10 Paradoxes to Keep Your Brain Busy for awhile

When it comes to mentally solving problems, logic and common sense are great allies. With their help, we were able to find the best solution to achieve the desired result. However, there are paradoxes, which are those dilemmas capable of challenging our brain by putting us in front of questions that look more like a labyrinth.

In this post, the awesome.club brings you a list of the best known paradoxes in history. Our intention is that you put your brain to train hard!

It is also known as the “denial paradox”, and was proposed by the philosopher Carl Hempel. His aim was to prove that when events coincide over time as defined by a theory, our confidence in that theory increases. To illustrate his point, he used the theory that “all crows are black” as an example.

If we analyze millions of crows, observing that they are all black, we will believe more and more in the theory according to which “everything that is not black is not a crow”. When observing a red apple that, because it is not black, is a “non-crow”, the conviction that all crows are black is stronger.

In Crete, at the time of Ancient Greece, a man named Epimenides of Knossos said that all Cretans were liars. The statement might even seem simple, but if it were true that everyone in Crete lied, then Epimenides, who was a Cretan, would not be telling the truth.

And on the contrary, if the statement that everyone lies were false, Epimenides’ statement would end up being true, but being a Cretan, the sentence should be considered a lie.

This social paradox was proposed by Jerry B. Harvey, in his book The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management (in free translation). In the example, a family is playing dominoes on the porch. The parents-in-law and a couple are present.

The father-in-law suggests that they go to Abilene, located 80km from where they were. The wife says that traveling would be a good idea, although she is not entirely convinced, as it was very hot and she thought that no one would agree with her. The husband also accepts, assuming that his mother-in-law is very keen to go. So they end up hitting the road. As the wife had predicted, the journey was long, hot and tiring.

The meal at the restaurant they visit does not go down well, and they decide to return home after a few hours. On the way back, the wife says, in a sarcastic tone, that the trip had not been very good. The husband responds by saying that he only agreed to travel to please his mother-in-law, who had not commented on the matter, while the father-in-law says he suggested the trip because everyone seemed bored.

They are stunned to realize that they have made the decision together to do something that no one else wanted. So Harvey tried to explain how some situations force us to do things that we don’t necessarily want to do.

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger created a system composed of an opaque box containing a container of poison, a device with a single radioactive particle with a 50% probability of exploding, and a cat. Thus, the cat has a 50% chance of surviving inside the box.

Electrons have the ability to be in two places at once, like the receptors that indicate whether the cat is alive or dead, showing both results simultaneously. However, only by opening the box is it possible to verify whether the cat has died or not. As long as the box is closed, both statements are correct, characterizing the paradox.

This dilemma, also known as the time travel paradox, was thought up by science fiction author René Barjavel in 1943 as part of his novel The Reckless Traveler🇧🇷 In it, it is questioned what would happen if a man traveled to the past and killed his own grandfather, the father of his biological father.

If the grandfather dies in the past, then the man himself would never be born. Therefore, it is not possible to know who would kill the grandfather in this context. Thus, perhaps the grandfather would survive, allowing the birth of the traveler, and so on.

This paradox also has another name: “Rusell’s paradox”. It demonstrates set theory and is attributed to Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician and writer. The dilemma tells the story of As-Samet, a barber from an ancient emirate, who was very skilled in caring for beards and hair. One day, the emir determined that, given the lack of barbers, the existing barbers should only shave men who could not shave themselves.

While As-Samet was shaving the emir, he told him that, in his eagerness to carry out the determination, he found himself facing a great dilemma. He was the only barber in the locality, and could not shave himself, since, according to the law, he was prevented from shaving himself as he was the only barber in the emirate. In the eyes of the emir, that reflection was so profound that he decided to give As-Samet the hand of one of his daughters in marriage.

It was proposed by Albert Einstein to explain the theory of relativity, establishing that the measure of time is not absolute, as it depends on the movement and perspective of the spectator. The paradox uses the story of two twins: one of them would make a long journey into space, at high speed, while the other would remain on Earth for about 20 years.

The paradox establishes that the twin who stayed at home will age faster due to time dilation, that is, because he sees time passing more slowly. On the other hand, the twin who left in the spaceship will come back looking younger, since, having traveled at high speed, he will see time running faster. All this because time is relative.

To explain the paradoxical facts within the mathematical concept of infinity, Hilbert used as an example the story of two great entrepreneurs in the hotel sector who had the ambition to build the largest hotel in the world. Faced with the issue involving the number of rooms in the development, they came to the conclusion that, if someone built a hotel with greater accommodation capacity, soon its establishment would no longer be the largest in the world. So they decide to build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.

When the hotel opened, it was very successful, so that the infinite rooms were occupied by infinite guests, and there was no room to receive any more. To resolve the dilemma and prevent any customer from running out of room, those responsible asked each guest to add 1 to their room number and move to the corresponding unit. Thus, the person in room 1 would move to room number 2, room 2 would move to room 3, and so on, so that room number 1 would become available.

Some time later, countless guests arrived and, once again, there were no problems to accommodate everyone. Each customer was asked to multiply their room number by two, so that everyone occupied an even-numbered suite. Thus, the infinite guests would occupy the infinite odd numbers.

This dilemma was used to bring to light the problems of logic involving what we do not yet know, but which we have some idea of ​​what might happen. The paradox is illustrated with the story of a crocodile that snatches a boy from his mother’s arms. The animal promises the woman that it will return her child as long as she guesses what he will do with the child.

The mother replies that the animal will devour the child, creating a dilemma for the reptile. If the crocodile decides to eat the boy, he will be breaking his promise, since the mother guessed correctly. Therefore, the child should be returned. In case the crocodile decides to deliver the child, the mother would be wrong, but in the same way she would have her child back.

According to Greek legend, Theseus was returning from Crete to Athens in the company of several young men. They were on a thirty-oared vessel that had been maintained for several generations and was in pristine condition, as each damaged part was soon replaced with a new one.

This caused philosophers to start discussing whether the ship was the same or if the frequent replacement of parts made it a different vessel. They asked themselves: if the parts of the original boat had been swapped, what then would Theseus’ ship be? What has been renovated over the years or each of the old parts?

Do you know another paradox capable of leaving us reflecting for hours? Do you think you have the solution to any of the questions presented above? Leave a comment with your conclusions!