plasmid

Indeed, the main thrust of the initial argument is to criticize the stance toward religion that the scientific community seems to have taken: saying that religion is outside of the realm of science, and so cannot be proven or disproven. Scientists NEVER seem to take that kind of attitude with any other question they feel like tackling. To give up so easily on addressing a question seems shameful for any self-respecting scientist. But I still feel like playing devil's advocate and arguing against the side that I actually believe in, because it’s both fun and helps keep me honest when I do it habitually. So here goes. The problem with untestable hypothesis is that it seems to be trivially easy to prove that they are useless. If a theory is truly untestable, then no matter what happens, its truth or falsehood would not affect any outcomes. To use a concrete example, suppose we postulate that gravity is exerted because anything with mass emits "gravitons" in all directions that are massless, fast (say speed of light or so), and produce no electromagnetic field; but which draw other objects toward their point of origin almost like a wave. For simplicity, I'll say that the "fast" bit is untestable because even if you accept a competing theory – that mass exerts gravity by distorting space-time – then those distortions in space-time cannot travel faster than light due to relativistic considerations. Would it be worthwhile at all to even address the question of whether gravity is exerted by gravitons versus warping space-time? And would the answer even be meaningful? In this case, I would lean toward no. I would also lean toward binning parallel universes in the same category of "perhaps enticing the imagination, but overall irrelevant." Octopuppy's Dirty Harry counterexample does have its merit. Even if you aren't rainman and have no way of testing whether there's a bullet left in his gun (aside from the one potentially lethal way), it would be very useful if you had that information. And it would be nice to know for sure whether contributing tithe will pay dividends in an afterlife. And for that matter, it would even be neat to have a way of telling which way stock prices will go next week. The problem is that, although the solution would be valuable, if it can be proven that the solution is unobtainable then it seems logical to say that the doomed quest for such a solution should be abandoned.

Sorry I've been away for a bit. I like that answer quite a bit as it could explain at least the two and roughly eight objects in a set, although it’s not what I had in mind. Your line of thinking is on the right track.

Not a summit, at least I can't think of a mountain range that this could be referring to. The set of objects this is referring to can be rather variable in its exact size; there might be two in the dark home, nine puffed up with pride, only two working the stone, and even none at all nearest the sky in many cases.

The most important problem I can think of offhand: Design and come up with a practical way to establish a social and political structure that promotes overall prosperity, security, and the advancement of humanity through the arts and sciences more effectively than the current system does. You may pick the region of your choice as the target for reform. Try not to get bogged down in details about exactly how to quantify the outcomes and how much weight to place on each of them unless it's genuinely important... in practice if you compare societies like Canada versus Cambodia there is such a vast difference between them on all levels that such fine details don't really matter.

Just for the sake of not having people wander too far down a wrong path, I'll go ahead and say that the fact that the numbers are powers of two is really more coincidence than anything else. While the numbers are important, this riddle requires no knowledge of math beyond being able to count.

Nah, I haven't gone THAT esoteric. Not any obscure artifact or person from a book that less than 90% of the population would know about. I'm looking for what the "two" "four" "eight" and "one" things are in this riddle. It's still something that practically everyone is familiar with, and most people if they were to see the answer would then realize what the clues were all about and why the sixth and seventh lines were changed the way they are. As far as what I meant when I said the answer is not all that universal... well, you'll understand when you see the answer, and why it would make it more difficult to come up with the answer than I usually shoot for when I write riddles.

