes, it literally Prestiges you, as evidenced by the time it didn’t kill Riker and there were two of him
In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion [cells] will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.
In essence, we are our own Ship of Theseus.
And I would venture that the answer to your question is yes, but no. The moment your exact clone experiences something you don’t, you two are no longer exactly the same. And I would wager that moment would happen very fast.
The moment of divergence is instantaneous between the clone and original. The only way it could not be instantaneous, is if both were just a brain connected to the exact same simulation, experiencing the exact same inputs. If they didn’t respond the same, then they aren’t an exact clone. Even then, the brains would be sustained with different blood, made up of trillions of slightly different atoms — although similar, not 100% identical due to quantum mechanics — with a slightly different fluid dynamics. Actually the only way they could be identical is if they weren’t brains but identical code, running in an identical simulation, with the exact same boundaries, and no possibility of probability, chaos or divergence from that code… Oh no I’ve gone cross eyed.
If and when we figure out human cloning, it’s sure going to bring up a near infinite number of legal issues. Is the clone a new person? Is their birthday yours or the day they were cloned? Are they the same age as you? Or is a clone a new born?
If they are a copy of you, are they beholden to any legal agreements you’ve made? Are they liable for crimes you commit?
These are the things I think about when stoned…
I read a good sci-fi book called “Six Wakes” by Mur Lafferty that touches on this topic, you might enjoy it.
In the distant future cloning has become commonplace, but is used as a continuation of a person’s life. Ie a person is born, lives there life, and at the end they are cloned and their memories transferred over to the new body, and life goes on. Also, a person would make “backups” of their consciousness in case they were killed/died accidentally, and would be “reinstalled” in a clone.
Sounds great! I’ll have to check that out!
Honestly though, that sounds like the only way to do cloning without completely redoing every single law in every single country, city, state, Providence, county, parish, etc. The implications of cloning fascinates me way more than the cloning itself
Ship of Theseus applies to every human, because all our cells get replaced over and over until we die. At a cellular level, you’re wholly different from yourself 10 years ago. Are you still you?
One thought is that “You” is just an unbroken string of consciousness. Which means you cease to be every time you sleep, and the person that wakes up just has the memories of being you.
A different perspective,seen in buddhism and similar worldviews, is that the only “you” that exists is the consciousness experiencing reality at any given moment.
You’re not wholly different as some cells are still the same. Neurons don’t undergo the same rapid cycling as skin cells, for example.
Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn’t eat it?
I think that’s how he created our universe 5,000 years ago … he’s just waiting for us to cool off so can eventually take a bite.
If he bites too soon, we might end up on the floor though :(
All of the “is infinite power so powerful that it could overpower its own power” type questions just annoy me.
Is infinite power so powerful it can do something that it can’t do?
Yes it can. And then it can do that anyway. Otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite.
Could god create an “is infinite power so powerful that it could overpower its own power” type question that you wouldn’t find annoying?
Only if he broke into a radio station & doused that burrito with hot sauce from a battery powered toy gun!
Also, I’m gonna need a football helmet full of cottage cheese & any naked pics of Bea Arthur you happen to have lying around.
Alanis morissette’s song ironic contains no solid cases of irony, mostly bad luck or poor timing, and is therefore ironic.
I read an interview with her once that was kind of funny and humanizing. She wrote and recorded that song before she was famous and had no idea that it would ever be heard. Then it blew up and people have been giving her shit about it for decades now.
Could you imagine if you wrote a shitty Lemmy comment that became extremely viral and people were like, “you fucking moron, how could you have written something so dumb?!”
Not you got me praying I never get famous
Mine is similar to yours in that it’s about the power of God. It’s called the Epicurean Trilemma:
- If a god is omniscient and omnipotent, then they have knowledge of all evil and have the power to put an end to it. But if they do not end it, they are not omnibenevolent.
- If a god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then they have the power to extinguish evil and want to extinguish it. But if they do not do it, their knowledge of evil is limited, so they are not omniscient.
- If a god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then they know of all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But if they do not, which must be because they are not capable of changing it, so they are not omnipotent.
This proves fairly simply that God as commonly interpreted by modern Christians cannot exist. Early Christians and Jews had no problem here, because their god was simply not meant to be omnibenevolent. Go even further back in time and he was not omnipotent, and possibly not omniscient, either. “Thou shalt have no gods before me” comes from a time when proto-Jews were henotheists, people who believed in the existence of multiple deities while only worshipping a single one.
The Christian explanation for this is that god doesn’t do evil, people do.
