[Guest]

The philosopher chose the correct door and safely entered the Inner Sanctum. Seated on two diamond thrones were the two greatest priests in the entire universe! It is possible that at least one of them knew the answer to the Great Question: “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

Of course, each of the two great priests was either a knight or a knave. (Knights can only make true statements and knaves only make false statements) (Whether they were human or monkey is not relevant.) So we do not know of either whether he is a knight or a knave, or whether he knows the answer to the Great Question. The two priests made the following statement:

First Priest: I am a knave, and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing.

Second Priest: I am a knight, and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing.

Did either of the priests really know why there is something instead of nothing?

PS. this is a puzzle that my friend had given me and stumped me, neither of us know the answer but i would love if you could figure it out. thanks!

[Guest]

The first priest can't be a knight because he says he's a knave and that would be false. Therefore he is a knave and the second part of his statement must be false to make the statement as a whole be false. He knows why there is something instead of nothing.

The second priest could be a knight or a knave (the question does not state there should be one of each). If he's a knight he doesn't know the answer. If he's a knave he may or may not know the answer.

[Aaryan]

The first priest must be a knave. He cannot be a knight because the first part of his statement would be false, regardless of the second part. He can say that he is a knave AND does not know the answer, (altogether) the whole statement is still a lie. Therefore, he also knows the answer. The second priest could be either.

[Guest]

It would be impossible for either of them to make the statement: "I am a Knave." Surely a knight would never lie, and a Knave has to lie, so neither could make that statement (a Knave would be telling the truth if he claimed to be a Knave). Therefore it is a paradox. The second priest could be either a Knave or a Knight. If he is a Knight, he knows nothing and if he is a Knave, he has your answer.

[Peekay]

Neither a Knight nor a Knave can make the stand-alone statement "I am a Knave!" That would lead to a paradox. However, a Knave could very well make the statement "I Am a Knave" if it is "AND"ed with any other statement which is false. A Knight could never do that because both parts of his statement would have to be True.

So, the first priest is a Knave and by above logic he does know why there is something instead of nothing. I am sure if you stay with him a while you would also be able to know the reason in spite of the priest being a Knave. For, as we all know, a Knave is as good as a Knight since we know exactly what sense to make of his statements!

Edited June 2, 2011 by Peekay

[Aaryan]

Neither a Knight nor a Knave can make the statement "I am a Knave!" That would lead to a paradox. However, a Knave could very well make the statement "I Am a Knave" if it is "AND"ed with any other statement which is false. A Knight could never do that because both parts of his statement would have to be True.

So, the first priest is a Knave and by above logic he does know why there is something instead of nothing. I am sure if you stay with him a while you would also be able to know the reason in spite of the priest being a Knave. For, as we all know, a Knave is as good as a Knight since we know exactly what sense to make of his statements!

Exactly what I said, but in better wording.

[Peekay]

Exactly what I said, but in better wording.

You are correct Aaryan!

[Aaryan]

Repped you up for proper wording

[Aaryan]

Repped you up for proper wording

[Guest]

i asked a philosopher teacher and he said that both aaryan and peekay are correct. thanks everyone!! but now there is another puzzle, im wondering if you all could help in this one too...

And now you are about to find out the true answer to the Great Question of why there is something instead of nothing!

Well, one of the two priests, who in fact did know the answer to the Great Question, when asked by the philosopher, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” gave the following response:

“There is something instead of nothing.”

What drastic conclusion follows from all this?

(like the previous puzzle i do not know the answer to this one either) thanks!

[Molly Mae]

i asked a philosopher teacher and he said that both aaryan and peekay are correct. thanks everyone!! but now there is another puzzle, im wondering if you all could help in this one too...

And now you are about to find out the true answer to the Great Question of why there is something instead of nothing!

Well, one of the two priests, who in fact did know the answer to the Great Question, when asked by the philosopher, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” gave the following response:

“There is something instead of nothing.”

What drastic conclusion follows from all this?

(like the previous puzzle i do not know the answer to this one either) thanks!

Oglesby?

There is nothing instead of something.

EDIT: More precisely, there is not something.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Molly Mae

[Guest]

That "nothing" does not exist in our universe. Ask anyone to describe "nothing" and they will respond with descriptive terms like "empty" and "black" and "void." The argument against this is, of course, that if it can be described, it cannot be "nothing." More importantly is the fact that humanity has defined "nothing," thereby giving it meaning, which (naturally) means that -- in our vanity -- we have destroyed all forms of nothing in existence.