omthkkr

1. Both cannot be true at the same time..it is like saying the coin will land on heads and the coin will land on tails.

2. No, he would be present under that elixir forever...gulping it and getting life...but present inside it at the same time...and excreting it off at intervals(yes,that too needs to be taken into account!)...until he doesnt learn to swim in it(or come out of it) rather than just lying there.

4. She can kill her after her son(the girl's father) was born...in this case...everything stands satisfied. Before that, the premise is only wrong, that she goes in the past, because she couldnt have been born, and hence, the conclusions are irrelevant.

5. Heat can be measured...not coldness. So, we can say that tomorrow it would be half as hot as today, thus dividing the joules present in today's atmosphere by half.

6. Liar's paradox

8. Each of us can do that...stick mud on the ground by heaping it...the stuck mass can represent that stone which we wouldn't be able to lift at some point of time,we can keep checking at each point! (I have tried to explain the method of making that stone...vaguely!) However, if one says Almighty is capable of lifting anything, then we stand at point no. 1...as both cannot be true at the same time.

This can be understood as -
1st statement can be re-written as...nothing is better than eternal bliss...therefore...it can be re-framed as...eternal bliss is better than everything.
2nd statement is - a slice bread is better than nothing.

So the order is now(in ascending order)-
Nothing -> Slice of Bread -> Everything -> Eternal Bliss

So now...no paradox left! B-)
(Maybe i have ignored the missing relation between the slice and bliss)

He got the cash with happiness...and he is giving it with happiness only(the man recieving it feels happy). On the other hand...he gains sorrow when he loses it...the sorrow comes from the man he's giving the cash to(he had sorrow as he didnt have cash with him)...so...overall...it is a transaction from both sides...ALWAYS!

No paradoxes here...just an exchange of feelings in addition to cash!

The best answer according to me would be -
You will not poison him with any subtance that would kill you.

If assumed true, the child would come back unpoisoned.
If assumed false, the child would be poisoned by the crocodile and eaten knowing that it would kill himself, which he would never do.

So, it would be the correct answer and the mother would get back her child!

This can be re-defined in an analogous sense as -
Would it be useful if a future-telling machine was ever invented??

Because, it would just show the future, i.e, if it shows one is going to die tomorrow, from an accident for instance, he would have to live one day in grief, for if he tries to save himself from that cause, here by staying indoors, then that machine would prove ineffective, and if he does die like that, then he had to live 1 day in grief. So, the machine would not be useful as such, but still, you would know the future.

Comment on this paradox...make it clearer if you can.
Thanks