And god created people with free will to do evil. If he made people stop doing evil deeds, they would be his puppets, not free-willed humans. So he has the power to end all evil but chooses not to.Now as for why god allows natural disasters, diseases and other tragedies to befall his creation – again, that’s just the consequence of our actions, cause a woman gave an apple to her man in the past.
The Christian god created every aspect of the universe and how it works. He therefore could have created a universe in which there was no such thing as evil or suffering, and given people in that universe free will. So even that doesn’t hold up.
I think that’s their point; they’re saying that’s what God did. He “created a universe in which there was no such thing as evil or suffering and [gave] people in that universe free will.”
And humans screwed it up.
I’m not saying that, mind you. I’m saying I think you just agreed with the person you’re debating as a proof that they were wrong.
It doesn’t matter what you tack on, it doesn’t change my point — the only way humans could “screw it up” is if God made all the negative and horrible shit part of the universe. All you are saying is that God made a universe where there was no evil or suffering actively happening, but the concepts existed and were possible — because they ultimately happened and only possible things happen. And God chose to make them possible things as omnipotent creator of everything that exists.
Wait, so this God gives me true free will, and then places me in a world where I can’t change anything? Everything is fixed, immovable? Or where I only have “good” choices available? Is that what you think God should have done? Like, how does your version even work?
Or does God give us fake free will, and keep our minds from thinking “bad” thoughts?
If I’m free, I can screw up. Otherwise, I’m not free.
No. You aren’t getting it. The Christian god created every aspect of the universe. Light and dark. Up and down. You are still thinking about our universe, in which these negative things are possible, and how you would have to be restricted in what you do in our universe in order to prevent you from doing certain things. But god could have set all the parameters of the universe differently such that they just didn’t exist at all. You wouldn’t miss them or be prevented from doing them. It would be like if there were a fifth cardinal direction in an alternate universe, and someone in that universe thought “if god prevented me from going in that direction, I wouldn’t have free will anymore”. But here we are, with only four cardinal directions, and free will. We aren’t being stopped from doing anything, it just isn’t part of our universe and doesn’t even make sense in it.
I think I get what you’re saying but it is a little bit beyond me.
I still wonder if the problem doesn’t come down to Free Will itself. Regardless of what universe one is living in, if you have only two people in it and they each have free will at some point the free will of one is going to intrude on the free will of the other, and they’re going to require some kind of negotiation or polite accommodation. Some kind of social interaction.
And if one doesn’t take this action but instead proceeds with one’s free will regardless of the other’s free will there is a problem that is inevitably going to exist no matter what universe exists.
If your options are “do as I say” or “suffer for all eternity” you aren’t really capable of exercising free will.
And god created people with free will
Frankly, I don’t buy this as an explanation even for human-created evil. It is still evidence that god cannot be tri-omni. Because it is still a situation in which god is able to remove evil and is aware of the evil, and yet he chooses to permit evil. Even evil done by one human against another, when the other is entirely innocent. And that cannot be omnibenevolent.
From how you phrased it I suspect you agree with me here, but the natural disasters argument is even more ludicrous. It doesn’t even come close to working as a refutation of the Epicurian Trilemma.
Christian here, don’t agree with your “biblical” interpretation
If Christians could agree with each other about what’s in the bible, history would be a lot more boring.
But we don’t have free will. The bible makes that perfectly clear in Romans 9.
The Christian explanation for this is that god doesn’t do evil, people do.
And god created people with free will to do evil. If he made people stop doing evil deeds, they would be his puppets, not free-willed humans.I never understood this argument. If he’s all-powerful, he would have the ability to eliminate all evil without affecting free will.
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Just leaving God’s wife Ashera here. Yes, he was married once. Look it up.
He had a sister too, super evil but it’s ok because a human dude talked her out of destroying everything since God couldn’t stop her.
Carry on…
God is not Omnibenevolent would be my take.
A simple way I’ve been touching on this for a while is what I call “The problem of existence”: why would god create a non-divine existence such as our selves?
Put aside evil. If God is all three omnis, why make something that is lesser? I figure that the answer is they themselves must also be lesser than the three omnis.
Idk people like being in charge of stuff and not being bored maybe God would be the same way
God clearly can’t exist because an omnipotent, omniscient, and just God is a paradox already. Omnipotence and omniscience means that God, if they exist, would have full control of every moment of the universe (even if they only “acted” initially). Some (I’d argue nearly all) people suffer for reasons out of their control. Only deserved suffering is just. Since undeserved suffering exists then God cannot exist (at least omniscient, omnipotent, and just - as we understand those terms). God could be an omniscient, omnipotent asshole or sadist… God could be omniscient and just (aka the martyr God who knows of all suffering but is powerless to prevent it)… or God could be omnipotent and just (aka the naive God who you could liken to a developer running around desperately trying to spot patch problems and just making things worse).
