Brain Teasers!
last edited by
When history changes based on something you did, then you change as well, you never even think to go and do it, so you don't, so you don't do the event. You haven't already done it if you don't do it at all.
last edited by
If you already did it you simply don't remember. You going back in time doesn't exist because Abe was not attacked. Because you already did it.
last edited by
Well, what if, say, by the course of my actions, than I cease to exist?
If I was never born, I could never do much of anything, particularly go back in time. If I could never go back in time, I could never change history. If I never change history, and so I'd never stop existing.
One could argue that, regardless of what my actions are, time will change in such a manner that it is incredibly unlikely that I would life the EXACT same life I had before. At that point, the person who I was, stops existing, and, as such, this new person, regardless to how similar I am now, is not me.
One who never existed cannot make an impact upon existence.
If I was never born, I could never do much of anything, particularly go back in time. If I could never go back in time, I could never change history. If I never change history, and so I'd never stop existing.
One could argue that, regardless of what my actions are, time will change in such a manner that it is incredibly unlikely that I would life the EXACT same life I had before. At that point, the person who I was, stops existing, and, as such, this new person, regardless to how similar I am now, is not me.
One who never existed cannot make an impact upon existence.
last edited by
You're post is running in circles. Okay... Cue RP example!
Megaman from Present: *Trips on banana peel and breaks back.*
Megaman from Future: *Goes back before Megaman from the Present trips on banana peel and moves it out of the way before disappearing*
Megaman from the Now-Alternate-Present: *Doesn't trip on banana peel, making the alternate-future him not have to go into past, this erasing the future version, but not tripping*
See?
Megaman from Present: *Trips on banana peel and breaks back.*
Megaman from Future: *Goes back before Megaman from the Present trips on banana peel and moves it out of the way before disappearing*
Megaman from the Now-Alternate-Present: *Doesn't trip on banana peel, making the alternate-future him not have to go into past, this erasing the future version, but not tripping*
See?
last edited by
Quote (Shadow.exe)
You're post is running in circles. Okay... Cue RP example!
Megaman from Present: *Trips on banana peel and breaks back.*
Megaman from Future: *Goes back before Megaman from the Present trips on banana peel and moves it out of the way before disappearing*
Megaman from the Now-Alternate-Present: *Doesn't trip on banana peel, making the alternate-future him not have to go into past, this erasing the future version, but not tripping*
See?
Fuck you.
No, seriously, I don't come on RE:RN to get brainfucked.
D:<
last edited by
well...
if yes is the answer, then that would mean that you DON'T always lie
if no is the answer, then it would be contradicting the first statement, since you AREN'T lying...
...I'm just going to go with maybe.
if yes is the answer, then that would mean that you DON'T always lie
if no is the answer, then it would be contradicting the first statement, since you AREN'T lying...
...I'm just going to go with maybe.
last edited by
Well, Shadow, that's what I like to call Cycling Paradox.
Suppose you are lying.
That means that you are lying about lying, which means that you must be telling the truth. BUT! That would mean that you are, in fact, lying, because you are telling IN saying that you always tell a lie.
Therefor, you claim in not valid. Good day, sir. : D
(( PS: I'm really good at breaking things like these down. Too bad I can't draw a diagram. XD ))
Suppose you are lying.
That means that you are lying about lying, which means that you must be telling the truth. BUT! That would mean that you are, in fact, lying, because you are telling IN saying that you always tell a lie.
Therefor, you claim in not valid. Good day, sir. : D
(( PS: I'm really good at breaking things like these down. Too bad I can't draw a diagram. XD ))
last edited by
Quote (ZeroSaber)
Well, Shadow, that's what I like to call Cycling Paradox.
Suppose you are lying.
That means that you are lying about lying, which means that you must be telling the truth. BUT! That would mean that you are, in fact, lying, because you are telling IN saying that you always tell a lie.
Therefor, you claim in not valid. Good day, sir. : D
(( PS: I'm really good at breaking things like these down. Too bad I can't draw a diagram. XD ))
And the man wins a prize... If I had any to give away...
last edited by
Quote (Shadow.exe)
...I always tell a lie. Am I lying?
That can be confusing unless you can give an answer not directly related to the question itself, but the person asking the question.
The answer? You are lying, for not all statements you say will be a lie, and therefore you will or have told the truth, and therefore you have almost always told a lie.
Or
You sir, are not in a correct frame a mind. Your statement is false, but you think it to be true, therefore you are telling the truth.