Paradoxes
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| The 'Catch-22' pradox is situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it |
Reduction:
He needs A to get B, but can only get A if he does not need B.
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| For example; I need to pay the arrears on the mortgage to release equity in the house but I need to release equity in the house to pay the arrears on mortgage. |
Reduction:
He is in need of A for B and B for A.
In my mind they reduce to different things, therefore, your example is not a catch-22 (by your own definition of the term) and therefore your statement:
| a catch-22 paradox isn't always a no-win situation |
is false.
Please if I am wrong, I will admit it, but only if I am proven wrong.
| He needs A to get B, but can only get A if he does not need B. |
So, (B→A && A→!B)
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
The 'Catch-22' pradox is situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it
Reduction:
He needs A , but can only get A if he does not need A.
For example; I need to pay the arrears on the mortgage to release equity in the house but I need to release equity in the house to pay the arrears on mortgage.
Reduction:
He needs to clear the arrears, but can only clear the arrears if he is not in arrears.
Reduction:
He needs A , but can only get A if he does not need A.
For example; I need to pay the arrears on the mortgage to release equity in the house but I need to release equity in the house to pay the arrears on mortgage.
Reduction:
He needs to clear the arrears, but can only clear the arrears if he is not in arrears.
Last edited on
@Grey Wolf
Your case is deadlock: to get A you need B, to get B you need A.
Catch-22: to get A you must take path which will make A unobtainable.
Your case is deadlock: to get A you need B, to get B you need A.
Catch-22: to get A you must take path which will make A unobtainable.
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| Catch-22: to get A you must take path which will make A unobtainable. |
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| a catch-22 paradox isn't always a no-win situation |
Would you mind giving an example?
@MiiNiPaa thank you for the correction.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| Your case is deadlock: |
I have no problem with that as:
| wikipedia wrote: |
|---|
| Deadlock situation can be compared to the classic "chicken or egg" problem. It can be also considered a paradoxical "Catch-22" situation. |
| Script Coder wrote: |
|---|
| > a catch-22 paradox isn't always a no-win situation Would you mind giving an example? |
If you are on life support you are not dead, yet. At least that is why you are on life support in the first place. So your example does not make sense to me.
Are you saying if the hospital puts me on life support it means I am going to die anyway? I am pretty sure plenty of people have gone on life support and lived to tell the tale years later.
Re-think the situation. The life-support system won't turn off unless the person is dead, as a safety feature for accidental un-plugs (it uses a battery). If the life support system is off and you are connected to it, it prevents you from breathing because the air valve is closed, so you would suffocate and die. Reread my previous post now.
Re-think the situation. The life-support system won't turn off unless the person is dead, as a safety feature for accidental un-plugs (it uses a battery). If the life support system is off and you are connected to it, it prevents you from breathing because the air valve is closed, so you would suffocate and die. Reread my previous post now.
Last edited on
The uk government found a loophole to take away disabled peoples benefits, they sent them to get a check up if they attended then they were healthy enoughto get somewhere and didnt have a mobility problem, if they couldnt make it then they failed to show up to the medical and lose their benefits
@devonrevenge: that sounds like corruption that should be protested. But yeah it's a catch-22.
Last edited on
Look up Atos, Tony Blair bought a huge amount of shares in a french company he then used to check every disability benefit in the UK,
they just use software to process what people say and analyze the medicals, loads of people (over 1000 deaths many many more accidents) have been told they are fit for work when they are not, especially mental illnesses where most paranoid schizophrenics will not pass because of course they wont tell the truth!
I had bad adhd and that just saw me getting fired often, im pretty good at getting jobs though, I managed to have a break for a short while before the law changed and I was supposed to go back to work, now I would be repeating the sorry process over and over again but i got into uni XD
this country is not so bad for the poor TBH, but it will be in the next decade
This biggest insult is from when atos sponsored the para olympics and used it as an excuse to say that
I suppose a Paradoxical law can be used to undermine law
they just use software to process what people say and analyze the medicals, loads of people (over 1000 deaths many many more accidents) have been told they are fit for work when they are not, especially mental illnesses where most paranoid schizophrenics will not pass because of course they wont tell the truth!
I had bad adhd and that just saw me getting fired often, im pretty good at getting jobs though, I managed to have a break for a short while before the law changed and I was supposed to go back to work, now I would be repeating the sorry process over and over again but i got into uni XD
this country is not so bad for the poor TBH, but it will be in the next decade
This biggest insult is from when atos sponsored the para olympics and used it as an excuse to say that
| if these guys can win then everyone should be fit for work. |
I suppose a Paradoxical law can be used to undermine law
Last edited on
What about the witch trials back in the day? If suspected of being a witch, they'd tie you to a stone and throw you in the lake. If you made it out alive, you were clearly a witch and would then be burned at the stake. If you didn't get out of the lake and drowned, well you were just a normal person but still dead none-the-less.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| Are you saying if the hospital puts me on life support it means I am going to die anyway? I am pretty sure plenty of people have gone on life support and lived to tell the tale years later. |
No not at all.
| wikipedia wrote: |
|---|
| A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation in which an individual cannot or is incapable of avoiding a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules.[1] Often these situations are such that solving one part of a problem only creates another problem, which ultimately leads back to the original problem. Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. |
Do you agree that this is an accurate, definition of the term? If not, what corrections can you make? If so, restate your example in terms of: the problem. Solutions that lead back to the problem.
I have a hard time doing that with your argument.
From the murderer's perspective, it is a problem that they need to kill me, and it's lose-lose.
From my perspective, it is a problem that they want to kill me, and it's win-win. No matter what I do to try to lose, I win.
From my perspective, it is a problem that they want to kill me, and it's win-win. No matter what I do to try to lose, I win.
Last edited on
Problem A: So the murderer wants to kill you
Solution A: ???
Problem A: Someone is trying to kill you.
Solution: ???
You left out the solutions, or am I missing something in your previous post?
Solution A: ???
Problem A: Someone is trying to kill you.
Solution: ???
You left out the solutions, or am I missing something in your previous post?