Do You Guys Agree ?

I always go to my favorite tailors for my clothes: Euripides and Eumenedes🎉

Paradox 1 and 2 are essentially the same paradox

If you take both boxes you take A AND B.  If you take either box you take A OR B...

Time travel is impossible because it takes infinitely more energy than what the entire universe contains, in order to perform it.

But if it were, it wouldn't be like cutting an image from one comic panel and pasting it in another.

Instead, picture a chessboard where all the pieces have moved several times throughout a game.

Picture the white light squared bishop had eventually moved to g8, after all the moves, and captures.

One by one, every move is undone on each side, except the white light squared bishop never moves backwards from g8.

Regardless of every other piece reversing their movements in reverse order of recent movements.

The king can move into check as it's reversing back into an earlier state.

After all the moves have been reversed, the bishop would still be on g8.

It's not a paradox how the bishop would be there, it just retained it's newest position, while everything else reverted to a previous position.

Newcombs paradox just shows that there can be no accurate predictors in the first place, all the less so if you also want to have free will afterwards. Of course this cannot be resolved.

There is no issue in the envelope too. Expected value is always 1.5 times the smaller envelope value. And that is true if you keep or switch. So no difference.

There's no debate about the box one. You clearly always take box B because if the machine already knows that you would take box B then it would have the million in it.

If the person picking the boxes knows about the catch, then picking only box B is the only logical choice. If they don't, then picking box B is also the only logical choice. Since you can't actually lose anything. You can only get a million $ or nothing, and since the catch exists, you will definitely get the million.

The thinking for the envelope paradox is clearly fallacious.  One envelope contains x dollars, and one contains 2x dollars.  After your random first selection, there is a 50% chance you have x dollars, a 50% chance you have 2x dollars.  By being given the opportunity to switch envelopes, there are now four possible scenarios:

You started with x dollars and didn't switch, leaving you with x dollars.

You started with x dollars and switched, leaving you with 2x dollars.

You started with 2x dollars and didn't switch, leaving you with 2x dollars.

You started with 2x dollars and switched, leaving you with x dollars.

The end result is that being given the opportunity to switch envelopes didn't change the probabilities - it's still a 50% chance you have the envelope with 2x dollars.  No, this isn't a variation on the Monty Hall problem.

Keep in mind first, that there are veridical and falsidical paradoxes, and only the veridical are "true" paradoxes. The whole "This sentence is false" and its variants are really not paradoxes; they merely point to the impossibility of true external and objective self-referentiality. With regard to Russell's Paradox, I have always felt that the initial premise was flawed; we cannot with inner consistency conceive of a set and its members that do not include themselves. One way to know this is to suggest that there is somehow a lack of equivalence between 2+2 and 4; if so, one could say that 4 "includes" 2+2, but that sparks problems of equivalence. See e.g. the problem of the ball and the sphere, and the supposed equivalence between .99999...and 1. If 1 contains .9999...(as I believe it does) then the two cannot be equivalent. Godel basically put all this nonsense to rest in the 1930s. Moving right along... With regard to Newcomb's, we are missing important data, and that data is the time-corrected track record of the Predictor. It is one thing to say the Predictor has only very rarely been wrong; it is another to examine the processual count of errancy over time. Without this knowledge, one has to speculate as to the motives of the other risk takers. Further - and I'm sure this has occurred to people - the financial circumstances of people would affect their choice, unless we're assuming some sort of angelic gambling host of perfectly financially equivalent bettors. This is not a red herring, since fiinancial considerations would surely also affect the Predictor in his ruminations. Finally, is the $1000 subject to inflation (or deflation)? Is a choice made today precisely the same in terms of accrual of income as it was or would be in another time period? Again, this is not a trivial consideration. With regard to the two envelopes, I am making the assumption that the envelopes themselves provide us with no prior evidence about the money inside. If so, we can't make any Bayesian calculations, because we cannot say "the odds of this are x, given y." But choosing to switch is in a sense trying to "Monty Hall" your way to greater wealth, but it is done, once again, without sufficient information. One twist you could propose is to ask both how many times the envelopes have been given to others and secondly, precisely what each person chose, historically speaking. There is a theory that even the sparsest prior information, when multiplied probabilistically like this might (and I do say "might") give you that card-counting-into-the-sixth-deck advantage over the house.

The Bootstrap Paradox is impossible for a physical object.  The problem is that objects age (atomic decay at minimum even with the utmost care otherwise), so it cannot be the same age at the end when it goes back in time as it was at the beginning of the loop.  Ergo, it is not the same object.  The Bootstrap Paradox can only exist for ideas and creative works, things without inevitable decay.

The first one is nonsense.  What about the sentence is false?  It's an ambiguous statement that describes nothing.  
The predictor is silly if the predictor is always correct on what you will pick it means there never will be a million dollars available because in both choices the predictor will be correct and there will be no lillion dollars.
The 2 envelopes is not even a paradox since it involve an extra variable.  The odds that one envelope would have either half the amount of the other or double is a separate issue from the original choice presented.  If you had 3 envelopes this would make sense but  throwing in an unknown makes it totally illogical.

I still don't understand how is it ever preferable to pick only one box over two (?). If the content of both boxes is already fixed from the start of the game, then it's irrelevant to HOPE for whatever logic (in your favor) the predictor used while preparing the boxes. Only by taking BOTH do you garantee to take home any money at all.

IF the predictor WAS always right, you MUST take box 2. Except there is no such predictor. And cannot be.
What is an onvelope? Silly ai voice... Calculate the loss you get by not switching, and will also get 1.25. It´s NOT the goat problem with the three doors and two goats.

None of these rewrites logic. Yes paradoxical but does not rewrites logic.
Some of these are based on self reference or grammatical issues which kind of wrong in the first place.

Examples
"This sentence is false" this one by definition, doesn't have any context. So the sentence is really false but not logically false.

In some areas of study a set is a collection of unique things. So a set containing itself can not exist unless A.) We give it a different identifier or B.) We expand the definition of the set..

If you go back to the past with some information and share it anonymously. The information is not destroyed on the whole timeline. It just changes hands.
What could happen is either A.) Duplicate information or B.) Change of authorship.

Sometimes I think that some people have way too much time on their hands.
Get outside and do something useful! As my old dad would say.
Greetings from Yorkshire.😁

Logic is open to interpretation.
Women and Men think differently and have different opinions of what is the logical option.

Clearly No. 6 is NOT a paradox because time travel is impossible - no matter how much you TRY to invoke General Relativity.  There are literally NO theories in physics on how to time travel because there is nothing physical you can manipulate to try to go back to the past, which you cannot do because the past does not exist at some location NOW.  The past is simply a collection of events which have already happened and no longer exist, anywhere.  Just like the total failure of string "theorists" to find a place where these extra spacial dimensions might be, deluded believers in time travel can't say exactly WHERE the past is.

Heisenberg and Schrodinger are binary equations...we have to pick one or the other before we start ....
It's a non-linear equation!
The Higgs boson >0< is not a nothing. It's a complex zero in a quantum super position.
It's the greatest mathematical prediction ever made.
Heisenberg >0< Schrodinger
We scientists call it the God Particle just to rage bait the POPE.
It's payback for GALILEO.

"The universe is written in the language of mathematics by the hand of God himself. " - GALILEO

🤯🤬 - the POPE