Is this true?

According to Lucas Curtis>> from the What are some examples of logically impossible scenarios? -
Quora

What is the greatest paradox you can think of?

I don’t know if these are the greatest, but they are a few of my favorites:
The Ship of Theseus. Theseus was a Greek hero who did many noble things. When he retired, the grateful
Greeks decided to preserve his ship as a monument to his heroism. Of course, the ship was made of wood,
iron, and rope…all things that rot or corrode over time. As wooden planks rotted — as iron fasteners
rusted — as ropes decayed — the Greeks replaced them piece by piece. Eventually, every single part of
the ship had been replaced. So here’s the question: is it still the Ship of Theseus?

If you say “Yes”, then consider the following scenario: what if, as the original pieces were removed and
replaced, they were reassembled in the next berth over? Eventually there would be two ships; one made
of brand new parts, and one made of the original parts of the Ship of Theseus. Could you still argue that
the ship made of new parts is the Ship of Theseus?

If you say “No, it’s not the same ship,” then think about this: at what point does it stop being the Ship of
Theseus? When the first part is replaced? When the last part is replaced? When more than 50% of the
parts have been replaced? Surely there’s some moment when it ceases to be the Ship of Theseus. And
what about your body? You contain almost none of the same cells and atoms that you had when you were
born. Are you still the same human being, though? Most people would agree that you are, despite being
larger and more developed, because the thing that was you never ceased to exist.
The Lottery Ticket. Suppose you buy a lottery ticket. You hear on the evening news that 10 million tickets
were sold, and that the winner will be drawn from the pool of tickets sold; in other words, there will be a
winner.

And yet, you know that it is extremely improbable that you hold the winning ticket. You would be
justified in believing that your ticket will not win.

You would also be justified in believing that your uncle Bill’s ticket will not win, and that your sister
Wendy’s ticket will not win, and that your mailman Steve’s ticket will not win. In fact, for any ticket sold,
you would be completely justified in believing that that ticket will not win.

Which means…you are justified in believing contradictory things: that no ticket will win, and that one
ticket will win.
Ronald Opus. The sad, strange story of Ronald Opus was invented by Don Harper Mills to demonstrate
how a homicide investigation can be twisted by subsequent developments to the case. I’m not sure if it
counts as a paradox, per se, but it certainly presents an interesting legal quandary with no easy resolution.

The story goes like this: Ronald Opus turns up in the county morgue, having died of a shotgun blast to the
head. Strangely enough, Opus was shot while falling from the top of a 10-story building; in fact, Opus
had intended to commit suicide by leaping from the building, having left a note announcing his intentions.
Neither the shooter nor Opus was aware that a safety net had been set up at the bottom of the building to
protect window washers. Had Opus not been shot in the face by a shotgun, he most likely would have
survived his fall.

If Opus intended to commit suicide and wound up dead, even if his death did not occur by the means he
intended, then his death would have been ruled a suicide; however, the fact that Opus’s suicide attempt
would have failed if not for the shotgun blast makes the coroner think that the case might be better labeled
as homicide.

But wait…it gets stranger.

The shotgun blast came from a room on the 9th floor of the building, in which an elderly couple were
having a spat. It was the old man’s habit to wave a shotgun at his wife when he was angry (dysfunctional
much?) and in this instance, he was so enraged that his hands were shaking and he could not hold the gun
steady. When he pulled the trigger, the pellets missed his wife, passed through the window, and struck
Opus, who just happened to be falling past the window.

If the old man intended to kill his wife, but killed Ronald Opus instead, then he is culpable in the death of
Opus. Homicide it is. But upon collecting the old man and the old woman’s statements, it becomes
evident that neither the man nor his wife knew that the shotgun was loaded. Since the old man did not
intend to murder the old woman, the discharge of the shotgun was an accident, as was the death of Ronald
Opus.

Case closed? Not even remotely. A witness testifies that she saw the old man’s son loading the shotgun a
few weeks earlier. The son was furious that the old woman had cut off financial support. Knowing his
father’s bizarre tendency to threaten his mother with a shotgun, the son loaded the shotgun expecting that
his mother would be shot and killed during the next marital spat. Now, the son becomes culpable in the
death of Ronald Opus.

Perhaps you see where this is going. In a final twist worthy of M. Night Shayamalan, Ronald Opus
decided to commit suicide because he was despondent about his failed attempt to cause his mother to be
murdered by his father. Yes, the son who loaded the shotgun was none other than Ronald Opus himself.
Dun dun dunnnnnnnnn. The coroner labels the case a suicide.

Or is it?