Whats the paradox for getting in a comfortable spot to sleep in and then feeling the urge to move one of your limbs and then not being able to sleep comfortably.
It's often referred to as the "paradox of comfort," where the act of adjusting for comfort disrupts the very comfort you were trying to achieve in the first place.
That's another subjective one where it all depends on when it gets too crowded for specific people. It's the same as the economy buying power thing or the sand of grain. It only becomes a real paradox if you decide people have an objective idea of when too crowded is too crowded. And those "real" paradoxes only exist when you bring scientifically impossible things into the statement, like the sword and sheild or pinocchio one. Like what the sigma bro
Very similar in theory to the "nobody hits on the hot girl because she's so hot". Which I've experienced with very attractive girls. They seem unattainable, so they don't get hit on as much as average girls.
@Foxerski but is the second one really about physics? I don't think any physicist would recognize such a concept as applicable to the real world. Like there may be forces that cannot be stopped, but there is no object that cannot be moved. An immovable object would violate Newton's laws of motion.
I think you missed the crux of the unexpected hanging paradox. The prisoner uses the logic you described to deduce that he’ll never be hanged because it can never be a surprise, but he ends up getting hanged on the Tuesday… much to his surprise.
And the two god paradoxses 1) can an an powerfull god create a stone too heavy for them to pick up? If yes their not all powerful bc theu cant pick it up and if no theyre not all powerful bc they can create something 2) does free will exist? If an all knowing god created us free will cant exist bc our creator knew our every decision ever during creation. So for free will to exist a god couldnt have created us or they cant be all knowing.
@@jakubpuchalski2583 both of these require a "human god" or a god who is part of their creation and is bound by the laws of nature (and its logic). If a god created the world, they would also have created the laws/logic of this world. For 1) they could either alter the logic, or simply promise to never pick up a certain rock (assuming it is a god who would never lie, as per the bible or thora). For 2) it doesn't matter if the god knows what each person will decide to do as the god doesn't have to actively spectate or manipulate the world if they exist outside of time anyway. And if the god exists outside of time, it would be absolutely impossible for us to understand how they would work or think, but they definetely would't have to "wait and worry" for something to happen.
The unexpected hanging paradox goes further, the convict reasons that every day is expected, so he won't be hung. And then he's hung on tuesday and is completely surprised
@@calebchacon8977 It really isn't though. it's just a question and it's been answered. The very nature of a paradox is that it can't have an answer. Nobody's calling any of newtons theories paradoxes
A few of these paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes or have an explanation. Olbers' paradox in particular is solved beautifully through cosmology (and actually is one of the more intriguing suggestions that the universe might be expanding), the twins' paradox has actually been proven to be true (not with twins I think, but with extremely precise clocks) and Schrödinger's cat paradox is solved once you consider that the cat and the machine HAVE to be considered observers of the phenomenon occurring
@@Armoliver The definition of paradox is any statement that is self-contradictory. These are only paradoxes if you fail to take into account actual physical reality. The real physics removes all contradictions. Olbers': The universe we see is not infinite, as there are distance places from which we will never again see light from. There's also some things to be said regarding the convergence of infinite series here. Twin: For the twins to have been separated and eventually meet again, at least one of them has to have accelerated to change their velocity at the "turn around". Acceleration complicates special relativity, but--long story short--the twin with the greater acceleration is younger. This one only *seems* like a paradox because of how unintuitive relativity is, but it is in fact based in our reality and does not contradict itself. Schrödinger's cat: No one particle can ever be in complete isolation. The term "observer" is a misnomer that really ought to be corrected to "any physical interaction." Physical interaction resolves quantum mechanical shenanigans. There still remains a lot to be fully fletched out regarding this one.
Technically, the superposition, shich Schrödinger describes exists. The fact that the cat and the machine are observers doesnt change that fact. The only part of the superposition, which is changed is the time. If you are the only possible observer, you can decide when to look at it. Lets say you take a look after a minute. However, if the cat and machine are observers as well, which they are, then the superposition collapses much more quickly. I dont know how fast it would be, but fast enough for it not to matter really. Point being, they superposition still exists, when the cat and machine are observers.
@@flambambam Not only Olbers' paradox was solved long ago with the expansion of the universe and the speed of light x expansion of the cosmos, but it is also explained with light pollution, as the reason the sky seems so empty for us is because of the intense light in cities, if you go to an isolated place such as deserts or mountains, you will see the entire Milky Way.
@@darkonyx6995 It doesn't make the most sense to call light pollution a solution, as the issue is much younger than the earliest forms of Olber's paradox.
3:04 well the crocodile never says in what for state the child will be, if he eats the child, but spits out like bones, he did both things 3:54 well the arrow isn't a quantum object so it is always moving still
The paradox is correct. Returning and No returning the child are mutually contradictory, the crocodile can do whatever he wants and waits whatever the time he wants, but if in the end he returns the child, the " I wont return" statement is not true
In fact, if the crocodile waits infinite time to return the child, technically, the father still cannot complain about the crocodile lying because there is a chance of the crocodile to return the child (but if he does not return "yet" he is neither wrong or right)
Rick Astley Paradox: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to your as he's "never gonna give you up." However, by not giving you Up, he lets you down, which he also cannot do since he's "never gonna let you down."
he cant walk away because he's "never gonna run around and desert you", he can't insult you because he's "never gonna make you cry", and he can't say he doesn't have it, or simply punch you in the face, because he's "never gonna tell a lie and hurt you".
