You know what the great thing about the endless void of non-existance is?
It doesn't await you. It doesn't require preparation for it. And you won't experience it.
There is no need to worry about it because it won't happen to you. Because you will be dead, and there will no longer be any you to experience it.
Why do people block them? Because it is difficult, if even possible, for ad-blocking software to automatically determine that an ad suits the page style and is connected to the site's content.
So I can't tell the software to only let through ads that might interest me; I just let it go ahead and block all ads, all the time. It would be possible to make an exception for a site, but of course as the first I see of that site will be ad-blocked, how would I know if the ads are annoying or not?
Unless I have the same sort of extreme goodwill towards a site that would lead me to make a donation to it, I'm unlikely to go to the effort to make an exception for it in any circumstances.
[Q]Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?[/Q]
Up to you. No evidence for God's existence beyond what humans attribute to him, so if we decide he can create a rock he can't lift, he can.
[Q]What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?[/Q]
Semantics. They can't both exist within the same semantic universe; the existence of one implies the non-existence of the other.
So, to the original question, "Can an invulnerable entity commit suicide?" - depends on whether he is truly invulnerable or not. If he is invulnerable to anything that could harm him, and death is considered to be harmful for this definition, then no, he can't commit suicide. As others have pointed out, Mr. Incredible may not be completely invulnerable though, and would therefore have some weakness he might be able to exploit to kill himself.
It seems to me that the only problems with time travel paradoxes are semantic, specifically with what you mean by "changing" things. To change something (like whether your ancestor is alive or dead), this is a difference in states over a period of time (alive at time t, dead at time t+1), where t is an arbitrary time, like 11.30am on 23rd November 1987.
If you allow that time travel is possible, you are just shifting your x,y,z,t co-ordinates, so there is now an entity "Alex" at 11.30am, 23rd November 1987. But this simply means that this entity exists then. The change is that there wasn't one at 11.29, and that there is one at 11.30, not that there wasn't one at some 'previous' 11.30 and you have changed it so that there is one now - this makes no sense.
There can be no paradox, it is simply extremely unlikely that you shot your father. While I guess we can't completely discount acausal creation of a human being, it doesn't seem likely. Far more likely that you simply didn't shoot your father. Depending on what time co-ordinate you put your viewpoint at when describing the event you either:
Will not shoot your father Did not shoot your father Are not shooting your father.
This may have disturbing consequences for those who like to believe in their free will to influence their environment, but don't worry about it. As long as you don't know what happens at time t+1 you can assume you can 'change' it, however meaningless this statement might be!
Slashdot Mirror
You know what the great thing about the endless void of non-existance is? It doesn't await you. It doesn't require preparation for it. And you won't experience it. There is no need to worry about it because it won't happen to you. Because you will be dead, and there will no longer be any you to experience it.
Why do people block them? Because it is difficult, if even possible, for ad-blocking software to automatically determine that an ad suits the page style and is connected to the site's content.
So I can't tell the software to only let through ads that might interest me; I just let it go ahead and block all ads, all the time. It would be possible to make an exception for a site, but of course as the first I see of that site will be ad-blocked, how would I know if the ads are annoying or not?
Unless I have the same sort of extreme goodwill towards a site that would lead me to make a donation to it, I'm unlikely to go to the effort to make an exception for it in any circumstances.
[Q]Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?[/Q]
Up to you. No evidence for God's existence beyond what humans attribute to him, so if we decide he can create a rock he can't lift, he can.
[Q]What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?[/Q]
Semantics. They can't both exist within the same semantic universe; the existence of one implies the non-existence of the other.
So, to the original question, "Can an invulnerable entity commit suicide?" - depends on whether he is truly invulnerable or not. If he is invulnerable to anything that could harm him, and death is considered to be harmful for this definition, then no, he can't commit suicide. As others have pointed out, Mr. Incredible may not be completely invulnerable though, and would therefore have some weakness he might be able to exploit to kill himself.
It seems to me that the only problems with time travel paradoxes are semantic, specifically with what you mean by "changing" things. To change something (like whether your ancestor is alive or dead), this is a difference in states over a period of time (alive at time t, dead at time t+1), where t is an arbitrary time, like 11.30am on 23rd November 1987.
If you allow that time travel is possible, you are just shifting your x,y,z,t co-ordinates, so there is now an entity "Alex" at 11.30am, 23rd November 1987. But this simply means that this entity exists then. The change is that there wasn't one at 11.29, and that there is one at 11.30, not that there wasn't one at some 'previous' 11.30 and you have changed it so that there is one now - this makes no sense.
There can be no paradox, it is simply extremely unlikely that you shot your father. While I guess we can't completely discount acausal creation of a human being, it doesn't seem likely. Far more likely that you simply didn't shoot your father. Depending on what time co-ordinate you put your viewpoint at when describing the event you either:
Will not shoot your father
Did not shoot your father
Are not shooting your father.
This may have disturbing consequences for those who like to believe in their free will to influence their environment, but don't worry about it. As long as you don't know what happens at time t+1 you can assume you can 'change' it, however meaningless this statement might be!
What you want, then, is a Psion Revo. You can probably get them on eBay still.