The monotheistic all powerful one.

  • z00s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    You provide three flawed ways of measuring expectation; that’s the issue in a nutshell.

    Its not a true paradox as the whole gambit rests on a changeable emotion, not logic.

    The prisoner could wake up each morning and simply say “I expect to die today”. How would the judge determine the truth? It would be impossible.

    If someone punches you in the face after saying “knock knock”, it doesn’t make it a knock knock joke, and nor is this a paradox.

    • Susaga@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      My dude. The paradox doesn’t change based on whether or not the judge knows the truth, or even if the man dies.

      The truth is the man was made not to expect a thing by his own logic proving he would always expect a thing. The paradox is based on his own prediction being wrong because of his prediction. In this instance, his prediction was what his emotions would be.

      A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says “why the long face?” I haven’t said how they remove the horse from the bar, so does that mean I didn’t tell a joke? Or does horse removal not actually matter to the joke?

      • z00s@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No. A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

        In this case, there is no true premesis.

        That’s the core of the problem. Your incorrect interpretation of the joke metaphor demonstrates that you don’t understand this.

        • Susaga@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I find it funny that you directly quoted wikipedia to write that (exact wording from the paradox article, I checked), but ignored the sentence immediately before it (…or a statement that runs contrary to one’s expectation). Also, the linked articles at the bottom include the unexpected hanging page. Maybe read the entire wiki page before citing it?

          Also, in case wikipedia suddenly isn’t enough, here’s an article on wolfram to back me up: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnexpectedHangingParadox.html

          • z00s@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It doesn’t “back you up” at all, it simply restates the paradox. Maybe learn how to argue?

            When you get to the point where you’re nitpicking sources, you’re admitting that you have no substantive argument available.