Paradoxes That No One Can Solve 

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

&/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.

underrated

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?

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?

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

What's poppin brother

@@nikkihibbert5380 it is it is

@@fairvidstv wussgood

Good day to you too mars:)

What's up homo sapiens

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. 😄

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

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.

completely true. otherwise i always skip the sponsor parts of a video

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.

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...

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.

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)

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

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.

I think we should try to shoehorn it into the commonly overused words on youtube, actually, literally and unironically, lets get paradoxically to #1

it means more than you think your comment does

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...

Wow, religious were so dumb back then 😴

Nah man I will stick to making my own decisions

Gracias tio!

People like you who blindly spew religious talking points never cease to make me feel better about myself. At least im not as gullible as you.

Thank you, Ivan.

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.

Not all paradoxes are derived from human fallacy, there are purely mathematical paradoxes

Hence, Parkway Drive. One of the greatest deathcore bands, was formed. You have solved the paradox

@@diedjently8805 more like metalcore

@@doggy007ooo no, you ruined it. Hush, hush.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@derklavierspieler7491 You sure about that? I mean if were being petty trolls you should reread it because a simple edit reveals how little your comment matters. Lol, "Hey look everyone, this Der Klavierspieler guys a petty troll!" HE WANTS TO BE FAMOUS BY POINTING OUT "the shadow" and the "shadow" ARE ACTUALLY 2 WORDS AND NOT ONE! (Ah, it sure is fun being a board petty troll. I got to admit, writing this out did give me something to entertain myself for 2 minutes) ^^ Just in case you weren't being a troll and you were just being cool by letting me know about a simple edit I'll say "Thanks". Also "Sorry" for reading it and being an even bigger troll. But also "Your Welcome" for giving you a reply that means nothing to me and giving you something to read. (Its all fun and games) :P

@@derklavierspieler7491 Your right ^^

This reminds me of the prisoners dilemma ✨🦋

you want a fun one? "the only thing i know is that i can know nothing"

:D

its good for ya

Your what??