This is a short experiment using ChatGTP Plus to explore something new to me, the types of paradoxes: falsidical, veridical and antimonial. The experiment, shows that when I use a simple prompt, the chat bot gets it wrong using ChatGPT 3.5. But, switching to chatGPT4 and adding a helper agent and a reflection, that’s reflection with an x, as in reflexion… the same LLM checks itself and is correct. It is fine tuned. And that’s proven by adding the extra examples, which are well known paradoxes. The other paradox I think that I am observing now is that the plural of paradoxes is paradox but shouldn’t it be paradi … but that extended me should show that a a single of a paradi would Paradise maybe🤭? On with the experiment. Let’s take a look.
Open sidebar
Master Debater Guidelines
Model: GPT-4
Robert Tyrie
Act like a master, debater and expert in logic
As an AI language model, I am well-equipped to engage in a debate and discuss matters of logic. To begin, let's establish the ground rules for our debate to ensure we maintain a fair and structured conversation.
Define the topic: Clearly state the subject of the debate, so we can focus on the relevant arguments and counterarguments.
Maintain civility: Respectful discourse is essential for productive debate. Let's strive to remain courteous and avoid personal attacks.
Present evidence: Strong arguments are supported by evidence. Please provide sources or logical reasoning to support your claims, and I will do the same.
Address counterarguments: A solid debate involves addressing the opposition's points and offering counterarguments.
Stay on topic: To ensure a focused discussion, let's avoid introducing irrelevant or unrelated points.
With these ground rules in place, please present the topic you'd like to debate, and I will do my best to engage in a logical and thought-provoking discussion.
Robert Tyrie
explain These: Three types of paradoxes
Falsidical – Logic based on a falsehood.
Veridical – Truthful.
Antinomy – A contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified. And give clear examples for each, add a helper agent to the conversation, after you generate the definitions, check the generation for any errors and explain what needs to be adjusted
I will explain the three types of paradoxes and provide examples for each. After that, I will introduce a helper agent to the conversation to check for any errors in the explanations and suggest adjustments if necessary.
Falsidical Paradox: These paradoxes are based on a falsehood, a false premise, or a misinterpretation of the situation. They lead to a seemingly contradictory conclusion, but when the error in the reasoning is identified, the paradox is resolved.
Example: The Liar Paradox - "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it must be true. This paradox arises from a self-reference, and the contradiction stems from the assumption that the statement can be either true or false.
Veridical Paradox: These paradoxes reveal a surprising or counterintuitive truth. At first, they may appear to be contradictory, but upon closer examination, the contradiction is resolved, and the paradox reveals a deeper understanding of the situation.
Example: The Monty Hall Problem - In a game show, the host presents a contestant with three doors. Behind one door is a car, and behind the other two doors are goats. The contestant picks a door, then the host, who knows what's behind each door, opens one of the other two doors to reveal a goat. The host then offers the contestant the option to switch their choice to the remaining unopened door or stick with their original choice. The paradox is that, counterintuitively, the contestant's probability of winning the car doubles if they switch doors.
Antinomy Paradox: These paradoxes involve a contradiction between two principles or conclusions that both seem to be equally justified. They can arise from seemingly valid arguments, which can lead to a state of uncertainty or confusion.
Example: The Barber Paradox - In a village, there is a barber who shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. The question is, does the barber shave himself? If he does, then he does not, as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. If he does not shave himself, then he must, as he shaves all those who do not shave themselves. This paradox points to a contradiction in the initial premises.
[Helper Agent]
The explanations provided for the three types of paradoxes are accurate and clear. There are no significant errors or misunderstandings in the definitions or examples. Each example is appropriate and well-explained, demonstrating the key aspects of falsidical, veridical, and antinomy paradoxes. No adjustments are necessary.
Robert Tyrie
Give an example from Feynman exploring each of the paradoxes. Use the helper agent again to check the work and test for any errors or logic problems. Do that after you generate the feynman examples of paradoxes
Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, often discussed paradoxes to illustrate the counterintuitive nature of the physical world. Here are examples related to each of the three types of paradoxes:
Falsidical Paradox: Feynman's Sprinkler - This is a thought experiment involving a submerged, rotating water sprinkler. If water is pumped into the sprinkler instead of being ejected, will the sprinkler still rotate? Intuition may suggest that it should rotate in the opposite direction, but the paradox is resolved when considering that the sprinkler will not rotate at all due to the conservation of angular momentum. The initial assumption that the sprinkler must rotate in some direction is false.
Veridical Paradox: Feynman's Sticky Bead Argument - This paradox is related to the theory of general relativity. Imagine a bead sliding on a stick in a gravitational wave. The bead's motion generates heat due to friction. Since heat is a form of energy, it appears that the gravitational wave has transferred energy to the bead. However, this contradicts the prediction that gravitational waves carry no energy in the linear approximation. The paradox is resolved when taking higher-order approximations into account, revealing that gravitational waves do carry energy.
Antinomy Paradox: Feynman's Double-Slit Experiment - This experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light (and other particles). When particles like electrons or photons pass through a double-slit barrier, they produce an interference pattern on a screen, suggesting that they behave like waves. However, when individual particles are detected, they appear as discrete points on the screen, indicating that they behave like particles. The paradox arises from the seemingly contradictory nature of particles exhibiting both wave and particle properties.
[Helper Agent]
The examples provided for each of the three types of paradoxes, using Feynman's work, are accurate and well-explained. The falsidical paradox example of Feynman's Sprinkler demonstrates a false assumption, the veridical paradox example of the Sticky Bead Argument illustrates a counterintuitive truth, and the antinomy paradox example of the Double-Slit Experiment showcases a contradiction between two seemingly justified principles. There are no significant errors or misunderstandings in the examples, and they effectively demonstrate the key aspects of each paradox type.
Send a message...
ChatGPT Mar 23 Version. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts
New chat
FeynmanRichard Feynman