Fun fact about the Sword and Shield Paradox: the Chinese word for "Contradiction" is comprised of both the characters for "Spear" and "Shield," because there was an ancient Chinese story about a merchant who tried to sell to the Emperor a Spear that could pierce any Shield, and a Shield that could not be pierced.
Grand hotel is not really a paradox. It’s just how infinity works. Infinity is not a number, it’s a concept such that every number is smaller than it. Nor is birthday. That’s pure probability. The problem is people may not understand math well and thus find those counterintuitive and unbelievable. One common confusion is, we may think of “two people sharing a bday” in the same way as “someone shares my bday”. I’ve taken a college level probability course and still feels like that sometimes.
@@sharktos3218 My point is, just because people don't understand something well doesn't mean the thing has an internal contradiction. There's no logical solution to catch 22, for example, but the birthday problem can be deducted, whatever probability can be calculated and experimented irl. That's the difference
That's not at all the description of Achilles and the tortoise's paradox. The idea is that the distance between Achilles and the tortoise can be infinitely subdivided - so when Achilles has covered, say, half the distance to the tortoise, the remaining half can then be further divided in half. Then, when he's covered half of that new distance, the remaining half can be subdivided - and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. The idea is that, logically, Achilles should never be able to catch up to the tortoise - because he has to travel an infinite subdivision of distances to reach it; yet reality shows us that he can.
The reason it works out in reality is because the infinite subdivisions is conceptual and not put into practice. You can divide something in half as many times as you like, but if the base value (his speed) remains the same, the only factor in play is time and distance. If you half time every single time he reaches the halfway point, you'd realize the effect until he's visually completely still.
@@AbubakarRaji-c2zWe just simply do not know enough about a lot of physical events, including the possibility of time travel. Actually, I think somebody published a video of the solution to the grandfather paradox. I know a possible hypothesis is that the universe changes the situation in order to prevent the paradox. May just go and check the video.
3:20 Fun Fact: this is also the story behind the Mandarin word 矛盾 meaning "contradiction" came to be. 矛 directly translates to "spear" and 盾 directly translates to "shield". The scenario is the same with a spear that is able to pierce through anything and a shield that is able to block anything thus creating a contradiction
@@speedy01247 I suppose Vietnamese used to be dominated in a thounsand year by the Chinese in the ancient time, plus we shared the same common ancestor so...
@@davidmantiss7105 Yes, mâu thuẫn is Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary derived from the reading of the two chữ Hán 矛 (mâu) and 盾 (thuẫn). The Sino-Japanese reading is mu-jun (むじゅん), the Sino-Korean reading is mo-sun (모순), and the Modern Standard Chinese reading is máo-dùn (though the older more conservative pronunciation is máo-shǔn, which is where the Sino-Korean reading comes from). The Cantonese pronunciation is maau4 teon5, and the Hakka pronunciation is màu-tún. In Middle Chinese, it was read as myuw zywín/myuw dwón. It comes from this quote in the 韓非子 (Hàn Phi Tử): 楚人有鬻盾與矛者，譽之曰：「吾盾之堅，物莫能陷之。」以譽其矛曰：「吾矛之利，於物無不陷也。」或曰：「以子之矛陷子之盾，何如？」其人弗能應也。夫不可陷之盾與無不陷之矛，不可同世而立。 Sở nhân hữu chúc *thuẫn* dữ *mâu* giả, dự chi viết: "Ngô *thuẫn* chi kiên, vật mạc năng hãm chi." Dĩ dự kìa *mâu* viết: "Ngô *mâu* chi lợi, ở vật vô bất hãm rã." Hoặc viết: "Dĩ tử chi *mâu* hãm tử chi *thuẫn* , hà như?" Kìa nhân phất năng ứng rã. Phu bất khá hãm chi *thuẫn* dữ vô bất hãm chi *mâu* , bất khá đồng thế nhi lập. There was once a man in the state of Sở [Chu in Chinese], who was selling shields and lances. He was praising them saying: “My shields are so firm, that there is nothing that can pierce them.” He praised his lances saying: “My lances are so sharp, that there is nothing that they cannot pierce.” Someone asked: “What if you used your lances to pierce your shields?” The man could not answer. A shield that cannot be pierced and a lance that can pierce everything cannot exist in the same world.
Here are 2 paradoxes I felt should've been added in this: 1. Mind Reader Paradox - Let's say two individuals, John and Carlos are both mind readers they meet in a restaurant and sit together to eat. While they are eating, they get curious and without notifying the other, they both start reading each other's minds. So now whose mind or what are they actually reading? 2. The Genie Paradox - If you ask a Genie to make you the most powerful sword that no shield can stop and the most powerful shield that no sword can pierce through. What does he make?