Alternatively, by omnipotent maybe the scriptures are just hyping them up - “God is so fucking buff - this one time they lifted up this rock that was like this big. Fucking amazing.”
Ah, the Epicurean Trilemma. This was my answer too. Weirdly attributed to a guy from before monotheism was the predominant belief.
Alternatively, by omnipotent maybe the scriptures are just hyping them up
The scriptures don’t use that word, and it’s notable because the Old Testament didn’t believe that to be the case, either. Early Israelites were henotheistic. They believed other gods might exist (hence the need for “thou shalt have no other gods before me”), but only worshipped the one. When multiple gods exist, it is by definition necessary that they cannot be omnipotent.
It’s pretty clear that he is not meant to be omnibenevolent either. The god of the Tanakh is wrathful. Christians later reinterpreted him as omnibenevolent, but this was clearly not the authors’ intent. I believe Jewish scholars still don’t think he’s omnibenevolent today.
Religious scholars have come up with a number of other proposed solutions to the trilemma. Ones involving free will are quite popular, though not the only ones. I have yet to find any argument that is remotely convincing, however. Saying “free will” just means god either cannot or chooses not to enable people to have a form of free will that does not involve them desiring to do evil. It also ignores the very many evils not created by human action. Child cancer, earthquakes, drought-induced famine (today humans have the technological ability to solve this last one and might simply choose not to, but historically it has been an insurmountable problem not caused by human free will).
I recommend you read “Religion of the Apostles” by Stephen De Young. He explains the common misconceptions of the early Israelite beliefs. The “Gods” are lesser divine beings that were meant to protect the 70 tribes after the Tower of Babel fell. The deities rebelled against God and led the nations astray and were worshipped. The tribe of Israel worshipped the God of “Most high” which is the one true God above all divine beings. So they aren’t henotheistic because there is only one God. The term “Gods” was used because they were divine beings but they were created whereas God the Father is not. Everything proceeds from him.
A great podcast that explains evil and suffering is “Whole Counsel of God” with the same guy. In short, suffering is unavoidable because man falls from Eden after sinning and the consequence of sin is death. Making death the consequence is a mercy because man can become sanctified during his life and through death re-enter the kingdom of God. Consequently suffering draws people closer to God than anything else.
I’m not a theologian and wrote this on my phone but that’s my quick recap. The book is way more thorough of course.
I haven’t read the book, but I did some reading about it, and it seems like it’s come against some significant criticism for being poor academics and its author criticised for presenting his own one academic idea as a fact.
So while it’s certainly interesting to hear his theory from your summary of it, and to learn that there are competing theories out there, I don’t think it’s going to change my understanding of where scholars more broadly stand on it. The fact that I can’t really find anyone talking about de Young’s interpretation of early Israelite monolatry (which I’ve just realised is possibly a more accurate term than henotheism, though the lines between the two are blurred) concerns me from that perspective. Which is not to say that’s it’s necessarily wrong. It especially could have been a phase they went through on the way from monolatry to Second Temple Judaism’s monotheism.
But in general I’m very wary of non-academic books presenting grand theories that cannot be well backed-up by academic sources, even when by an author with academic credentials. Reminds me too much of Guns, Germs, and Steel.
“His” main critique is against evolutionary theology which is common amongst reformers and Christian critics. “God was seen this way. Then it changed and he was seen this way. OT God is angry. NT God is compassionate etc” This is not a new idea and has been held by the Orthodox church since it’s inception and has been codified for the last 1200-1300 years. The Orthodox view everything consistently through a Christological lens which is why their view of sotieriology etc is so different than what you will get from Protestants or even Roman Catholics.
Fr. Stephen De Youngs book is just a readily consumable encapsulation of ancient arguments, historical findings (such as the Rosetta stones) with his own analyses and contributions. Would you be better off reading the church fathers and primary sources yourself? Possibly but you’d also need to know ancient Greek and Hebrew.
Christians and academics love to argue and I’m not surprised to see that people are critical of the book. I don’t think there is any religious commentary that hasn’t received criticism.
At any rate I encourage you to look at Orthodox theology more generally. You will find a logical consistency and depth of analysis that the secular world usually says is lacking in the Christian worldview.
As you said, that does depend entirely on God having those properties, exactly as you define them.
Alternatively, if definitive property is “universal consciousness”, then God clearly must exist. Either consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complex systems, in which case the entire universe is obviously more complex than the human nervous system and consciousness should certainly emerge within it; or, consciousness is some external field, like gravity or electromagnetism, that complex systems can channel. Either way, the existence of your own consciousness implies a universal one.
