Paradoxes That No One Can Solve
Pursuit of Wonder books available here: www.amazon.com/stores/Robert-...
Thank you to the book summary app Blinkist for sponsoring this video. The first 100 people to go to www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder will receive free unlimited access for 1 week and 25% off if you decide to get the full membership.
In this video, we look at the three different categories of paradoxes defined by philosopher W.V. Quine and explore what they reveal about the nature of the human understanding and its limitations.
Pursuit of Wonder books available here:
The Hidden Story of Every Person: www.amazon.com/dp/B095L8LP33
Notes from the End of Everything: www.amazon.com/dp/B08D4VSD88
(Also available to more international locations here: pursuitofwonder.com/store)
If you are interested in further supporting the channel,
you can shop Pursuit of Wonder merch here: www.pursuitofwonder.com/store
Or contribute to the Patreon here: / pursuitofwonder
Special thank you to our very generous Patreon supporters:
Alan Stein
Zinzan
Heather Liu
Siddharth Kothari
Stanley Chan
Dave Portnoy
Jaad Van der Wee
Justin Redenbaugh
Fathy Abdalla
Christian Villanueva
George Leontowicz
Kelly J. Rose
Asael Ramirez
Terry Gilmour
Follow Pursuit of Wonder on:
Instagram at: / pursuitofwonder
Facebook at: / pursuitofwonder
As always, thank you for watching. Check out my book on more philosophical ideas (The Art of Living a Meaningless Existence): www.amazon.com/dp/B0B6XPPNJY
I congratulate you on recognizing that not all paradoxes are actually paradoxes. Incompatible ideas within the same universe may seem irreconcilable, but in reality, they are not, usually because they cannot co-exist.
I mean relatively did she feel it or only noticed physical changes
if Rick Astley wanted to give you a copy of the movie "Up" if you asked him, he wouldn't be able to because he said he's never gonna give you up. but by doing that, he also lets you down, while he promised not to. this is known as the "Astley Paradox"
Underrated comment
I want what you smoking 🚬
It wouldn't be letting you down, because the only reason you asked him for a copy of Up in the first place, was to create this paradox, not because you actually wanted it, and so he did exactly what you wanted him to do. And so in fact he fulfilled his promise of not giving you Up and also not letting you down. Or so it would seem at first.... because as a result, you failed to create the paradox after all, and thus NOW he has let you down, which means you have NOW actually succeeded in creating the paradox after all.
That is a paradox ig 😂
Wait I thought I came up with this, I guess not LOL
Thinking about paradoxes is fun. But what I've noticed is that in a weird way, they're humbling. They reveal the limits of the human brain...
Yeah, they are a reminder that aspects of the universe are unknowable to us
Yes ! They remind me of this obvious truth that psychedelics show you and I believe account for the positive mental health results on a person. A humbling experience like this leaves one filled with the feeling of awe, wonder and the sense of mystery which to me, is very healthy. We know nothing, infinitely nothing !
To me, the ultimate humbler of human intelligence is just going on tiktok
Not being smarmy, but a paradox, like ourselves, are Citizens of Time. Therefore, logic dictates that there is no paradox; that there is only unresolved questions that time has not expired on. ***Philosophy, the poor man's science. 😎
@@gabrielcat72 how do paradoxes have to do with psychedelics
My favorite paradox is the “fail” paradox. I learned it from a Garfield comic, by Jim Davis. In it Jon says: “ what if I tried to be a failure…. And failed?”. If he failed to be a failure he would be successful, but a failure to be a failure. So he’s not a failure. But he is since he fails to be a failure. Garfield responded with “we’d be rich!”
He’s still a failure, he had no control of or success from his intent. Dying isn’t a success, unless it is your intent.
My own favourite is "my new year's resolution is to break my new year's resolution" which also has been my new year's resolution for a while.
Lol... Garfield! 🐈 ~*~ ~*~
By extracting the intent, you make him successful! He wanted to be a failure and he failed, therefore he is a failure! Because he failed!
Got it. Never deal with absolutes.
I find comfort in paradoxes, in a way. Our limits of understanding , and our attempts to push those limits, give humans such a massive drive to find out more.
but its also uncomfortable in a way, we have a limit and have to find a way around it
It's not really about our limits, in my opinion. Because that's simply their design
What do you mean?@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme
its comforting knowing that there is something out there un answered, and that we don't have to carry all the knowledge.
how is that comforting, it's the opposite for me, i get anxiety because of how we have literally no logical explanation to existence and consciousness
Watching this at 3am Real existential hours
Im guessing youre from Australia?
@@FanOfMinatozakiSana yep
I am from 82 degree longitude
What in indonesia it's 1 am .. i Mean we pretty close right
Ur coment is 1 hours ago which Mean 4 hours
"The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ought to be." - Richard Feynman
Exactly, paradox digested fully means realizing that you were wrong in your beleifs/assumpions, that what you believed to be fact, was in fact, only an belief/assumption, and an incorrect one too. This usually isn't easily digested. The resistance to digesting this, seeing the truth, is what we call paradox. Paradox is an amazing teacher!
BS! 6:46 This simple phrase show you guys wrong. What you guys are talking about is only one of the type of paradox mentioned
Lol I just read the first answer, the dude is using UFO's as answer to the Fermi paradox
Put another way, Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
@@JimBillyRayBob What about a pure logic contradiction, such as a square circle? Or a married bachelor?
As a programmer I often run into customer requirements similar to the Barber Paradox. Glancing over it at first sounds completely logical, but once you break it down into single conditions based on each other you quickly realize there is either important information missing or they didn't really think it through themselves before requesting it.
It all comes back to math. "This statement is false" is the same as "1=(-1)". Subjectively you could say that but objectively you would be wrong. Language is nothing more than shortened math equations and variables.
The issue of self reference is the solution to the barber paradox the power of a Set is a set of sets that contain all sets a set of everything, an empty set and a set of sets that doesn't contain itself.
The Barber Paradox also starts with a false premise. In Russell's version, it is implied that if the barber chooses not to shave, then he must shave himself, because he only shaves men that don't shave themselves. But he does not have to shave himself. He can choose to not shave, and also to not shave himself, which would allow him to exist, shaving the rest of the men that choose not to shave themselves.
Exactly a barber with a beard MAY exist
a lot of barbers do have beards. but the thing is it's said "all and only unshaved men who do not shave themselves" the all part is important. however the hole I found is that no gender is mentioned. If the barber is a woman the whole paradox falls apart
That makes sense. The conclusion such a barber cannot exist is false because it hinges on the false assumption of the barber's gender. Wouldn't that make the paradox falsidical? The video describes the paradox in the exact same way as "this statement is false", which it calls antinomy. Maybe I misunderstood something but I can't see why it would be veridical.
