Wormhole Suicide?

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:43 pm

Here's the scenario:

-A man opens a wormhole that goes 2 minutes into the past
-Through the wormhole he sees himself before the wormhole was created
-He shoots a bullet through the wormhole (travelling 2 minutes into the past)
-The bullet kills him (two minutes ago)

Questions:

-who fired the bullet?
-does he die?

Have at it!
-Baba

Prose · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Prose** on Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:10 pm

I am not good with riddles though. This is hard. D:

Lukisod · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Lukisod** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:13 pm

A) Single Universe Timeline: It wouldn't happen. If you were to kill yourself you would prevent the initial conditions which would cause the event to take place, and thus nothing happens. I think it has something to do with a loop being created and eventually the most stable timeline would win out in which you did nothing.

B) Multiverse Timelines: You would kill another instance of yourself in another timeline.

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:14 pm

Whoa. We've (my friends and I) never had that question answered before and have tried to figure it out all year.

Here's another:

You try to fail but you succeed. What did you do?

Prose · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Prose** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:27 pm

You failed. You succeeded at failing which was your goal in the first place.

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:30 pm

But you succedded at something when you wanted to fail at it, which means you failed at failing...So you failed?

Zephyr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zephyr** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:16 pm

Rats... Lukisod beat me to the punch in answering said riddle... But yes, he is right.

At your newer riddle however, you would have failed; you failed to fail in the initial task, resulting in success, hence, you failed at failing. True, you did fail at something, but that something was not initially what you had set out to fail at. My reasoning stands.

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:20 pm

But you were trying to fail in the first place, so did you succeed? :P

It's really more of a riddle for face-to-face because everytime someone rebuttles you say "But you were trying to fail," with emphasis on certain words.

i.e.

"You failed."
"But you were trying to fail."
"Oh...then you succeded."
"But you were trying to fail"

Zephyr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zephyr** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:24 pm

Hmm, I guess in the general sense of failing and succeeding, you would have done both, and hence neither. But speaking in specifics, as in trying to fail at a specific task, you would have failed.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:35 pm

You fail (v.tr.) to fail (v.intr.). Therefore, you do the opposite of the intransitive form of the verb: you succeed (v.intr). It's an equivocation.

Zephyr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zephyr** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:36 pm

dealing with it wrote:You fail (v.tr.) to fail (v.intr.). Therefore, you do the opposite of the intransitive form of the verb: you succeed (v.intr). It's an equivocation.

Mind. Blown.

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:55 pm

Tsukihana wrote:Hmm, I guess in the general sense of failing and succeeding, you would have done both, and hence neither. But speaking in specifics, as in trying to fail at a specific task, you would have failed.

I think that's where the question gets confusing. You weren't trying to fail at a specific task, just fail.

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:57 pm

dealing with it wrote:You fail (v.tr.) to fail (v.intr.). ...you succeed (v.intr)...

You were trying to fail. :)

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:29 pm

Sorry to have to nerd out on you here.
Equivocation

Wikipedia wrote:Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.
...
Semantic shift
The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.
...
[eg.] "Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?"

You found you had to stress certain words differently to show that your meaning had shifted. ("...But they're man-eating sharks.")

Nightwraith9 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Nightwraith9** on Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:41 pm

The dude is in space if its a wormhole right? Does he have a space suit?

ohhhhhallibaba · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ohhhhhallibaba** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:08 pm

dealing with it wrote:Sorry to have to nerd out on you here.
Equivocation
Wikipedia wrote:Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.
...
Semantic shift
The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.
...
[eg.] "Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?"

You found you had to stress certain words differently to show that your meaning had shifted. ("...But they're man-eating sharks.")

*applause*

Thank you, my dear friend, for finally putting an end to the ever nagging question!

*kiss on cheeks like those snobby rich people*

Zephyr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zephyr** on Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:22 am

Nightwraith9 wrote:The dude is in space if its a wormhole right? Does he have a space suit?

I don't think you realized how much this post made me laugh; mostly because I couldn't tell if you were serious or not.

Wormhole Suicide?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Re: Wormhole Suicide?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online