I don’t think your alternative proposal makes sense, at least not to me. An emergent property being present in one complex system doesn’t imply that it must be present in all complex systems.
What does imply it’s presence, then? The emergence of comparable effects is implied by isomorphic complexities. If you can’t define the foundational structure which implies emergence, you can only fall back on a probabilistic approach.
Unless you can define exactly what structure it is that belies the emergence of consciousness, you must acknowledge that the comparative complexity of a more complex system is undoubtedly probabilistically suggestive of at least comparable, if not far more complex, emergent behavior.
The proposition that consciousness is emergent, but only at a very specific and narrow band of complexity, falls quickly to Occam’s razor. It’s logically and probabilistically ridiculous.
My point is that not all complex systems are the same. Maybe it depends on your definition of consciousness but from what I know we have only ever observed that in a very specific set of complex systems which is brains and possibly fungi. Two different systems being complex isn’t enough in my view to infer that they would have the same properties unless there are other similarities.
It absolutely depends on your definition of consciousness. Every conversation about a concept depends on the definition of that concept. My definition is based upon sensation, processing, and decision-making, in regards to the self and the environment. I’d argue that plants and even cells exhibit simple forms of consciousness. If you take the emergent-property perspective, I’d argue even molecules and individual particles have a broad and abstract consciousness, although certainly several orders of magnitude less sophisticated than yours or mine.
The statement “we have only ever observed that in a very specific set of complex systems which is brains and possibly fungi” tells me less about consciousness than it does about our ability to observe it.
Monty Hall
The Monty Hall problem is not a paradox, and I’m hesitant to call it a conundrum. It has a very simple solution. The “point” of it is that people inherently don’t like that solution because it challenges their instinct to stick with their first choice.
Correct, extend it to 10 or 100 choices instead of 3 and it’s easy to see.
Me: Pick a number between 1 and 100.
Them: 27
Me: Okay, the number is either 27 or 44, do you want to change your choice?
Them, somehow: No, changing my choice now still has the same probability of being right as when I made my first choice.
It’s obvious that they should want to change every time.
I: 27
You: The number is either 27 or 44. Do you want to change your choice?
I: why would I?
Because when you first picked 27, it was 1 out of 100 choices. Then I tell you that you either got it right, or it’s this other number. None of the others are correct, only 27 or 44.
So you think your 1/100 choice was better than the one I’m giving you now? On average, you’ll be right 1% of the time if you don’t switch. If you do switch, you’ll be correct 99% of the time.
Another way to think of it is: you choose 27 or you choose ALL of the other 99 numbers knowing that I’ll tell you that 98 of them are wrong and you’ll be left with the correct one out of that batch. One of those clearly has better odds, no?
In this example, there were 100 choices in the beginning, and later you reduced to 2 choices. Clearly an advantage. Does the same apply to the 3 door problem?
Let’s take this question in another angle. Instead of 3, there are only 2 doors. I am to choose one out of 2, which has a prize. After I choose one, you show me a third door which is empty. Now, should I change my option?
Yes, it’s the same concept. The same math/logic behind it doesn’t change. You’re choosing 1/3 or you are choosing 2/3 and I’ll tell you which of the two is incorrect. It’s just easier to visualize with 100 doors instead.
I’m not sure I’m following the other angle…there are 3 correct possibilities at the start but I can only choose 2? Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?
Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?
Yes that one. Similar to the one you did with 100 doors, just in opposite direction.
The ship of Theseus.
I like the version of it from John Dies At The End. Same thought experiment just with an axe
The two slit experiment.
why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?
The same reason we use ship for a cargo and car for shipping.
A driveway is named because it was originally a circle that you could use to drive right up to the house. Think old mansions in movies.
Parkways had separated lanes with shrubberies and plants on between and around, basically parks with a road through them.
A driveway that is straight and ends in a garage isn’t really a driveway. Separated lanes with no plants or parks isn’t really a parkway. But the names both stuck around.
And why do we bake cookies but cook bacon?
Jokes aside, I have baked my bacon and it works really well for preparing an awful lot of bacon very quickly.
Once you do that, you have bacon that you can quickly microwave and slap on a sandwich, plus you can easily collect all of the grease for making gravies or general cooking purposes if you so desire.
I’d go so far as to say baking is superior- it never reaches temp to make the oil pop and makes a mess inside the oven, and you’re only limited on how much bacon you can cook by how many cookie sheets you own (and maybe how much bacon you have stored away in the freezer 😁). Great point on the grease, easy to collect afterwards! Makes great rice!