He may not even be able to grow a beard.
The barber could be a women, because the barber shaved all men.
The great thing about paradoxes is that you don't have to solve them. They work themselves out and so don't actually exist. That may be the greatest paradox of all.
That's fun twistings but just to be a spoilsport, the video includes examples of people solving paradoxes, so your premise is not correct. They do not work themselves out. We work them out. Also they do seem to exist.
@@Torthrodhel paradox is just something we are waiting to learn or figure out
@@jedivacuum8694 it's like magic! Everything that's called magic is called magic until it's debunked or explained, after which it isn't magic any more. :)
@@Torthrodhel It only exists what we think it exists, we cannot say that paradoxes don't exist :( Maybe i'm quite high for this discussion
@@jorgeguerreiro1013 if you are, then good on yah, and all power to yah. :)
This reminds me of being a kid and thinking “How could space be infinite? But how could it end?” Until my brain software crashed.
Literally no one else Your ---> 🧠.exe 💀
Lol, same with time never having a beginning or end
Just think... Why should it end? You are thinking so because you are a human and your existence had a beginning and an end. It need not be the same for everything
You need to consider the idea that space does not really exist, Then the paradoxes evaporate. The price is only that you then have to have also assume the perennial philosophy was right all along.
Because we live in a simulation
Love the editing style on this video , your channel deserves more recognition still , although this is an old video , your recent videos are just like this if not better please never stop educating and narrating
Zeno would have loved traditional animation cells! Because each cell (sometimes 24 single images for every second of time) animating an object in motion would appear as a still object; really neatly illustrating his idea.
PoW, the Buddhists believe in Four Corners of Truth rather than binary True/False for this reason. Things can be true, both true and false, false, and neither true nor false. All paradoxes do fit within these four corners, and its why I think the universe works this way instead of how we perceive it
Only Westerners think in binary true/false its from church indoctrination
Perception is an illusion
@@sleeplesshollow4619 you again wtf
This neither makes sense nor is true.
You know the laws of logic are more objectively more true than fair tales
I'm probably not the only person to ever notice this but I love putting the brakes on my kids' fun by reminding them that "opposite day" is an antinomy paradox. If it's opposite day, it's clearly the opposite of opposite day.
I use to think the same thing
Everyday is opposite day
Buut if its the opposite of opposite day then that means its still opposite day, the paradox forces it to exist actually.
@@dited358 okay now I have to get high to figure this out. I'll check back. But first, it seems to me that last time I was baked and considering this, the best result I could come up with was a feedback loop. I called it the oppo-mobius trip. 🤣
If it's not opposite day on opposite day it is opposite day
Nice video, very interesting. I love your wacky editing style!
The thing is with paradoxes, they don’t really represent any phenomenon of physical reality.. they’re just psychological chewing gum we create for ourselves. Fun, but frankly it feels like we make them into something more profound than they actually are.
Very true
A lot of people seem to like to use language to prove a point when it comes to paradoxes. But language is subjective. It's only a form of communication we have invented that is always changing.
I feel like they’re a nod to linguistics to up its game, more than anything.
@@RiverBlakeful honestly I mean most of these psychological questions and theory’s are so much more simple than there made out to be and it just feels like a “who’s dick is bigger” context yknow?? Like for example the meaning of life: why do you care your here make the best of it and what makes you think life NEEDS a meaning? It doesn’t need a reason it never does it just is. And time: who’s to say that time even exists what is it to say everything just is because it is They try to find a reason and an explanation for everything because they believe everything if they didn’t make it needs an explanation and a reason when it doesn’t. Some things just are.
@@rawfermews4186 if everyone thought like you we'd still be living in caves. Our inquisitiveness is what lead to every discovery that has brought us where we are today as a species. Imagine if Newton had seen that legendary apple fall and just said "That's just how things are" and carried on doing whatever he was doing where would we be today? We've barely begun to scratch the surface of knowledge of our universe but as far as you're concerned we already know everything we need to know?
Honestly, I love paradoxes because they can prove that we will never know everything. Usually, this fact gives people dread, but it's calming to me. If I can never know everything, then I can always learn, and learning is living to me. If we knew everything, then nothing would provide a challenge and we would get bored of life.
Everything has already been given
Fax
Doesnt give me dread but gives me major FOMO
"I love paradoxes because they can prove that we will never know everything." they do nothing of the sort - they would still exist if we could and did know everything there is to know. "this statement is false" is not going to go away just because you know all things.
@@xBINARYGODx there is a paradox that was created specifically to prove we will never know everything. If we look at an alphabet of fundamental truths, g states "g is true" and h states "g cannot be proven", then trying to prove g creates that paradox proving we cannot know everything. There are others like Schrodinger's cat, but if we could know everything, then eventually we'd be able to find a solution to the "this statement is false" paradox.
The ad (and paradox) at the end is the best I’ve ever heard.
I was hoping you would include “Godol’s incompleteness theorem “ (it basically extends the “this statement is false” paradox to prove that math itself cannot describe all of reality.) That may sound trivial at first but many great minds like River Penrose have have described that as one of the most important insights ever.
Our understanding of math cannot describe reality properly then. It is not any different than subjectively declaring *1 = -1*
Is that the set of all sets thing where it ends up kinda like the this statement is false, were they trying to define what a number is or something like that?
@@leighz1962do reading and understanding first and leave the commenting till after
@@phutureproofjust google mathematical paradoxes and incompleteness theorem
Where can I find more stuff about this I’m so interested in the mind
A paradox I thought of once when I was younger, was the Opposite day paradox as I call it. If someone tells you "Today is opposite day", is it really opposite day? If it is opposite day, then the statement should be reversed saying that it is not opposite day. If it is not opposite day, then the statement says it is. However, if you were to say it is opposite day, oppositely to avoid the paradox, you would instead be saying "Today is not opposite day". If Today is not opposite day, then your statement remains the same. There isn't a non paradoxical way to tell someone if it is opposite day
The periodic day of reversed linguistic exercise befalls the party believing it doesn't
So if someone says “it is Opposite Day” they are lying. If they say “it is not Opposite Day” you do not know whether they are lying or telling the truth, and you must discern this through other things they say
your so-called logic is way off base - simply because you're asking yourself if it is really opposite day - when in fact you already know its opposite day - the opposite of the opposite is still the opposite of the opposite - nice try but NO POINTS for you
@@johnjerman3421 "the opposite of the opposite is still the opposite of the opposite" Uhhh yeah. The yellow cheese is still the yellow cheese. The tasty food is still the tasty food. Your point? Edit: grammer
what is the opposite day? Opposite to what exactly
Zeno's paradox as I learned it in college: to get to a wall you have to go half way first. It takes some amount of time to go that distance. You then divide the remaining distance by half and again and again. Since you can keep dividing the remaining distance by half infinite times then you should never reach the wall.
