stupid logical paradox... or is it?

[fli]

Pu-lease... bear with me.
It's funny... but damn, it's got me fixed.

Both of these statements have been said true:
1.) Buttered toast ALWAYS lands lands buttered-side down.
2.) Cats ALWAYS land on their feet.

Now, let's just say our friend Michael *coughBakshicough* ties a piece of buttered toast, buttered-side up, on the back of his pet cat and tosses that cat with the buttered toast from the roof,

what would happen?

If the cat lands on it's feet, that would mean the buttered-toast didn't land buttered-side-down and that statment 1 is false, thus defying laws of gravity and etcetra.

If the toast lands buttered-side-down, that would mean that the cat didn't land on its feet. This means statement 2 is false... and it disproves... I dunno, logic, science, and stuff.

I know, such a weird question.
But I was re-reading a journal I kept in Santa Clara University--

And this was an actual problem people were arguing at the cafateria one day, and it was a battle between philosophy students vs. science students vs. the retarded.

It's a true paradox,
I'm telling you--

[fli]

Sorry for the double post, pressed the button too soon:

My take--
And why it fascinated me till graduation (which I forget and now remembered)

if each statements, 1.) "Buttered-toast will always land buttered-side down," and 2.) "Cats always lands on their feet" are said that they are true, then they must be true.

But with the buttered-cat paradox, one of these statements needs to be proved false.
And if one is false, then there are no truths in this world.

BUT--
the statement that there are no truths are in this world will then be true because the buttered-cat experiment proved that a truth can be proved false...

BUT--
To say this statment that there are no truths in this world would be asserting a falsity on the situation... because the buttered-cat experiment also proves the same.

HOWEVER--
jaysus-- I'm sound like captain jack sparrow.

In the end, there are several possibilities.
cat can land feet down
buttered toast can land buttered side down
cat and toast will never land but be spinning in perpetual motion
the world will end in a Dogma-type of situation because there is no truth even in meta-physics... we will be in utter-chaos ala Steven Hawkin's because our world depends on the truth on the principles of law of gravity, and etcetra.

etcetra, etcetra, etcetra...
Now you guys can see how a bunch of geeky people from different majors can literally-- get into a fist fight?

Yes,
that's true-- When I was at the Brittania a philsophy dude and a math dude were so heated up that they were about to get in a fist-fight.

I wonder how long this post will be now everyone can see how not so retarded this paradox is...

[lapis]

Kekekekeke. They sort of elaborated on the "paradox".

[Slizor]

What happens is that you've created a anti-gravity cat.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cat-Toast_Device

if each statements, 1.) "Buttered-toast will always land buttered-side down," and 2.) "Cats always lands on their feet" are said that they are true, then they must be true.

Sorry to rain on your parade here but this doesn't logically follow. That they are said to be true does not make them true (unless you're a rationalist.) We can only test, through many buttered toast and cat droppings, if these statements are false.

But with the buttered-cat paradox, one of these statements needs to be proved false.
And if one is false, then there are no truths in this world.

This also doesn't follow. It's similar to saying that if one person lied once, then there are no truths.

Yes,
that's true-- When I was at the Brittania a philsophy dude and a math dude were so heated up that they were about to get in a fist-fight.

I love pissing all over Maths, Science and Engineering arguments and when students of those subjects try to argument theirpolitical viewpoint - it's brilliant. I've got a few favourite arguments for pissing people off -
The "how can you define one?" argument which goes along the lines of them pointing out an example and me separating it into smaller and smaller units and me eventually saying that the definition of "one" is abitrary and thus maths is based on perception.
The "scientific method does not allow for things to be proven true, it only allows for things to be disproven." This one actually works because its true and its so frustrating for people who work with premises that certain rules and laws are true (such as any science, maths, engineering, etc.)
The "disprove the invisible parrot is sitting on my shoulder." A silly argument, but fun because it starts with the assumption that the parrot is sitting on my shoulder and is impossible to disprove.

[Draconias]

Sorry, but it's been proven that buttered toast has an equal probability of landing on either side. The reason people most often see it land on the buttered side is because they start with the buttered side up, then tip it off their hand and it does not have time for a full rotation. When dropped from a random side at sufficient height, the butter is negligible.

Also, cats do not always land on their feet. Only when the cats have a controlled fall can they twist their bodies to orient their feet to the ground. If the cat does not twist for some reason, or does not have control, then it will hit randomly.

Going even further, if you attached butter toast to a cat's back then either side can hit the ground because technically the other side is not actually landing on the ground. Since each statement is false, and the situation itself is irrelevant, then no paradox exists.

