Talk:Physical paradox/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

"In physics as in all of science, contradictions and paradoxes are assumed to be artifacts of error and incompleteness because reality is assumed to be completely consistent."

This is a metaphysical idea, not a scientific one. Science makes falsifiable theories to explain observations and experimental results. So far, the rules of mathematics and logic have proved very good as bases for these theories. However, there is no physical law which says reality has to be self-consistent. -- Karada 13:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While there are no physical laws that say reality has to be self-consistent, there is observational evidence to that effect. I agree it's a metaphysical statement, but I don't believe that this statement isn't falsifiable, so it probably is scientific at least in that sense. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Causality for Santa

Many really serious scientist believe in time travel. For example, I could travel back 5 years and meet myself! Then I would have two consciousnesses. My second "I" can live along with my first one--we like each other--untile we feel lonely, built another time machine and--huiiii there's three of us (Autofellation anyone?).

So cheers to all the tenured naturalist philosophers who think long evenings about the stuff. Also: make a perpetuum mobile. Also: make a time loop sending back pink chewing gum. Arrive 1/2^n seconds earlier than before. The universe will explode from chewinggum. Fortunately not ours, but the split-one. And don't forget: Creationism is BUNK--85.74.129.45 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

which reference of the references uses the label "physical paradox"?

It's not clear from the article, and I had never heard of it before. We need a pointer to to a reliable reference for it. Harald88 13:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The first google hit uses the term, though doesn't define it: [1]. --ScienceApologist 02:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant peer reviewed article, but it's illustrative anyway. As the French Wikipedia sets forth, those classes are a bit artificial: a physical paradox can also be a logical one, and this one is indeed both. Harald88 03:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

GZK peer-reviewed: [2], though this says "physics paradox" in the abstract. --ScienceApologist 03:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! - it's better than nothing I guess, but at the same time it makes one wonder if "physics paradox" is better, or if they are equally OK. Harald88 17:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)