And thus calculus.
easy to solve: "never" means "not in any future time". But as you divide the original distance in infinite segments, you divide the time necessary into infinite intervals. Whose sum, however, is finite
Just don't try that stuff in boot camp.
@@avlieox lol. Some people just aren't bright enough to get it.
@@avlieox to get from A to B do you have to go halfway first? And does that take some amount of time?
Dude that was the smoothest sponsor plug I’ve ever seen in my life
Fascinating. Thank you.
"A barber who shaved all and only men who don't shave themselves." The barber can just be a woman and it would make complete sense, it never says a male barber.
That was my own immediate thought as well.
A Female barber......scary
Or a man with Alopecia
She can shave her legs
A barber with a beard?
I can see two ways out of the barber paradox. First, the barber lives outside the town, and commutes to work, thereby not being included in the paradox at all, unless the paradox extends outside the town. Secondly, the barber is a woman or a young boy, thereby not included because the barber shaves men.
&/or, there are 2 barbers who shave each other.
On wikipedia it doesn't include men, so idk but if it did include men the second solution would be correct. The first solution is however a no go because as you pointed out as a possibility, it does extend outside of town. There is simply no wording on that. edit: the barber is male as the paradox states that the question is whether or not the barber shaves **himself**. Doesn't make the second solution completely invalid though as yes, the barber could be a young boy.
Beard
It is implicit that the barber lives in the town and is a man.
I just don't get why it has to be a paradox. Why would the barber include himself as those who shave or not. seems kinda dumb to me.
I love listening to this as I’m falling to sleep ❤
whoah that was the coolest ad i have ever seen in a youtube video
If you were able to solve a paradox, it literally wouldn't be a paradox anymore. Now that's a paradox.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. To be a paradox, you have to have substantial evidence to go against your supposed hypothesis of how something should be. So in a way, it’s already solved, it’s just still in ways “confusing” to reason about at a higher level. At least, that’s my understanding of a paradox.
No, it is not a paradox. While solving the paradox, one of the conditions is that the conclusion is absurd or the conclusion achieved does not support the premise assumed. There are a thousand of questions, riddles in this world which are unanswerable. For example if you are not able to decrypt a code, that doesn't mean that the code is paradox 😂 i hope you get it
@@kirtikumari6782 i mean I was joking, but that is still a bad analogy.
That’s.. obvious. That’s not a paradox at all.
Nah not really
Barber's paradox is not inescapable. Get a barber who has alopecia totalis. He will have no hair so no shaving for himself.
Damn, this seems right.
Came here for this comment
Massive brain
But wouldnt he still be in the group that doesnt shave themselfs?
Lol I was going to say he lives in the next town over
i liked the map showing klamath oregon and bend thats a nice place to ponder paradoxical ideas
My favourite is on a sign on the A14 in Suffolk UK that says :- Sign not in use . Which it quite ,obviously ,is in use because it is telling us that it is not in use so therefore it is in use ! ???
If the statement “there is no truth” is false, then that doesn’t imply that it’s true, it only implies that there exists a true statement.
I was thinking the same
You didn't dig deeper maaan✌️☮️🐇🕳️. Also means you didn't think deeper maaan🌼
@@liammalone6304 tf? lol
"there is no true statement"
@@PVNPLL That doesn't work either, does it? It could be false, meaning there are true statements. But that has no implication for this particular statement. It could still be false. It cannot be true, though. Just like the barber coudn't exist.
Or maybe the real paradox is the friends we made along the way
Your contentment is so great brother. One question, where do you find those resources that you use in the video? Like pictures that look like newspaper
I couldn't agree more, speachless !!!
ive always personally found how weird reality is to be sort of empowering; if the universe doesn't make sense then why should i?
Believe in the creator
Because it makes for a better life
There is no « should ». The only difference between you and any non-living part of the universe is the possibility to stay alive and reproduce... but it’s a matter of will. As a matter of fact, it’d be advantageous for me to convince you to be unhappy, not reproduce and die, while I’m trying to reproduce as much as possible. There is no obligation in our universe, only a game that we call « life », you can choose to play it or not. And also, if we feel happiness in learning about the universe, it is but a biological feature of our common instinct. We don’t *have* to learn, we *want* to learn. I don’t *have* to be happy and have children, I simply want it.
@@carloselfrancos7205 Exactly, so murdering people isn't wrong, raping girls for fun isn't wrong because at the end of the day, our destination is the same. There is no such thing as "good" from an atheist worldview. Our life is meaningless so why not do whatever we want to do? Who's obligation are we ought to follow?
Will you like to join the list of people who have an identical mindset to myself? I currently have 48 people on this list.
I'm not certain that the logic holds on the "There is no truth" paradox: If it is true that there is no truth, then the statement itself cannot be true, making itself false. That part holds up. However, if the statement "There is no truth" is simply false, this only implies that truth, of some sort exists. It doesn't force the statement to be true, since there can be other things that are true while the statement remains false. Unless I'm missing something, this is no longer a paradox or contradiction, it simply means that the statement "There is no truth" must be false.
There is NO truth, seems like, none that exists, now. Tomorrow maybe. truth can come later, since saying there is no pie, isn’t Pie can’t exist. There can be truth pie, if someone truthful bakes you one. Simple pie logic. It’s part of the bistro drive if I’m not going to have been mistaken.
Yep, i see it too. The narrator says "if the statement is false, it must be true that 'There is no truth' " which is a wrong way to interpret because just because THIS particular sentence is false, doesn't mean other statements in the world cannot be true.