Can God create a stone that is so heavy that God can't lift it? That is not a paradox. It just says that he does not have the power to do everything. It is just a simple contradiction. God can't also make it rain and not rain at the same time.
@@skyscraperfanAssuming God is an omnipotent character, and going by regular powerscaling conventions, then he can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it and he can, then, lift it
Yeah, a paradox is just the smoking gun that you've made a flawed assumption somewhere in the construction of the question. If it resolves when the assumptions are revised, the paradox never existed.
Some times, it's merely a language thing, what to call, consider what that's causing the paradox. They are paradoxes in our imagination, not in nature of things outside of it.
3:46 The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
2:49 i have a bone to pick with this one: if he says “my nose will grow”, that’s an indeterminate statement, seeing as it would only apply if he’s consciously lying. for it to be definitively true, he would have to know that at no point in the future would he ever lie again, and if it were false, the same. since pinocchio would have no knowledge, however, the statement would not count as either. so nothing would happen. (this is why asking pinocchio about government secrets would never work)
@Roblox-NewsYT I don't think so. Consciouslly, Pinochio would have a oppinion wether or not his nose would grow. And if he has no opinion, then the nose would not grown since it wouldn't be a lie anyway
Olbers paradox is explained by the fact that there is so much space between objects in space that there isn’t enough collective matter to consistently scatter light in space
While this is less important light also changes to lower wavelengths over time fading from human vision due to expanding space so that is another reason why it's not so bright. (Though only really matters for super far away things)
Isn't the reason we can't see stars at night (or at least not a lot of them) because of our atmosphere and pollution? With photos of astronauts in space and stuff like that we can't show the stars because we have to turn the exposure up so much, we wouldn't be able to see anything else.
Physics grad here: it’s because as stars get further away their wavelength gets red shifted into the invisible part of the spectrum. The light still reaches us, but we can’t see it. (have a look at the Hubble Telescope’s infrared images!)
You're missing the Astley Paradox. If you ask Rick Astley for a DVD of the movie Up, he won't give it to you because he's never gonna give you Up. However, by not giving you Up like you asked for it, he's letting you down.
You forgot the Astley paradox. Basically, if you ask Rick Astley for his copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to you as he will never give you up. But in doing so, he has let you down, thus creating the Astley paradox. Edit: I did not come up with this myself, I just thought it was worth including. I believe it originated as a Reddit meme.
Solution: “give you up” in the context of the song obviously means “to abandon to yield control” as if he was saying “Never gonna abandon you.” (Also the “up” in “give you up” is not capitalized while the movie Up is as it’s a proper noun)
2:00 Actually this is not a paradox, there is a reason for this. It's because stars really far away are moving away from us at very fast speeds due to the expansion/acceleration of the universe, so their wavelengths are red-shifted until they become infared and invisible to the naked eye.
There are also clouds of gas and dust in the universe that block light. Plus, light from each individual star naturally weakens the further you are from it.
A cat always lands on its feet Buttered bread always lands buttered side down So if strap buttered bread on a cat buttered side up and throw the cat, the cat will be spinning forever Infinite energy -buttered cat paradox
Cats do not necessarily always land on their feet, especially if landing on their feet would cause more harm, and I’m presuming buttered bread lands buttered side down simply because the butter side is heavier than the non-buttered side
@@qwart22Since it seems you are intrested in it: The buttered bread lands with the buttered side down not really because that side is heavier, but because the bread spins. So: If you hold the bread buttered side up and drop it from, let's say, 1m height it will perform half a spin and thus fall with the buttered side down. But if you now drop it from 2m, it will have time to make a full rotation and it will fall with buttered side up. If you drop it from 3m - buttered side down. 4m - buttered side up. And so on. The height and number of rotations are of course simplified for the example.
No, the bread landing on one side is either pure luck or someone dropped it like that and it didn't have time to flip over. The cat will still land on its feet, and the bread will be dirty and wasted due to being put on a cat. Congratulations, you've abused a cat and dirtied a perfectly good piece of bread just to be proven wrong.
@@josecorzo5517 its not a paradox, its physically impossible to even have an unmovable object and an unstoppable force in the universe, as they would completely ignore the laws of physics to exist. Nothing would happen because it cannot possibly occur in our universe. Not a paradox, if we lived in a universe with different laws of physics that allowed for it, then I'm sure that the laws of physics of that universe would have an answer.
7:47 Y2K is a great example of this. My dad works in IT and gets really annoyed by people saying Y2K wasn’t as big of a deal as people had thought, because it absolutely was, but people who worked in IT helped stop it, and no one gives them the credit.
That was basically the conclusion made by the _Well There’s Your Problem_ episode on Y2K. Still should have updated some hospital computers. Imagine parents having to explain to their son that he could have had a sibling but the doctor said he had Down Syndrome or some other debilitating condition and the parents decided not to continue the pregnancy for that reason (it was 2000 I don’t know how much popular views on the matter have changed since) and then they find out later the results were a false positive. I feel like that could have happened to hundreds, maybe thousands of expectant parents. But yeah computer technicians knowing what they’re doing are good to have around.