This took quite a bit of thought, but think I finally got a reasonable grasp on it. It's trying to lead us into the following trap. If you suppose that the statement is true, and then try to evaluate the statement under that supposition, then the statement would evaluate as false. If you suppose that the statement is unevaluable, and then try to evaluate the statement, then the statement would evaluate as true. If you suppose that the statement is false, and then try to evaluate the statement, then the statement would evaluate as false. So the only self-consistent answer would be that the statement is false. Does that prove that the statement is false? Deep down, I don't think so. I suspect that the trap lies in the way a statement is defined as unevaluable. For "this statement is true", if you try to evaluate the function under the supposition that it is true then it evaluates to "true", and if you evaluate it under the supposition that it is false then it evaluates to "false", so both truthfulness and falsehood are self-consistent answers. For "this statement is false", both truthfulness and falsehood are self-contradictory answers. This leads one down the path of thinking that a criteria for evaluability is that there is one and only one self-consistent answer. My rebuttal would be that sure, there is not a unique self-consistent answer for either "this statement is true" or "this statement is false", but that’s not how one ought to define evaluability. Those statements are both invoking circular logic, and that’s what is really at the heart of what makes them unevaluable. Now the statement "this statement is unevaluable" is likewise invoking circular logic. Does that mean that it is therefore unevaluable? (Which ironically would make you think that the statement evaluates to "true".) Well, consider a similar statement: "This statement is either true or false." Assuming that it is true produces the evaluation that it is true, and is therefore self-consistent. Assuming that it is false produces the evaluation that it is true, and is therefore not self-consistent. And if you were to assume that it is unevaluable then it would evaluate as false, and therefore not be self-consistent. And for what it’s worth, it seems like most rational people would consider the statement to be true. But does its very nature as a self-referential statement render it unevaluable due to circular logic, despite the fact that "true" is the only self-consistent answer? My gut feeling is that both of these statements ("this statement is unevaluable" and "this statement is either true or false") are in fact unevaluable due to their inherent circular logic, even though working under the assumption that they are unevaluable produces the conclusion that they must evaluate to be true or false, respectively. The main argument against my stance seems to be "If you evaluate the statement under the supposition that it is unevaluable, then you reach the conclusion that the statement is true, therefore reaching a self-contradiction that proves that the statement cannot be unevaluable". Well, consider "this statement is false" which was proven to be unevaluable because supposing either truthfulness or falsehood would lead to a contradiction. If you try to evaluate that statement under the assumption that it is unevaluable, and slightly rephrase it as "this statement is evaluable and evaluates to false", then the statement would evaluate as being false rather than unevaluable and would therefore make the conclusion that it's unevaluable seem self-inconsistent. But this is the very statement with which we demonstrated the whole concept of unevaluability! That just goes to show that with an unevaluable statement, if you attempt to evaluate it under the assumption that it is unevaluable and thereby reach an apparent self-contradition because it would evaluate to either true or false, that really doesn't prove anything. Logicians have always had a healthy fear of self-referential statements, as they can from time to time make and Honestant or Swindlecant's head explode. (An example of this is given in part I of my old "How would you cross puzzle land" mini-series.) Set theorists even came up with the rule that no set can contain itself as a member precisely to prevent wise guys from defining "the set that contains all sets that do not contain themself as a member" and asking whether that set contains itself. So I think that despite all the apparent weirdness going on, I'd call them unevaluable.

Nothing to do with diapers or smores. I'm guessing that the champion guess came from the numbers in the riddle corresponding to the number of participants at various rounds in a tournament, but there are a number of other clues to be explained. And the answer has nothing at all to do with the Lord of the Rings. But if you do look over the parts of inscription that were changed in the riddle, then it would be safe to assume that the parts that were changed have been changed for a reason. I suspect that this one will be very difficult. In part because I was limited in the number of clues I could include while keeping the structure of the Lord of the Rings inscription. In part because the answer itself is not something of quite so common knowledge as I usually riddle about, and not all that universal.

After consulting a French-English dictionary (as I took Spanish instead)

Two for the Elven kings nearest the sky Four for the Dwarf lords who work on the stone Eight for Mortal Men puffed up with pride One for the Dark Lord in his dark home In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie One to reclaim the throne, no one will find them You are to bring him, and in the light bind him From the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

megachef got this one on the nose

If it's any help, the opening is just a bit of storytelling to give the poem some color and enjoyable reading. The clues really get started from line seven onward.

Yo mama so fat, the doctor diagnosed her with flesh eating virus and gave her seventeen years to live.

Not a poster -- there are clues toward the end that would be left hanging, such as the one about the bridge. Maybe I misjudged the difficulty of this one. If so, I bet it would be the first time that's ever happened to anyone on brainden. =)

Not a train, not that there are any clues in particular that couldn't somehow be made to fit, but it just doesn't work as nicely as the intended answer. Certainly not a convict. I'd never have my real answer be something too similar to the "decoy" answer that I say I'm not in the title. And I suspect from the grin on fabpig's face that he's figured this one out but wants to give others a crack at it, which is perfectly fine.

Preposterous! Zounds! Completely untrue! Well OK, so maybe they're right I stand now accused of having eschewed The facts so they've come to indict Magniloquent charge of perjury such Is flagrant, I shouldn't do time! I simply distorted truth by a touch (Try asking my partner in crime ; ) Alas, my appeals were met with deaf ears The scoundrels, they locked me up tight Anon I'll be met with mocks and with jeers Should immature punks see my sight My destined companion, ever so true Just pinch off your nose of their smell I'll lead you away, so bid them adieu Beyond the near bridge all is well

Molly gets this one. Hopefully the clues about three sabers with two to a scabbard, unhesitating retaliation, hinging, and the tethers all make perfect sense.

Not that. I can see how it would have three sabers, but not two to a scabbard.

There are a few clues that would fit much better with the answer I have in mind, specifically in the fourth and sixth lines.