The logic of a paradox is imbued by the words used that follow logical progression. That's why it becomes a 'loop'. What you're adding is something that is not allowed by the simple fact that 'no' is a finite term. It doesn't allow for maybes, perhaps', tomorrows, laters, befores, almosts, sometimes, always' or otherwise. Anything else added outside of the statement is not allowable because of the finality of the statement no. Saying that 'there can be other things that are true while the statement remains false' is an additive to the statement. No means no. It's a finality. This is where, in language, the strength of definitions of words becomes so very important. Take this statement for example. The woman had blonde hair. We know that two of those descriptors are finite; woman and hair. We know be the statement that the person in question was a woman and that she had hair. Now, depending on who you ask, blonde can have varying degrees of coloration. Depending on the perspective and position of the person making that descriptive statement, other questions can now come in to play. What time did they make this observation? Morning? Noon? Night? Was she in the shade? What was the lighting? Dark blonde? Light blonde? Platinum blonde? Strawberry blonde? Etc.. ad infinitum. And then there's the even deeper questions... does the person making this description define blonde the same way you do? This is why police investigate and interview to find as many witnesses as possible to corraborate information. But even then; there can be differences. But all of this goes out the window when you use finite terminology. There is no truth means simply that. Period, end of statement, closed-ended, no allowance for addendums; which is what you're attempting to do. Add to the statement. That's where other philosophers would stop you immediately and ask, "where does it say that?", "Where does it limit the time frame?", "Where does it limit the scope of reference?" and that is the crux. Compartmentalizing the statement and staying true to the variables or limitations afforded. It's the exact opposite of the old math joke, You have $10000 dollars. Your friend has $5000 dollars. Your friend takes $8000 dollars from you. How much do you have? (It's a subtraction problem, right? NO!) I have $15000 dollars and a dead friend. That one, you add in your own character of FTG, I'm keeping my money and setting things straight real quick even though it isn't part of the equation at hand. But in paradoxical situations, the thing that makes them as they are is the self-limiting factors that must be applied to test the statement. Like in computer programming. The line code that says A=C can never be A=C and maybe D or J or L. Unless it was written like that in the first place. Or your blood type. I'm type O negative. Finite statement. You can't say I'm type O negative, but maybe tomorrow I'll be type O positive. The word 'NO' is not an elastic term. It doesn't imply anything. It stamps it, codifies it, affirms it concretely. There is zero abstract nature to 'no'. The statement is being made as a simple statement of fact. There is no truth. But it is itself made as a statement of truth. It cannot, based on its own merit be true; because if it was it would undo the statement altogether. To say that it simply means that the statement "There is no truth" must be false then leads you to the next iteration of the logical process; the fact that the statement is false actually makes it true and so on and so on and so on... A loop. 'of some sort' is your own editorial additive. There are no trees. Well, we know that is a false statement and can be proven very quickly. There are no trees on that hill contains an additional variable and allows for further investigation to be proven true or false. When does an acorn become a tree? Was it a tree all along? When it sprouts? When it grows it's first leaf? branch? When you can climb it? Is a seedling a tree? Is a sapling a tree? Is a bush a tree? Terms then need to be defined and have their denotation agreed upon. But No is no is no all day long. And without any other available information, you're stuck with dealing with what's in front of you. Sorry so long winded. Hope this helps! tl:dr You're adding stuff that isn't part of the statement to make it work for yourself. No means No.
yea you're right. he messed up. he confused the negation thinking it was "all statements are true" instead of "at least one thing is true"
@@benwelchiv You wrote all that just to be totally wrong? The negation of "there is no truth" is "there is truth", i.e. there is at least some truth, but not necessarily all truth. To use an analogy, the negation of "the glass is empty" is "the glass is not empty", i.e. it has something in it, but isn't necessarily full. "There is no truth." is not a paradox - it's just a logically false statement. False statements do not preclude the existence of true statements, so it's logically consistent for both to exist.
For the barber paradox, this situation is actually possible by the phrasing of the initial explanation. “a barber shaves all and only men who do not shave themselves” and at first it seems obvious that this is a paradox because the barber couldn’t shave himself while also not shaving himself, but here’s the part we’re ignoring: the barber could simply be a woman. A female barber could shave all and only men that do not shave themselves. I know this is probably not a solid answer according to the original language used but it is at least the way he described it
hasn't this idea had come to anyone before?:0 (btw nice solution)
Thought the same thing, I assume he got it wrong and it's supposed to be male barber
Or, he COULD shave himself but chose not to. That way he wouldn't have to shave himself because he could, but he also wouldn't be shaving someone who could because he chose not to.
i dont know if this would agree with the part of the statement "all and only men who dont shave themselves" because if he doesnt shave himself because he chooses not to would then mean that the statement is a false statement.
Not so, at least in Russell’s time, because the word barber referred only to men. As far as I know, it still does. A woman was referred to as a hairdresser, I think. Cosmetologist and hairdresser are gender-neutral nowadays, but barber still usually refers to only men.
What's funny is that man will never stop wanting or desiring things. To desire more knowledge when there is infinite questions that could be asked. Leads to endless learning for such knowledge. We never cease to want, and the universe provides in kind.
"There is an exception to every rule" is a self-proving paradox.
"The exceptions outnumber the rule" - i before e
It is proving itself but at the same time also proving itself wrong
@@elisegoudje by " every rule has an expection" becoming an exception to itself, it proves itself right BY becoming that exception. If it did not create an exception for itself it would be untrue. By becoming a rule, it has made itself prone to at least one exception, and in doing so, proven itself as the only rule with no exception outside of its own self-contained loop.
@@NomimizuShinobu yes so it proves itself right, but at the same time it says that all rules have an exception, but not all rules have an exception, because there is an exception for that rule. Sorry, I am bad at explaining
@@elisegoudje it's exactly because that rule is it's own exception, it is the only rule that doesn't have an exception, except it does, itself. Hmmm... By becoming it's own exception, it has followed itself. It is the only rule to "have no expections. However, if it had no exceptions it would be untrue. Therefore it makes an exception solely to itself.
I really like this channel because it always leaves you thinking about what was shown in the video which is what the channel promises.
Didn't leave me thinking. It left me annoyed that channels deliberately (or perhaps unintentionally due to their own incompetence) set out to deceive people with spurious arguments that may seem true due to linguistic manipulation.
Great video, thank you 🙏
I like POW'S growth arc. I've been watching him for about 2 years, and have noticed he's gotten a little less bleak, and a little more challenging.
*This guy can literally talk about cookies and still make it sound depressing.*
He can talk about cute puppies and kittens and still make me depressed
@@Fr00stee "Because the cuteness of kittens is but a fleeting moment in time. For them to grow up into bitter, menacing cats faced with true reality outside of childhood innocence"
Can be kinda dangerous really, someone whos utterly depressed might get stuck in the thought process and only make it worse for themself.
@@thesaviorofsouls5210 Maybe he should add some kind of warning text before his videos...