[stafffighter]

Well you're assuming the cat lands. could it possibly catch itself on something, have it's flight inturupted by some outside force thus negating any controlability or just or, the can could land on it's side. Technically two of it's feet would be there and the expression dosen't say the cat has to land on all of it's feet

[IllustriousPotentate]

Isn't the whole paradox operating under the assumption that one can attach buttered toast to a cat? Isn't it possible that the non-buttered side of the toast and the cat's back contain the same polarities, and thus could not be joined in such a matter?

http://www.grand-illusions.com/toyshop/diamag netic_levitation_2/

[Ganon42]

Someone...
Go try it!
Then, as long as you don't break reality, tell us what happened.
Of course, cats land on their feet only if they have enough time to do so.

[Ganon42]

Wait...
What does this have to do with politics???????

[Elfer]

Equation 1 only applies in situations where it's behaving as ideal toast.

If it's strapped to a cat, it's not behaving as ideal toast.

Also, if you strap the toast to a cat and the cat land on its feet, the toast never really lands, does it?

[Begoner]

The cat will land on its feet and the buttered toast will not land at all, since it's strapped on the the cat's back.

[Togukawa]

At 12/2/06 03:52 PM, Begoner wrote: The cat will land on its feet and the buttered toast will not land at all, since it's strapped on the the cat's back.

Aha! But the statement was Buttered toast ALWAYS lands lands buttered-side down.
Hence, toast not landing still means the statement is false.

The only possible conclusion is that reality will in fact break.

[cold-as-hell]

Ive just chucked my cat out the upstairs window and the fucker acually landed on its feet! Then I chucked my dog and it landed on its back. Fuck throwing the toast. Im eating it. mmm yummy squashed dog.

[Begoner]

Aha! But the statement was Buttered toast ALWAYS lands lands buttered-side down.
Hence, toast not landing still means the statement is false.

If, at any point in time, the toast has not yet landed, the statement has not yet been disproved. Until the toast lands, the veracity of the statement cannot be judged.

[fli]

Nobody in Hell can know the goddamn pleasure I'm relishing in my most retarded post ever...

[Togukawa]

At 12/2/06 04:01 PM, Begoner wrote:

Aha! But the statement was Buttered toast ALWAYS lands lands buttered-side down.
Hence, toast not landing still means the statement is false.

If, at any point in time, the toast has not yet landed, the statement has not yet been disproved. Until the toast lands, the veracity of the statement cannot be judged.

Then the question becomes: can the toast still land on it's buttered side down, given that the cat has landed? I guess it can. Darn, I had so hoped for reality to break.

[shrtstff69]

ehh... maybe on the next paradox that passes by.

[Empanado]

Hmm. Well, it's one out of two--

Cat and toast cannot be attached, or, at least, cannot stay attached when falling. Each subject's pre-disposition to falling in a certain way would overcome the power of any means of attachment. Any way of mixing cat and toast so deeply that they can't be disjointed would result in a wholly different subject that would be neither cat nor toast, but cat-toast.

OR

The forces of cat and toast nullify each other, thus, making the result unpredictable. After all, there can be no ABSOLUTE statements on matters like these. The dogmas should, then, be changed:
A cat always naturally falls on its feet.
A piece of toast always naturally falls with the buttered side down.

[Piromano]

It's only stadistics

The answer is that there's a 50% that the toast of butter will fell on the butter side(I said it well?).
The cat have a 75% to land with it's feets( the other 25% is because of the time of reaction and how high the cat fall).
So, there's a 25% to butter and 75% to the cat, so that's means that only depends by the cat!

[shrtstff69]

okay so it is 25 to 75 in the cats favor but it also depends on many variables such as how high up it is and how active the cat is because normal house cats are usaully very inactive so when they get into that type of problem they would do two of either things: either call on their instincts or just land how they fell. another variable is what effect the toast will have on the cats balance and counter balance.

But iv'e had five cats and only a couple times have i seen one of them land on their feet after falling from a height and these were outdoor cats so they were very very active.

[anonymous08]

The cat can land on it's feet with the buttered toast side tied to it's back facing the sky. This deosn't disprove any of those statements. If the cat lands on it's feet, the toast has never hit the ground yet, so it could still flip and land buttered side down. Just because the cat is touching the ground, doesnt mean the toast is.

[Xyklon-B]

At 12/2/06 06:49 AM, fli wrote:

what would happen?

The cat would be killed, the toast would be ruined, and I would pass out from laughter at such a spectacle.

[SolInvictus]

i hope that cat lands on its side prooving both wrong.

[poxpower]

Did you know that the hoverboards in Back to the Future were actualy just plastic shells around a toast with peanut butter on one side and strawberry jelly on the other?

[fahrenheit]

Actually since the glue would be interfering with the toast more than the cat, an outside force would be acting on the experiment. Therefore making it invalid.