The paradox of thrift illustrates how saving can be bad for the economy. The grand hotel paradox shows that some infinities are only countably infinite. The grain of millet paradox explains how sound works. The birthday paradox is literally just probability. The twin paradox is a demonstration of the theory of relativity. Interesting facts are cool and all, but these aren't even paradoxes.
Yeah that litterally isn't a paradox it's just hey let's ignore the fact you can overtake in a race and the guy in second will never win haha. It basically says even if you are faster than someone you will never beat them in a race because for example, if they are at the 10 meter point and you run there then you'll still behind because by the time you get there they will have moved further ahead. The "paradox" just ignores the fact people can overtake in a race by using dumb phrasing haha.@@saturos5068
@@saturos5068so basically, in order for Achilles to pass the turtle they say that he must reach where the turtle is, but by the time he reaches why the turtle is the turtle has moved a little bit, so he can never pass the turtle because everytime he reaches where the turtle was the turtle had moved a little
I think it would only work if Achilles would be forced to stop at certain moments such as stopping everytime he is right beside the turtle.@@bjbeast4633
Achilles and the Tortoise, Dichotomy, and Fletcher (Zeno's paradoxes) make sense until you remember literally any time you've moved or seen movement ever
I don't see any contradiction here, if you half the distance, you also half the time that takes to complate that particular distance. Therefore, it is true you don't move because closer you are to the starting position, time slows down as well respectively.
@@Thr35her Things move at different speeds yk. What you're assuming is every movement is relative to each other in terms of distance over time but it's not.
Xeno's paradoxes were never meant to suggest that movement is impossible, but to demonstrate that there was a serious gap in our understanding of the universe; in an age where integrals hadn't been invented, converging infinite sums hadn't been discovered, and we couldn't even conceive of the scales involved in possible quantisation of time and space this was a very pertinent thought experiment, and is still a good demonstration of how our intuitions often fail to hold up to scrutiny.
My personal favourite: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he can’t give it to you, because he’s never gonna give you up. But in doing so, he lets you down, thus creating the Astley paradox.
Marty McFly and Chuck Berry played off the bootstrap paradox. He went back in time and played old school rock and roll on the guitar, totally influenced by Chuck Berry, but then it was that Chuck Berry’s cousin that heard Marty play and then called Chuck about the “new sound” they were looking for
@@OMGg4m3r Well, you can, if the killer decides to tell it himself, it was perfect crime because his whole life nobody found out what he did and he told it himself so it can still be called perfect
@@mantasignatavicius7787 So it isn't perfect, if the killer decided to tell himself and be arrested, the plan wasn't immune to social pressure/community guidelines/morality standards/inflated ego/boredom or whatever other reason that made him tell it, thus making it imperfect as it has flaws. The same way you can drop a hair string in the crime scene, you can drop a bit of guilt in your self being.
However, if we tolerate not tolerating intolerance, would that make not tolerating intolerance tolerable, thus making all anti-intolerant intolerance tolerable?
would that mean intolerance is no longer intolerance but tolerance, but without intolerance tolerance cannot exist because tolerating something means intolerance should be possible otherwise why do you need to tolerate it
If toleration is tolerable to tolerate intolerance, isn’t a toleration of tolerance tolerable to not tolerate when toleration is tolerant and when a toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable person? And when toleration becomes tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable? Is tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration?
I don't think it has to do with the intensity of light given off by stars. I think the paradox stems from a misunderstanding that since the universe is infinite, there should be in theory a star anywhere you look into space, therefore there should be light coming from any given point in space and it should be completely illuminated. The misunderstanding comes from the fact while it may be true there is a star at any given direction you point to in space, this does not necessarily mean the light of that star has reached earth and we see it as a star. Similarly, the light from stars we currently see in space might be light from stars that have already gone extinct but are still receiving light from. Apart from the finite speed of light to consider there is also the expansion of the universe that also plays a role.
2:30 you forgot to mention the rest of the paradox. The prisoner then crosses out every other day, concluding that he wouldn’t be executed. He was then surprised when he got executed on Wednesday.
I love this paradox, it presents illogical thinking that feels like it should make sense. A lot of the other ones do this and try to make it seem like there's no solution, which makes it more comical when the solution is presented right in front of you
My theory is, if an immovable object meets an unstoppable force, a massive explosion would occur, obliterating both. The immovable object stopped the unstoppable force because the unstoppable force was destroyed, and vice-versa.
That’s exactly my problem with this channel. You simply can’t synthesize certain things and, if you do, they become increasingly more complicated. Wait… oversimplifying something makes it more complicated? THAT’S ANOTHER PARADOX!
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the unstoppable force will stop, but keep exerting force on the immovable object. The unstoppable force will appear to stop but the force will keep exerting itself onto the immovable object.
My granduncle beautifully reduced the Ship of Theseus idea to its simplest form when he claimed he had a shovel that had lasted him 20 years (the head and handle had each been replaced several times, but never at the same time)
It's only a paradox if you subscribe to the ideology that there is a TRUE original and everything else is a copy. But realistically speaking picking the original is based on consensus between the parties discussing the originality. So people can agree the reconstructed ship is the original, or the original parts assembled together is what makes the original.
