How is Wonderland considered a paradox?
487529
A paradox is a situation in which something seems both true and false.  For instance, we know there are rabbits but talking, etc.  Good article on Wikipedia...
307569
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
246532
Read 'The Unity of Philosophical Experience' by Etienne Gilson.  He ably dismantles this kind of Cartesian nonsense in the relevant section.
42894
The point of the riddle is that perception controls reality, because nothing is assured until we perceive it. It should be modified to say, "If a tree falls in the forest and there are no people or recording devices present, can you have any clue as to the sound it made?" It is an answerless riddle by definition.
979203
The classic answer to this riddle posed in Alice in Wonderland is that Poe wrote on both.\nNot dumb so much as old-fashioned, no?
765111
paradox:  A contradictory statement that may nonrtheless be true.\n\ninferred:  To conclude from evidence or premises.
158870
GOOD QUESTION!! I had to haul out my DVD to check that one out.\n\nPeter Pan and Alice in Wonderland are the two additional book titles.
427011
eno of Elea (circa 450 b.c.) is credited with creating several famous paradoxes, but by far the best known is the paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles. (Achilles was the great Greek hero of Homer's The Illiad.) It has inspired many writers and thinkers through the ages, notably Lewis Carroll and Douglas Hofstadter, who also wrote dialogues involving the Tortoise and Achilles.\nThe original goes something like this:\n\n    The Tortoise challenged Achilles to a race, claiming that he would win as long as Achilles gave him a small head start. Achilles laughed at this, for of course he was a mighty warrior and swift of foot, whereas the Tortoise was heavy and slow.\n    “How big a head start do you need?” he asked the Tortoise with a smile.\n    “Ten meters,” the latter replied.\n    Achilles laughed louder than ever. “You will surely lose, my friend, in that case,” he told the Tortoise, “but let us race, if you wish it.”\n    “On the contrary,” said the Tortoise, “I will win, and I can prove it to you by a simple argument.”\n    “Go on then,” Achilles replied, with less confidence than he felt before. He knew he was the superior athlete, but he also knew the Tortoise had the sharper wits, and he had lost many a bewildering argument with him before this.\n    “Suppose,” began the Tortoise, “that you give me a 10-meter head start. Would you say that you could cover that 10 meters between us very quickly?”\n    “Very quickly,” Achilles affirmed.\n    “And in that time, how far should I have gone, do you think?”\n    “Perhaps a meter – no more,” said Achilles after a moment's thought.\n    “Very well,” replied the Tortoise, “so now there is a meter between us. And you would catch up that distance very quickly?”\n    “Very quickly indeed!”\n    “And yet, in that time I shall have gone a little way farther, so that now you must catch that distance up, yes?”\n\n    “Ye-es,” said Achilles slowly.\n    “And while you are doing so, I shall have gone a little way farther, so that you must then catch up the new distance,” the Tortoise continued smoothly.\n    Achilles said nothing.\n    “And so you see, in each moment you must be catching up the distance between us, and yet I – at the same time – will be adding a new distance, however small, for you to catch up again.”\n    “Indeed, it must be so,” said Achilles wearily.\n    “And so you can never catch up,” the Tortoise concluded sympathetically.\n    “You are right, as always,” said Achilles sadly – and conceded the race.\n\nZeno's Paradox may be rephrased as follows. Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room.\nWhat this actually does is to make all motion impossible, for before I can cover half the distance I must cover half of half the distance, and before I can do that I must cover half of half of half of the distance, and so on, so that in reality I can never move any distance at all, because doing so involves moving an infinite number of small intermediate distances first.\nNow, since motion obviously is possible, the question arises, what is wrong with Zeno? What is the "flaw in the logic?" If you are giving the matter your full attention, it should begin to make you squirm a bit, for on its face the logic of the situation seems unassailable. You shouldn't be able to cross the room, and the Tortoise should win the race! Yet we know better. Hmm.\nRather than tackle Zeno head-on, let us pause to notice something remarkable. Suppose we take Zeno's Paradox at face value for the moment, and agree with him that before I can walk a mile I must first walk a half-mile. And before I can walk the
958817
Unfortunately it appears that way to be true for many people.Others may refer to this as Karma. Tempting fate is another usage as is preordained and predestination.Our lives or just being alive is a matter of fate  within this universe. To deny a connection to it is like denying our own existence.Fate can be from certain bad or good choices. Others have referred to this as alternate realities or programs within the universe or Matrix. If you apply science and logic I would imagine this should become more clear. Free will does have it's limitations within a given number of variables and common laws.Don't be dismayed by averages though. It depends on who you know and come in contact with physically, emotionally,spiritually and psychically. We often learn and display ourselves by example so keep that thought in mind also. Logic is the key to greater understanding not arrogance. If life is a test of our psyche than it is whether or not we chose to ignore our intuitions or guides.Each one of us is like a math problem or theory being applied or tested.Life isn't just one program but several programs running at the same time.So fate isn't just white or black or true or false it's multiple choice in a world of chance or multiple fates or alternate endings.This is what some may refer to as the Book of Life.
820995
This is a variant of an old philosophical conundrum called Xeno's Paradox. It involves a tortoise and a hare in a race in which the hare has given the tortoise a head start. Each time the hare reaches a point that the tortoise has been, the tortoise has moved a bit further on. The paradox is that it is not clear how the hare can ever catch the tortoise. In your variant, you imply a system which is a set of discrete movements and not the dynamic moving system of the tortoise and the hare. Since each move of half the distance towards each other is a separate and discrete move, they would theoretically never touch.
