SCP Foundation

One of them catches fire and is destroyed- which do you hope has survived?

That one's the original.

Personally, I just slightly favor the one that I completely rebuilt over the one made from the old boards.

Both, according to Banach-Tarski.

This isn't a paradox, it's an issue of semantics, resulting from the multiple overlapping and vague definitions of the word original. What you're really asking here, then, is how you define the word original.

Ive actually thought about this, since over time the boards used to repair the ship eventually "become" the original in a way, as with the obvious comparison to human cells and how the body stores and throws away cells and nutrients. Over time the boards taken out of the ship start losing their "Ship" quality and the boards used to replace the ones on the old ship gain the quality of ship-iness.

Basic level

"The ship"'s existence isn't tied to any single piece of wood. Every pieces of wood together become "the ship", it doesn't important if you replace some or all of those wood. So it's actually up to you if it's still "the same ship" or "the new ship".

Advanced level

There's no "ship". You're one who think those pieces of wood tohether formed "the ship", it's in "your mind". Without someone to recognzie it as the ship", those "pieces of wood" will simply be "pieces of wood" (well, actually not because "pieces of wood" is just your definition too, but lets call them so to make this easier). There's no "ship", it's in your mind.

So it's actually up to you if it's still "the same ship" or "the new ship". Because originally there's no "ship", you're one who give the definition of those wood as "the ship". And ultimately there's no ship, just your definition.

It isn't paradox, it's just you being too focus on what's "the ship" despite it's simply the term you come up with to call those "pieces of wood".

Tathatā.

Stop overthinking it. That's what creates paradoxes in the first place.

The problem lies in the word "original."

Neither can be called the "original ship." The second ship isn't the original because it is a new ship made from the old one's wood. The first ship cannot truly be said to be the original because there's no part of the first ship that is remains from when the ship was newly built.

The first ship is still the first ship, but it's not the original, in that there have been parts replaced.

Either the father predicts the croc will let the kid go, or he doesn't.

Assuming the father picks the obvious, the croc may either let the kid free (unlikely- why would he be planning to free the kid?), or eat him, as he was probably intending.

If the father picks 'eat the kid' then there is a paradox- for the croc. If he was intending to eat the kid (likely- I mean, he's a giant carnivorous reptile, right?) then now he's honor-bound to let the kid go- in which case, the father was incorrect, and the croc is free to eat the kid- in which case, pops was yet again correct. Etc et nauseum. Unless for whatever reason the animal wasn't planning to eat the kid, in which case he's now free to do so.

Or the dad could pick something random, like 'tap-dance clumsily,' or 'juggle my son, a carp, a hippo leg, and a chainsaw to uproarious applause.' In which case, the kid will probably get eaten, but you never know. Guy might get lucky.

Also, it all kind of hinges on the honor of a hungry man-eating reptile. Game theory ain't gonna keep that kid from being eaten.

"You will be hungry."

(Also, this isn't a paradox, just a riddle.)

Of course, the most likely event is that 682 will just eat the child regardless of father's answer. "I lied." said Crocky. :p

The dad gets a gun and says "you will be shot in the gut repeatedly"
_{he also dons sunglasses and he says it in an Liam Nelson voice}

That's easy. The crocodile just told the father what he's going to do next.

"You will return the child safely if, and only if, I can accurately predict what you will do next."

Or, if hypotheticals aren't allowed, "You will decide whether to return the child safely on the basis of whether I have accurately predicted what you will do next."

If the father is wrong about that, that would mean the crocodile had no intention of following its word in the first place, which would violate the setup of the puzzle.

"The thing you will do next is perform the action you will perform next."

Was this supposed to be a paradox? Cause it seems like a straight-forward (and vastly simplified) observation of how time dilation works on photons.

oh this is simple, a photon isnt sapient, therefore time as an abstract concept doesn't exist to it.

This has led me to wonder why no one has strapped buttered toast to the back of cats everywhere and used then to solve the energy crisis as organic perpetual motion machines

The fault lines and hurricanes were around before the cities.
It's mostly people who create problems for people.

Azagoth solves theogony fairly neatly…

Every time someone recites this Epicurus quote a neckbeard gets his fedora/trilby.