I like that and agree with it. It's the same as a human, we completely replace all of the matter we are made up of many times throughout our lives but the more important ideological human is still the same (although changed with life experience admittedly).
The prisoner being brought to hanging site on thursday: "Well, this wasn't surpising." Suddenly sees the executioner pull out a bicycle, a wrench and fifteen rubber ducks ..
@@my.fav.no..is.12.point.9 TLDR when people are shown these 2 shapes (that are very similar to those) and are asked which is kiki and which is bouba they usually answer that kiki is the sharp one and bouba is the round one
Here's a sort of paradox I saw: Benny doesn't fix the hole in his roof when it rains because it's too wet to work, but when it's not raining it doesn't need to be fixed
yeah, but if you keep subdividing, there seems to be and infinite number of steps he has to take before he can pass the tortoise, and so he never does.
That is why is a paradox in the first place. We know he will catch the tortoise eventually but the logic in the explanation still applies. lets say the turtle walk 1 meter. Aquiles must walk 1 meter, but at that time, the turtle would have walked a little bit more, like 10cm. Aquiles then has to walk 10cm, but the turtle will have walk 1cm, and so it goes
1:01 That's close, but not quite The fermi paradox doesn't need an infinite universe It just suggests that aliens are a statistical certainty due to the large amount of stars in the observable universe, even the galaxy. So, of all of those stars, some must have life sustaining planets, and then some must have developed life. Some of those civilizations must have advanced far enough to be able to travel through space, and thus we must have already interacted with them. However, there is no extraterrestrial life that we have found so far. The observable universe is big enough to be virtually infinite.
I never understood why that’s the case, though. We don’t know the probability of life existing on other planets. Yeah the universe is gigantic and it’s been around for a few billion years, but so what? Just because life happened on one planet, why should it have to have happened on another? It could have, but we can’t quantify a probability until we understand the universe better
@@IAmSkystrikeThat's because we know how life on Earth came to be, and what is needed for that to happen. Simplifying a lot, in our current understanding the most important factor is liquid water. We know that for that to happen, a planet must be at a certain distance from it's star for water to exist (so called Goldilocks Zone - planet is to close and water evaporates, planet is to far and water freezes). Then we combine that with the averege number of planets in Goldilocks Zone per star system. Add the probability of hydrogen and oxygen existing in it's atmoshepre (they are both quite common elements, actually) and then probability of live evolving on such a planet (our sample size is extreamly low on universal scale, but we have to work with what we have). Then we use Fermi's formula and we get how many technological civilizations there are in the Universe. However, iirc, there is one important factor Fermi's formula doesn't take into consideration - time. So the number we get is in reality the number of technological civilizations that ever existed, exist and will exist in the Universe according to our current knowledge.
We shouldn't forget about how lucky we are, since most planets are very likely to collide with another celestial body which destroys all evolved forms of life that existed so far (like the dinosaurs in our case). Statistically, we are very lucky that we managed to evolve that far (probably thanks to jupiter)! This might never have happened anywhere else
@@IAmSkystrikethat is one of the possible solutions to the paradox - maybe we're overestimating how likely it is for life to form. I think many scientists don't find that to be a very satisfying answer though, because there are so many stars and so much time before us that in order to make the low probability explanation make sense, the chance of life forming would need to be next to impossible. Like, incomprehensibly close to impossible. And since we're not willing to accept that Earth is somehow magically unique, we expect that if Earth-like conditions are repeated billions of times over billions of years then an Earth-like result should reoccur.
7:30 i remember minutephysics explaining this theoretical scenario! since the immovable object cannot move, it must stay still, and since the unstoppable force cannot stop, it must pass through the object
@@elianhg2144 If the unstoppable force phases through the immovable object without displacing it then there is no paradox as the force did not get stopped and the object did not get moved. I think it neatly resolves the paradox and you'd have to keep adding conditions to the paradox to turn it back into a paradox.
I have a better explanation. Basically, they can’t even both exist. If there is an unstoppable force, there *can’t* be an immovable object, and vise versa. Only one or the other can be a thing. But yeah, theoretically if they both were a thing, the force would do some weird particle stuff and phase through.
Some paradoxes arise from a lack of knowledge in the past. For example, the Fletcher’s paradox was solved because people learnt that time can’t be split up into instances, thus debunking the paradox.