@@lonestarr1490 i mean its philosophy, and as i said it might be dangerous to some. For some it might actually be a great help, maybe it would be good to put a warning...but i feel like that isnt completely justified either. Find it really hard to give an opinion on this personally
This is the first video by you that I've watched. It was philosophically satisfying, and just plain fun to watch. I've spent sleepless nights pondering some of the paradoxes of which you spoke. What's interesting to me, is the paradox of anything existing. If nothing can be created out of nothingness, why do I see things I perceive to exist? How can existence be born from a lack of existence?
This is something I’ve been pondering for awhile, how nothing is really something. Interesting ain’t it. To me it is because we don’t understand what meaning is.
God can create something from nothing. Many people say that's what the Big Bang actually was -- God speaking the universe into existence (God creates with his voice, such as "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” ).
So where did God come from?
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 however, that only works if you believe in God. And then, you're getting into religious faith, which I don't believe can be argued, because it's a belief based not on knowing, but rather accepting something as 'fact' based on belief. I'm Buddhist and believe in dependent origination, which is to say something can not arise from nothing. I understand that my belief/understanding may be looked upon as faith as well. Also, I'm not trying to attack you, or your beliefs. Just pointing out some have different beliefs. It doesn't make anyone better than anyone else.
@@danielreuben1058 When people say that God created the earth out of nothing, they are wrong. The spoken word has power. If you don’t believe me just go insult someone and watch them punch you in the nose. 😄
Was kind of giving it a bit to start getting interesting and all of a sudden i was laser focused lol nice video
What a great way to do a sponsor segment.
For the arrow one, I think it's simple. "Motion" is defined by changing position in time, so it still meets the requirements
All time is,is a measurement of rythyms and/or motions. Therefore does it even exist outside of an individual's thought?
You have to consider energies.
I think it's that very definition, changing position, which leads to the paradox and perpetuates it. Yes, it is useful more often than not to describe or report continuous movement between A and B as a series of changed positions, a ship on the ocean, a horse on a course, even an arrow in flight. Yet on the other hand a position only makes sense as a stop for an appreciable time. Usually that's no problem, except in Zeno's mischievous hands where those pseudo-stops seem to have to repeat endlessly.
In each instant the arrow moves zero meters in zero seconds, for a velocity of zero divided by zero, which is the indefinite ratio, equal to every quantity. In the instant the arrow moves at _all_ velocities.
Also there's the Conservation of Momentum. Objects don't lose momentum by dividing the time. Since mass isn't lost and momentum isn't lost at any point (assuming no air friction) then velocity is implicitly retained.
The point of Sarah becoming a different person depends on the frame of reference. It's like saying the car steadily accelerated from 1 kmph to 60 kmph but at each instant, you felt like you were going at the same speed as before. But if you try to remember the initial start you feel the difference. Also there's psychology to it as well in case of Sarah's case. It's kind of like muscle memory. When you get too used to something it feels effortless and you feel like you have a superpower. That's when you feel the difference.
"Paradoxes That No One Can Solve" me: *isn't that.. what a paradox is?*
This is a very well written video 😀
I don't know if I can accurately convey this, but you're right about having to break logic a bit to resolve paradoxes. With the "this statement is false" paradox, I think you have to get a bit meta to resolve it. If the statement is false, then that makes it true, which makes it false again. If you contain that loop and observe that the statement is broken, then you can truly say that the statement is false from the perspective of the higher layer. It's false because it's unresolvable, I guess. I don't know how to concisely put meaning to my brain words.
It's only false if that's what the reality considers as false. These terms are suggestive outside our personal values and experiences and change with context and accuracies. They boggle our brain because it's like a fire. Within fire, fire thrives but outside of fire fire dies so how does it continue to stay lit? Giving proper context of the experience is crucial in understanding the elements we value and how we evaluate these individual pieces of information and put them together to create a continuation is what truly happens. There is no solution to any question outside of our words so a paradox is just an exception in words.
I would also add that the phrase itself is not falsifiable. It doesn’t mean anything, so it can neither be true or false, which is why it’s causing so much confusion. You can only say things are false that can be proven to be false. So it seems more like an interesting linguistic trick than an actual paradox.
@@joeymdye I would also say that it's neither and it's actually more like looking at the theming of a brainstorm less than an event. it has several allies it can explore due to it's lack of specification.
The problem here, is in the underlying assumption that such statements must be either true or false... there is, however, a third category: "broken!". Broken or internally inconsistent statements should be reformed or else discarded. The sorts of questions a Zen buddhist might answer... "mu!" Take the "Barber" paradox... it's perfectly acceptable to answer "impossible! No such barber could exist!". It is NOT a paradox until you can add the observation "Yet, it can be seen that such a barber exists!" ... only at this point do we have a paradox... ... till then, we have an internally inconsistent statement that may be discarded. "I always lie" isn't in this category, as the speaker clearly "sometimes" lies... but being capable of lying "sometimes" does not force the statement to be true. So, the statement resolves unambiguously to false. "This statement is false" falls into the "broken" category - as it is internally inconsistent. We do not consider broken statements... we reform them or discard them.
@@garychap8384 If we want to be incredibly technical there is a new category for every single new development given to the context but now that we've broken it down to this level all we're chasing the concepts of words. Simply put, there is no right answer nor wrong nor broken. An answer is suspended in time and therefore isn't physical you can't chase the words or follow their journey after they are uttered. The words themselves aren't even exactly the same just similarities our brain deemed close enough to be consistent.
The issue with the "Fermi.Paradox" is that it is based upon a string of assumptions that are taken as fact. Since we only have one intelligent life form planet to go by, we have no way to judge how often it occurs. I think most of this kind of paradox is based almost entirely upon incomplete understanding of the system being analyzed.
The two biggest answers to the Fermi paradox are that a) the inverse square law is a thing, and b) space is _big._ Our farthest piece of technology is barely outside the solar system, and the machinery we have that's purpose built to communicate with it has trouble communicating with it already, because radio signals get lost in background noise extremely quickly. On top of that, even if radio signals maintained their strength indefinitely, ours have only covered 0.2% of the width of the Milky Way.
The Fermi Paradox: If conservative estimates are entered into the Drake Equation for those variables we have *some* measurements for/knowledge of, then our galaxy should've already been completely colonized and recolonized by advanced civilizations several hundred times over. The key is time: forget speed of light communication between distant home worlds - the earliest races had the time to physically cross the galaxy again and again.