1106272
Contradictory Premises. Conclusions are drawn from the interactions of premises: where two premises contradict each other, there can be no interaction and hence no conclusion. Similarly, if the definitions of two terms conflict with or exclude each other, then those two terms cannot be simultaneously ascribed to a single object or event. The classic example of contradictory premises is the question, "What will happen if an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" The problem here is that in a universe where an irresistible force has been defined to exist, there cannot also exist an immovable object, because then the force would not be irresistible. Conversely, if there is discovered or defined such an item as an immovable object, then by definition there can be no such thing as an irresistible force.\n\nThis fallacy's most popular appearance is in the form of a challenging question, because questions with contradictory premises are such brain teasers. In each case, though, no answer can be given because the premises cannot both be true.\n\n    * Into what shape of hole would a round square fit?\n    * If an object is all black and all white at the same time, what color is it?\n    * If an object is both stationary and traveling at an infinite rate of speed, how long will it take to meet itself?\n    * If God can do anything, can he make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?\n    * If God is all powerful, can he put himself out of existence and come back with twice the power he had before?
77611
statement that appears self-contradictory but actually has a basis in truth, e.g., Oscar Wilde's "Ignorance is like a delicate fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone." Many New Critics maintained that paradox is not just a rhetorical or illustrative device but a basic aspect of all poetic language.
170402
Russell's paradox (two Ls in his name) was a paradox found by Betrand Russell, which showed that 'naive set theory' was contradictory.\n\nBasically, Russell says: Define a set D which consists of all sets which do not contain themselves.  The paradox is that we cannot decide whether D is a member of itself.  If it is a member of itself, then it isn't, and if it isn't, then it is.\n\nThe paradox has led to much more complicated axioms for set theory than one would initially think was necessary.\n\nThis paradox is related to the 'diagonal proofs' that show there are different sizes of infinity and prove Goedel's imcompleteness theorem.
918902
that is a paradox.  such an object can not exist.  i have a story for you:\n\nWise teacher was asked by an unbeliever, can God make the whole world small enough to fit into an egg?  Wise teacher said "come with me".  The two men went outside and climbed to the top of the mountain.  Wise teacher asked "what do you see?"  Unbeliever said "I see mountains, rivers, trees. . . I feel like I can see the whole world from here."  \n\nWise teacher said "See?  God can fit the whole world into your eyeball, which is smaller than an egg."
164698
The only thing I could find about Disney characters and drugs are linked below. I guess that the catapillar in Alice In Wonderland is smoking something, but we will never know what it is, as it isn't identified in the book by Caroll
768519
The law applies itself on isolated systems exclusively in contact with others (or different parts of the same isolated system).Some researchers suggest that the universe is not a closed system, although the Sun and planets in our solar system are often treated as an isolated system, this is an idealization because real life isolated system do not exist but behave like this for a finite time. Regarding reversability, physics has "Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox,[which] is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox."
318639
Read this and substitute mountain, stone, rock whatever with planet.\n\nI am glad that I save these long answers. . . I would hate to type it in again (for the 6th time)\n\nGod and Omnipotence\nThe paradox of the stone, as presented by Wade Savage:\n1. Either God can create a stone that God cannot lift, or God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift – there are no other possibilities. \n2. If God can create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., lift that stone). \n3. If God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., create that stone). \n4. From the combination of 1, 2 and 3, it follows that there is at least one thing that God cannot do. \n5. If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything. \n6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. \n\nWhat this argument apparently shows is that omnipotence is impossible (or, that the notion of omnipotence is incoherent). Thus, God cannot be omnipotent (as nothing can be).\n\nSuggested solutions to the paradox St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):\nAquinas defines as “absolutely impossible” any thing where the “predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject” (his example: “man is an ***” (in the non-metaphorical sense)). With this in mind:\nWhatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.\n\nThat is, to be omnipotent involves being able to do all things that are possible. For example, it is not considered a limit to my powers that I cannot draw a square circle. That’s impossible, so it’s no failing that I can’t do it – it cannot be done.\n\nBUT: surely I can make a thing that is too heavy for me to lift, so that task is not impossible, so if God can’t do it, that really is a limit to his power.\n\nGeorge Mavrodes (1926-):\nMavrodes responds that although “a stone too heavy for Simon Cushing to lift” is not a contradictory notion, “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is a contradictory notion.\nMavrodes’s argument in full:\n1. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. \n2. If God is not omnipotent, then the fact that he cannot do something (either make or lift the stone) is unsurprising. \n3. If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, there necessarily cannot be a stone that is too heavy for him to lift (otherwise he would not be omnipotent). \n4. If there necessarily cannot be such a stone, then it is an impossibility. \n5. By Aquinas’s reasoning, even an omnipotent being cannot perform impossibilities. \n6. Therefore, by definition, inability to create a stone too heavy for one to lift is no barrier to being omnipotent. (In fact, only non-omnipotent beings can create objects too heavy for themselves to lift.) \n\nBUT: both Aquinas and Mavrodes assume that God cannot do impossible things. Is this right? Descartes, for one, thought not. Descartes believed God could make 2+2=5. Why? Because otherwise you are suggesting that God is bound by the laws of logic. But if God created the laws of logic, why should he be bound by them? Couldn’t he have made them differently?\n\nHarry Frankfurt:\nHowever, if we assume that God can do impossible things, then God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift (which is supposedly impossible). Furthermore, if he can do that, then he can go one stage further and lift that stone (also impossible – but what’s the difference between doing one impossible thing and doing two?) \nBUT: doesn’t that mean that the stone he created was not a stone too heavy for him to lift, and that we’re back to the situation of him being unable to create such a stone? Not according to Frankfurt:\nIf an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is