A few of them are named paradoxes because they simply appear to be oxymoronic. In reality, they are just empirical anomalies and hypothetical conundrums which seem to have no solutions. Hence, they are false ‘paradoxes’
Achiles and tortoise paradox, you missed the key ingredient, it is said he has to first catch up and only then he can overtake the tortoise that is why he never overtakes
Yeah, he explained it properly in the “Dichotomy Paradox”, which is as much the same thing as sword and shield vs unstoppable force vs immovable object
To my understanding he messed up dichotomy paradox as well as he said to get to a destination you have to get halfway there and to get there you need to get a quater way there...... I don't see what's the problem here we do this every day im in my room the fridge is my destination yes I pass the halfway and even the quarter mark and still get to my destination fine what is he talking about infinite steps? This must be explained wrong as there must be more to this puzzle than what video says as how it's said in video its a non issue
@@lowgrav5900 The story I’ve heard is told Aesop’s Fable style where the hero Achilles and a tortoise are going to have a race, but since it’s so unfair Achilles agrees to give the poor old tortoise a headstart. Having gotten the hero’s word, the tortoise points out how no matter how slow he might be, the hero can never catch up because in the time it takes him to get to where the tortoise was when he started, the tortoise will have moved a little further, and by the time he makes up that difference the turtle will have gotten a little further still, and so on and so on, such that since Achilles gave the tortoise a headstart he can now never win. Convinced by the tortoise’s logic, Achilles admits defeat before the race starts. Of course, we all know this is nonsense, since as you said we all reach out and grab things without having to travel an infinite distance. In reality there would’ve reached a point where Achilles would’ve been so close to the tortoise’s position that it’s as if there was no headstart and his faster speed would then obviously overcome the tortoise. I personally see this as a moral story more than anything, but beyond that I see it as a thought experiment about how sometimes our mathematical and logical intuitions are wrong, and maybe at most an argument that the universe really is made out of analog Planck length sized pixels rather than infinitely continuous.
@@lowgrav5900the distance doesn't become "infinitely further" either. If i'm 10 steps from my fridge, and i take a step, that's 9 steps away now, not 18
Categorizing these based on Jan Misali's 5 kinds of paradox (ua-cam.com/video/ppX7Qjbe6BM/v-deo.html): Grandfather Paradox - Normal Impossible Question Achilles and the Tortoise - Counterintuitive Fact (similar to Zeno's Paradox) Ship of Theseus - Normal Impossible Question Sorites Paradox - Normal Impossible Question† Barbershop Paradox - Logical Contradiction Catch-22 - Normal Impossible Question(?)† Fermi Paradox - Normal Impossible Question Opposite Day Paradox - Logical Contradiction Simpson's Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Tolerance Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact/One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published† Bootstrap Paradox - Normal Impossible Question Stockdale Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact‡ Jevons Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*‡ Olbers Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published Paradox of Thrift - Counterintuitive Fact‡ Unexpected Hanging Paradox - Logical Contradiction Value Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact/One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published†‡ Pinocchio Paradox - Logical Contradiction Hedonism Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*‡ Crocodile Paradox - Logical Contradiction Sword and Shield Paradox - Logical Contradiction Dichotomy Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Fletcher Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Grand Hotel Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Card Paradox - Logical Contradiction Liar Paradox - Logical Contradiction Grain of Millet Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published Boltzmann Brain - Normal Impossible Question/Counterintuitive Fact Paradox of Enrichment - Counterintuitive Fact Service Recovery Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact* Stability-Instability Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published Ironic Process Theory - Counterintuitive Fact/Not a Paradox* Paradox of Choice - Counterintuitive Fact‡ Birthday Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Schrodinger's Car - Normal Impossible Question Twin Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Friendship Paradox - Counterintuitive fact Raven Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact Temperature Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published† Interesting Number Paradox - Logical Contradiction Irresistible Force Paradox - Logical Contradiction Lottery Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact* Preparedness Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact* I've added an asterisk (*) for a few of these that I think are more like a 'quirk of human psychology' than an actual paradox, a dagger (†) for a few that are 'problems of definition,' or those that are semantic tricks and a double dagger (‡) for 'counterintuitive facts' that are too broad to necessarily be correct for all situations, or those that I cannot verify as 'facts'
"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" They marry and give birth to a blue cat, and a pink rabbit and adopt an orange fish bought from a mysterious store.
@@thengspjo4716 no they will stop moving and be not alive anymore because they probably died to the neurotoxin which should be not released cinematically you should really do it immediatel- you know what to self release the neurotoxin immediately
3:41 The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
The Dichotomy Paradox is just how it feels to work in retail. “Ok my break is in 4 hours, just got to make it to two hours, then make it to one hour, then I have to make it to half an hour….”
When you explained the sword and shield paradox my brain instantly started playing sounds of two metal objects clipping inside each other and spazzing out in Garry's Mod lmao
the grand hotel paradox isn't really a paradox because it's math and can be explained easily. this is shown in the text, Math Without Numbers by Milo Beckman. He uses this paradox to try explain how infinity plus one is equal to infinity
Mutually assured destruction. That said, we could always have a crazy person who doesn't care about it who just happens to get access in some freak possibility. So still not good to have such powerful weapons from the beginning due to that. Unless all processes in which to activate them require much more interactivity than technological failure, crazy people or misunderstanding. Which given one Russian guy who was told to fire at a American submarine, but didn't and literally stopped WWIII, I can only hope the process of actually activating nuclear bombs requires a lot less sheer luck that someone thought something was wrong and didn't follow through with orders.
There is 1 barber, and if they shave each other they break the rule that they need to shave everyone that can’t shave, for they won’t shave everyone in the way your awnser works
The Barber Paradox is only a paradox so long as we insist in cataloging people according to their profession. When "the barber" is at home he is off-duty, so he isn't "the barber", he's just "Bill", meaning he can shave himself without causing a paradox. Also, in this day and age, a woman can also be a barber, and women don't usually shave their face (nor do barbers usually shave their patron's legs or any other body-part bellow the neck).