You do realize the Fermi paradox takes into account how many times intelligent life has developed on earth right? They take that number with all the species known to man, even plant life, and consider how many of them became intelligent, under what living conditions, and basically searched for such conditions on other planets, now we have a general number of how many planets are capable of hosting life, than we take in account how much life earth has had and give it the same chances, under the same conditions. Now obviously this number isn’t exact but it’s a guesstimate as to what “should” be out there….the thing is scientists have discovered anything, much less than the numbers they have come up with. Now we have the problem of why? The dark forest theory? The great filter theory? Something everywhere obviously prevents life from becoming advanced enough to communicate to other planets. Ask yourself why? And look at human nature. Funny joke to end this. Aliens discover earth. Alien pilot: captain we have discovered complex life on this planet Alien captain: incredible, are they intelligent Alien pilot: well sir, they are intelligent but not smart Alien commander: what the hell are you talking about? How can one be smart and stupid at the same time? Alien pilot: well sir, they are smart in the sense that they have developed nuclear energy and weapons Alien commander: oh shit, we better be careful than, so what makes them stupid? Alien pilot: well sir, they have the nuclear weapons pointed at themself.
I wouldn't call it a Paradox, because even if the chance is sooo unbelievably small, it is possible, that we are the only planet with life, while every second planet is "supposed to be".
7:35 lol I went on this exact rollercoaster. It's the blue fire in europa park
"True friendship ought never to conceal what it thinks. " - St. Jerome
You are literally one of the few people who can not only keep me going through an ad but actively listening to it
completely true. otherwise i always skip the sponsor parts of a video
The barber shaves himself on his day off, when he's not being "the barber." "This statement is false" & "There is no truth" are at once true and later false depending on where you place your attention in the logic loop. These falsidical paradoxes reveal the necessity of time for applying the logic of validation. Being self referencial, they create this infinite feedback loop. Existence is the first and will be the last of the antinomies. Thanks for this great video on one of my favorite subjects.
Or the barber just doesn't shave. Or has no need to like not having hair to shave.
@@saltyman5603 If he doesn't shave himself then he is in the group of men who don't shave themselves. Therefore he has to shave himself hair or no hair for the original statement to be true. Thats why its a paradox.
@@aoebill Why would you shave yourself if you have no hair and aren't a teenage boy on tiktok?
@@saltyman5603 it isn't a riddle. You are missing the point.
@@saltyman5603 yeah that is what I was thinking
A year ago this video blew my mind. I drew most of the symbols out of this video in a single page a week before this video came out, at the time while I was drawing I had no clue what I was drawing. I drew it in the style of printing very fast and messy, as if someone took my hand and made me do it. I had a friend who witnessed the whole thing, the drawing process and the realisation of what I drew a week later when this video came out. The drawing was out of feeling, doubting myself on many subjects. So this wasn't a case of drawing a future or anything but more of a sign from my intuition that I am on the right track in life. Call me crazy but it was the most logical explanation I could make of it...
You ARE being monitored / tracked. Take that as a compliment of your worth / danger to them . ☆
I think I can speak for everyone when I say we believe you. Every word.
Very interesting thanks for that
This video is amazingly made! Great editing as well.
You can’t use logic to solve illogical problems. Life is not a question to be answered, it’s meant to be lived.
Hey Reyna! To readers of your comment I recommend your video "trust the science". I think, it goes perfectly hand in hand with this video. All the best to you and your channel, Reyna! I enjoy your videos a lot:)
Pretty tired of living life ngl
@@hurrayboy1995 All the best to you!
This video was amazing art
I haven’t tuned in on your videos in awhile and I have to say that I see a big upgrade on edits! 🤯
I came up with one: Tutorial Paradox When you follow a tutorial exactly with no difference, yet the your results don't match the results of the tutorial.
Only if u assume results are purely dependent of your own autonomous actions instead of also on the infinite other factors
@@cupboard5258 It was a joke
@@narrowx5577 lol
@@narrowx5577 No, not it wasn't. You and many other people just say it was a joke because you got proven wrong and now you sound like an idiot. Don't run away from the truth buddy. It always catches up to you no matter what.
@@samueltomasovic8799 I wasn't the one who said "not it wasn't." Also. I never said they were wrong. Also they didn't prove me wrong, they just assumed I genuinely thought every single exact variable was the exact same in both scenarios, which you'd have to be an idiot to believe. If it didn't work obviously something isn't the exact same. My sentence was contradictory, which was the joke. If you want to be a smart ass learn to type, and also think about what you're even talking about before you say it.
I like the paradox for the word that means “words that define themself”
I think the Fermi paradox is easily explained, even without a definitive answer. Simple conclusions like other life does not want us to know of it’s existence, or some other conclusion revolving around us not knowing what real evidence looks like could explain the Fermi paradox.
"Not all Paradoxes is actually paradoxical" is in itself a paradox.
No, the meaning of a word is dependent on the context in which it is used, not equivalent to its dictionary definition. That sentence means: "Not all things commonly referred to as paradoxes actually meet (my/the speaker's) definition of what is paradoxical". It is a true statement, given the context of it being a response to other people calling non-paradoxical things "paradoxes". The word "paradoxes" refers to "everything that people call a paradox", not actual paradoxes. You can take it out of context to make it paradoxical, but what for? It's just a recolored version of: "A is not A", which has no meaning whatsoever. There are infinite falsidical paradoxes. Just think fallaciously and you'll always create one. I don't see anything interesting about that. I guess it can be amusing.
I'd call it 'contradictory', personally...but that doesn't make it a paradox.
@@sttthr your explanation cleared things up. thank you!
@やる気ない damn I relate so hard with ur name
and it's not at the same time
Good day homans
What's poppin brother
@@nikkihibbert5380 it is it is
@@fairvidstv wussgood
Good day to you too mars:)
What's up homo sapiens
In the case of " this statement is false" i think we could apply the same logic as for the arrow, since we are supposing that the statement is just being proposed to us as a metaphysical question it becomes hard to create a logic around it, but as the arrow must account for existing in time so we must consider that a statement has to be created by a thinking mind and so we can add to the logic of the parox the intent and maybe also the intentions of the entity proposing said paradox, giving us a chance with methodical scrutiny of all known motives and logics to create an appropriate response to each possible explanation for that word to be creted, such as " the entity has inverted knowledge of the word false" or " the entity have said the wrong word" while they may seem like unsatisfing answers to a impossible question what is intresting is that even on a problem easily considered impossible for anyone we can still apply a logic to it and make it so we can actually interact about something that is completly outside of human grasp
Great illustrations
There are some fallacies in this video. For instance, the young sun paradox. Assuming it's correct that early in Earth's history the sun was only 70% as powerful - and I have no reason to believe that's false - there are two things that could account for liquid water. One is that the Earth would have been closer to the sun and therefore would have received a larger dose of that 70%. The other is that Earth's early atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide then - as we all know it's a greenhouse gas. Even more, there was a substantial amount of methane in the atmosphere and that's an even stronger greenhouse gas.