I think the paradox comes from the fact that this town only has one barber, "the barber". Otherwise you're completely right, so it would be great if they put up a sign inviting any barbers to join their town lol
The dichotomy paradox is only a paradox if you need to stop at every step. If you just need to reach it before going to the next step, you can still just start walking. Infinitely small steps are still always steps ahead of you.
the common theme here is that people love to overthink and make shit more complicated than it has to be, some of these can be answered with common sense while others actually are just unsolved either because we haven’t figured it out or don’t have the means to figure it out
It's slightly more complicated than that: all of these are fully explained/understood, the ones you think are unsolved are either explained via some formal logic stuff (fuzzy logic, defining logic to avoid self-referential statements) and is so well understood it is abused in weird ways, or collapses when considered from some more accurate perspectives.
Schrodingers cat doesn’t belong in this video. It was a thought exercise used to show how ridiculous it would be if a particle was in two different states simultaneously. Now, of course, we have put certain particles into superposed states but the thought experiment still applies to objects larger than an atom
It's interesting how many of these big things that people learn about often get reversed from their purpose. Much like IQ measurement was never meant to elevate people to feel superior or inferior, it was meant to help find people who may need some help in life due to to certain issues/conditions. It also has a racist history as far as I understand, but the intent was never about finding and favoring the smart people. If anything it was about finding those who scored lowly, as they might need assistance in life. It's also wrong. There are people with 70 IQ who still function decently enough or far more than we thought capable, so the measurement wasn't even that useful for it's intended purpose.
The paradox isn’t schrodingers cats but the principle of uncertainty. You are correct in saying the cars are just a thought experiment to demonstrate what happens which I find tends to confuse people even more. It’s very real tho, for really small things like an electron it means two things really which I will simplify as much as I can. If you observe something small like an electro you have it’s position but cant know it’s momentum and vice versa if you calculate the momentum you can’t know the position. One big reason for that has to do with how we see things. Light photons have to bounce off something and reach your eyes for you to see. So for something really small the act seeing it causes the light photon to shoot it in any direction which means you can only see it where it was when you looked but can’t know where it went. So in its application around atoms there are little pockets called orbitals where electrons are. Within that orbital the electron can be everywhere and any where so basically the electron is everywhere at once in that moment the same way the cat is dead and alive as long as the box remains closed. Once you look then the electron will be in a precise location which is where you have seen it same as if you open the box then the cat will be either dead or alive. Because if the above mentioned the electron instantly goes back to being every where. It’s a bit more complex than that because there are probabilities for where the electron could be and where it could perhaps not be. It’s a hell of a rabbit hole but if you like it then you learn some very interesting things about our existence.
I have a paradox: For example, if there are 10 people and 9 of them are interesting, the remaining one becomes interesting for being the only uninteresting.
my favourite paradox is that it doesn’t matter how many times a video is made about a paradox, there will never really be a video containing all of the paradoxes in the world due to the fact that the video will eventually become obsolete and not mention one of the paradoxes and end up creating a paradox of never ending every paradox video
That's not a paradox, though. That's just people making up new stuff. Besides, our brains are made up of a limited number of atoms, so we can only ever think of a limited number of paradoxes.
Grandfather Paradox (Aka the Back to the future paradox): Can be solved if you allow for multiple timelines to exist. Achilles and the Tortoise: A very nice "limit" problem. if we allow for discreet lenght there is a point in time, albeit as infinitesimal as you might want it to be, in which Achilles will reach and surpass the Tortoise. The paradox just points you towards finding the perfect exact time at which that happens, but you dont need to know where it is, just that it exists. Ship of Theseus (also known as the teleport paradox): Both are theseus ships and the original it's obviously the oldest for parts not for construction. as for the teleport paradox (if get dematerialized and reassebled somewhere else, is it still you or a perfect copy?) it's kind of the same thing, there is no apparent difference and not even you would know. Sorites paradox (also knows as per parts for the whole paradox): purely semantic. a heap is an undefined amount of congruent or similar things. as soon as you are willing to count what's left of the heap, it becomes an amount. since it's subjective it can be anything from 2 and upwards. The Barbershop Paradox: Self recurring paradox. When the premise changes due to the effect it creates it's called a superposition. where both answers are both true and false depending on which premise you assume as true. Catch22: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Fermi's Paradox (which is butchered here a lil bit): No information can travel faster than light, but the universe expands faster than light. therefore if there's alien life. we will never be able to be reached by that information. Opposite day paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Simpson Paradox: not per sé a paradox but a statistical quirk: the smaller the group, the more individuals quality influence the "norm". since the norm swings wildly between groups. averaging the norm of smaller groups may result counterintuitive. Basically the smaller the unit of measure, the better you can see the whole (think pixels in pictures) Tolerance paradox: sort of a self recurring paradox. if you assume everyone has to be as tolerant as possible, then there cannot be intolerants. if there are intolerants. then