For whatever reason, the video suggests the young sun and fermi paradoxes are Antinomies, but they pretty clearly stem from lacking knowledge, so I think they ought to be considered falsidical until they're solved.
I was thinking the exact same thing
I am really not convinced that the Fermi Paradox or the Young Sun Paradox are paradoxes in anything but name. They don't seem to share the essential quality of any of the three types discussed, namely appearing to explode logic. Surely these are just "things not understood for lack of information". There are many things in this category and the program for solving them is simply the program of science. Shouldn't a true paradox be something deeper that requires a revolution in logic to solve it?
Indeed. Or one or both the statements are wrong. Either the sun wasn't 70% ,or the earth had a different temperature. or it has to do with your examples. Whatever it is, it's no paradox. The assumption is either wrong or incomplete.
The working of the solar systems working dynamics are well known, gravity would prevent us having been in a closer orbit, However the other proposition not only holds weight as far as greenhouse, but add in what we know of the amount of heat left over from formation, and from internal friction and volcanism during the early years certainly could easily account for it.
This was really enjoyable! I agree with, that all paradoxes are derived of human fallacy, and that all things are contrived; which funnily enough isn’t a paradox
Not all paradoxes are derived from human fallacy, there are purely mathematical paradoxes
2 minutes into the video and my mind is already 😵💫
Good video with well done research but I was hoping to discover new paradoxes as the title implied.
People are sort of like an ant walking over a tv. To the ant the tv is just a random object but you could never explain and they could never comprehend the purpose and meaning of it. Similarly a human mind could be seeing things every day but not be able to comprehend it's purpose or meaning.
or maybe there simply is no meaning to all of it, both ant walking over a tv and a human mind seeing things every day.
That’s true
@@gidmanone that is not
@@vectorv4285 ??
maybe if there were more programs with ants and in the ants' language (reach out and touch someone?) maybe they would watch...
The Arrow Paradox is actually true when you account for special relativity. An arrow moving at light speed is not experiencing any time, therefore in its reference frame it is at rest. But to an outside observer the arrow is moving at the speed of light and therefore in motion.
There is no proof that something traveling at the speed of light does not experience time.
@@donovanives2963 if you calculate observed time dilation at light speed you get infinite time. This makes more intuitive sense if you think of light speed as the rate which entropy can occur. Once at light speed things are moving in equilibrium with that rate so you have zero entropy occurring. You will not perceive any time as passing because two particles moving at the same velocity will never interact with each other.
Arrow can’t travel at the speed of light and have mass (i.e., exist) at the same time
@@donovanives2963 there is, It's called photons, and we are bombarded with it every day from the Sun
@@xcskier29 This is speculated, and theorized, with no proof behind it. For starters, there is no way for us, at this point in time, to accurately calculate light speed to begin with. You mentions special relativity, but failed to state the full name. It is the widely accepted Special THEORY of Relativity. This is the closest we have come to possibly understanding the relationship between space and time. So like I said before, there is no PROOF that something traveling at the speed of light does not experience time. This theory also suggests that something traveling faster then the speed of light will be going backwards in time, even though it is not widely referenced in the Special Theory of Relativity. There is only speculation.
The Arrow paradox is literately calculus, taking the "speed" at any one infinately small instant, even though at one point something is not moving, but infinately many of these points creates motion.
My buddy has 'The deck of Theseus'. Technically, it's a new deck but, as far as the county permit office is concerned, it's the original deck.
One thing I think most people missed while playing Portal 2: Wheatley SOLVED the "This statement is false" paradox: "eh? I dont really care one way or the other. If you say so; Fine. Its false. Whatever...." It was pure genius. Most paradoxes and philosophical conundrums can be overcome once you step back a bit and realize its all interpretation. The glitch is not in the presentation... it is in the personal interpretation of the listener/observers mind. It is just a mind, not at all omniscient, and can only know what it can, and has. It is not perfect, and has individual filters and contemplation aspects that no one else can perceive. Like the Barber... no one ever said he was talking about himself... he was talking about his job- service to his customers. He was never his own customer- what? Is he going to pay himself for his own service? The Paradox was in their self for overthinking it, and implying additional falsehoods to the topic to more confuse themselves.
Paradox is totally one of my favorite words. Never get to use it enough IMO.
I think we should try to shoehorn it into the commonly overused words on youtube, actually, literally and unironically, lets get paradoxically to #1
For the false creates true creating false……… paradoxes (my favourite is the grandfather paradox) use Shrödinger’s Cat to show that the statement is both true and false at the same time.
When you see someone sad, you ask them "What's Up" This is known as the friend paradox.
I suspect that examples of Quine's third kind of paradox (antinomies), seem to just be type 1 paradoxes (falsidical) where people haven't yet noticed their mistakes. Zeno probably would have called his paradox an antinomy. ... EXAMPLE 1: ("This statement is false") Language is used to model and communicate concepts, but every kind of model only works when used in the correct way or correct domain. "This statement is false" is a purely linguistic construct devoid of any ties to reality, and devoid of a core idea to communicate. It LOOKS like it is communicating an idea because it has a subject and predicate with the grammatically and structurally correct way of describing a noun, *but* by referencing itself for the subject, any "idea" it would communicate relies on deciphering the sentence first, which quickly devolves into an infinite regress. We can never reach a core idea. Math also models reality, but I doubt many people would take it seriously if someone simply wrote "1 = 0". There's nothing profound about reading/writing a contradiction. You just cause problems if you accept a contradiction as an axiom and try to work with it. In math, we actually use proof by contradiction to check the validity of our starting axioms. Here, it seems like the false assumption, aka the hidden axiom, is that the sentence communicates a logical insight. Speech can be nonsense and completely lack any coherent concept to be communicated. (Keyboard mashing "Soadfra nak janbapf.") or ("Goat purple elevation.") or ("This sentence isn't this sentence.") It's only after you accept the false dichotomy that the sentence MUST be either "true" or "false", that you encounter problems. That should simply be seen as the proof that the sentence is incoherent. ... PS: The examples after that don't even seem like paradoxes. They are just examples of gaps in knowledge, seemingly contradictory evidence, intimidating problems to investigate/solve, or questions that aren't posed in logically rigorous terms. (Logical rigor just means it is perfectly defined and unambiguous. How can anyone answer whether or not souls exist, if we haven't precisely defined what a soul is in the first place?)
Right on. Most people don't realize math and equations are the basis of language. This statement(1) is(=) false(0) is: 1=0: That is just bad math and incorrect language used.
Quite interesting. I heard the one about the barber some 40 years ago while in high school. At the time I chocked it up to a riddle with no clear cut answer. I had no idea it was some deep paradox until tonight.
Strangely I feel love of you when you talk like this. Thank you
For some reason this made me think of a quote i heard somewhere, that the best liar you know is not the best liar you know.
Nothing is ever at rest. Even if it has stopped, their is motion that keeps it in place.
Funny thing about Zeno's various paradoxes is that a lot of them brush very close to ideas that are now well known in quantum mechanics. I feel like he would have done well as a quantum physicist in modern times.
How good a mathematician was Zeno?
In what way
@@AverageAlien Zeno’s Arrow paradox sounds somewhat similar to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that you cannot know the exact position and velocity of a particle simultaneously
@@nathanthomas974 It's not that deep, their physics were simply not advanced and generalized enough to contain equations and models and definitions for words like movement/motion.
There's actually a funny paradox that's probably not a paradox. The Astley Paradox. If you asked Rick Astley for the movie up, he can't give it to you, because he'll never give you up, but if he does this, he'll let you down, thus creating The Astley Paradox
:D
If someone ever predicted that "something bad will happen to you", then that would be a paradox, because if you were about to do something, you wont do it now, cuz you know it would end up badly for you, BUT, if you do NOT do that something, then not doing it will end up being bad for you.
The issue of self reference is the solution to the barber paradox the power of a Set is a set of sets that contain all sets a set of everything, an empty set and a set of sets that doesn't contain itself.
I'm a barber, as was my father. I remember the barber paradox presented by a math teacher and customer in my father's shop when I was 8 years old. I've loved math and science ever since. A similar paradox was used by Spock of Star Trek fame to flummox a group of androids holding the crew hostage to their service. I know many myself. Paradoxes that is, not androids. Lol!
Can you explain somethin? Im having trouble figuring out the barber paradox :(( I am not an english speaker the following question confused me.. " so does the barber shaves himself? if he does not, then he's part of the group which he does shave " i am so confused here like it says " if he does not " how is he part of the group if he does not shave..?
@@mike_theskinny8646Because at the start, it said that the barber only shaves people who don't shave themselves, and that he is the only barber.
@@mike_theskinny8646 it like this- all men must be shaven and no man including the barber is allowed to shave himself. Only the barber can shave people. He is the only barber, wich means there is no barber to shave him. How can the only barber be shaven when he is the only person allowed to shave people but is not allowed to shave himself? Only a second barber can resolve this but these people can have only one.
@bigslumpson7985 or he is a women or a man who just not needs to cut his beard be he is unable to grow it
Here’s the conclusion of the “there is no truth” statement. It is possible for truth to exist outside of this statement, so even if it is false, other truth still exists.
someone finally said it
Exactly! Your explanation is far more succinct (and better) than mine.
If there is no truth, the statement is false. But if the statement is false, there is in fact, truth. In other words, this statement is considered a lie or misinformation, not a paradox, imo. It’s like saying “the Earth is flat” or grass is purple, lol
"There is no truth" it's no paradox ... it's a straight lie. Or let's say it scientifically ... a false statement. One confusing that with a "paradox" or a true statement, it's either very pessimistic, either emotionally unstable and delusional, either malevolent, or not very smart. Health!
You're stepping outside the confines of the statement and adding stuff that isn't there regarding the statement. That's the baseline of philosophy and a tenet of logic. You can't do that. No means no. You're answer doesn't even go by what's put forward by the statement. it might as well not even be there. It is not possible for truth to exist outside of the statement according to the statement. That's like getting pulled over for running a red light and trying to tell the officer that there's a green light somewhere and that's the one you're going by...
A lot of these paradoxes are resolved by something called the “equivocation fallacy”, this is where you use one term to mean different things. For example, if someone said “all bats are mammals. Therefore, baseball players use mammals to hit bats.” The argument is using the mammal bat and a baseball bat to validate the argument. This is seen in many short paradoxes. Furthermore, other paradoxes can be solved by error, for example, the argument “there is no truth” doesn’t work because there is truth. It is true that there is truth. I haven’t investigated many paradoxes but from the ones I have seen, truth and finding the error in the argument eliminates the paradox, once more, another paradox and solution is as follows, “this statement is false”, this argument is solved by saying, “their argument does not claim anything that is true therefore it can be neither true nor false”
Also, to clear up the last paradox I explained, you may be wondering, “if the argument doesn’t claim anything true and it cannot be true nor false then is the argument “there is no truth true?” No, this is because there are relative terms and while truth in it of itself is objective, a relative term is something like “what temperature does it change from hot to cold”, obviously there are many different answers depending on the person you ask. (This is also a “fallacy of the beard” argument if you were wondering)
lol this is the only video that made me listen to the "sponsored by" part willingly and like it
Pinocchio's paradox: Pinocchio says - "My nose will grow now". If his nose grows then it's because he told the truth and, thus, his nose should not grow. On the other hand, if his nose doesn't grow it's because he lied and therefore his nose should in fact grow. 🤯
His nose would grow. Why? Because he said it believing that it was a lie. Truth being objective, his belief is what actually causes his nose to grow.
Whta
It grows only after because he says "now" means it happens presently. When it doesnt grow it means he lied so it grows moments after.
The whole issue with this paradox is assuming Pinocchio's nose is omniscient. He can't say "there is no God" and see what his nose does to definitively confirm the existence of God. It would be based on whether his intent was to deceive or not. Say he was a devout Christian, his nose would grow following that statement, regardless of the presence of a higher power.
I really needed to question my existance and intelligence right after dinner- Thanks KZhead algorithm
its good for ya
Your what??
My head has exploded. Thanks. 😂
My favorite paradoxes include: The Pinocchio paradox: "My nose grows now." Since his nose grows whenever he lies, it would not grow. However, since it would not grow, it would make it a lie and it would grow. The time travel paradox: If you go back in time and prevent something devastating from happening (say 9/11), in the altered future your friends and family won't even recognize you and everything you talk about will likely be confusing to them. You will be sent into one of a quadrillion potential futures.
Both would be a falsical paradox. There is no Pinocchio or reverse time travel(rewinding time). Even so.. Pinocchio saying his nose will grow becomes a lie when it doesn't grow.. causing it to grow in the new now. There is no objective paradox even if we subjectively say there is.