it's not unlimited tolerance, cause the very presence of intolerant limits it. Bootstrap Paradox: See Grandfather paradox. Stockdale paradox: you tend to put more perspective in your work when you plan it for the long run. and therefore avoid making more mistakes than just focusing on only what you see (similar to the "time passes faster as you get older, cause 1 year for a 10yo is 10% of their life and for a 20yo is only 5%") Jevons Paradox: If something gets cheaper. it gets used more. not a paradox but a law of the market. it would be a paradox only in a zero-sum economy. Olber's Paradox: If you could throw a torch a near light-speed, you'd be able to see only part of the light as most of it is still traveling to you. also, diffraction and diffusion. Thrift Paradox: It's a game theory problem, not a paradox, if we all act in furtherance of our selfish interest then a society based on a collaborative economy cannot sussist. Hanging paradox: it's a logical fallacy, not a paradox. and it's explained like shit. "a prisoner is told that he will be hanged next week, but it will be saved if he can tell which day he will be executed, so he reason it cant be on friday, as it is the last day and he would know by thursday, it can be thursday cause it cant be friday and that would make thurday the last day and so on until monday so he concluded he wont be executed next week, to his surprise, he's hanged on wednesday" the reasoning seems sound but the fallacy is that it deal with probabilities and not absolutes. Value Paradox: ??? items that arent necessities cost more.. when you have ample access to the necessities. ask for water in the desert in exchange for diamonds and you'll see the rate of exchange slightly change. Pinocchio Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Hedonism paradox: is this a paradox or just... pure bullshit? Crocodile Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Sword and shield: one or both statement must be false. because a sword that can cut anything has clearly never been tested on the unbreakable shield and viceversa. so at least 1 statement is lying. Dichotomy paradox: pretty sure that's not it's name but the paradox is similar to Achilles and the tortoise so refer to that (appling uncountable infinities into a finite world doesnt work) Fletcher paradox (god how badly it's explained) basically another achilles and tortoise but from another angle (instead of approaching the point. it sets the point and tries to escape from it) Gh paradox: Infinities break a finite world: there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers. this is true because there is no end to them, even tho you'd think odd numbers to be half of the numbers. Card Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Liar paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox. Grain of Millet paradox...... huh? you even explained yourself. this is not a paradox it's just stupid. Boltzman paradox: that's not what it says at all jesus. it's basically monkey and typewriters. since a brain is a lot less complex than a full scale universe. you can easily tell why it might be easier for a monkey to write 1 full sentence rather than the full shakespeare collection. Enrichment paradox: It's very complicated but yes. seems like a paradox but it really isnt. Service recovery paradox: it's why people take out insurances.
Loved your explanations, I didn't checked all of them yet but about the Achiles and tortoise I think he missed point about the rule that Achile has to catch up first and only then he can pass the tortoise that is why it is not just basic math problem
@@mantasignatavicius7787the tortoise is given a ten meter head start, Achilles must first sprint ten meters. In the time it takes Achilles to go ten meters, the tortoise will have continued moving and will now be 1 meter further, leading to Achilles now having to sprint one meter, in which time the tortoise will have continued one tenth of a meter, etc.
@@kerbe3 yeah its a limit function basically. But the paradox lies in the fact that you infer that Achilles will never pass the Tortoise when in fact, we are just determining where it will be, which is an order of numeral infinity higher than where distance lies.
Birthday paradox: You would need 367 people to have a 100% chance of 2 people having the same birthday, because a leap year has 366 day so there could be all different birthdays.
I almost said something stupid 😂 i wanted to say that there should be more than 367 because birthdays would be random. After i typed it out i realized that “me stoopid” 😂
In the Einstein twin paradox, the paradox is not that one twin will become older than the other (that's simply what relativity predicts), the paradox is that from the astronaut twin's perspective, the other twin is the one moving relative to them, so they should be aging slower instead of themself.
Whats the paradox for getting in a comfortable spot to sleep in and then feeling the urge to move one of your limbs and then not being able to sleep comfortably.
OCD
@@quintonconoly nah that's a pretty normal thing for most people
A skill issue lmao.
It's often referred to as the "paradox of comfort," where the act of adjusting for comfort disrupts the very comfort you were trying to achieve in the first place.
The human condition
A lot of paradoxes listed here:
a) have linguuistic problems
b) are underspecified
c) are very similar to others
yea it seems that a lot of these are just equivalent to "this statement is false"
Watch video "5 kinds of paradoxes" by jan misaly, it's pretty interesting
and some are just wrong also
@@ilith1189 but it's true tho, isn't it?
Some are simply not fully understanding elements of physics rather than paradoxes
"Nobody goes to that restaurant because it's too crowded" paradox
That's another subjective one where it all depends on when it gets too crowded for specific people. It's the same as the economy buying power thing or the sand of grain.
It only becomes a real paradox if you decide people have an objective idea of when too crowded is too crowded. And those "real" paradoxes only exist when you bring scientifically impossible things into the statement, like the sword and sheild or pinocchio one. Like what the sigma bro
Very similar in theory to the "nobody hits on the hot girl because she's so hot". Which I've experienced with very attractive girls. They seem unattainable, so they don't get hit on as much as average girls.
That's a Yogiism isn't it?
I don’t know what I know but I know what I don’t know
@@Yesna sand of grain
Some paradoxes repeat. For example, the pinnocio, liar, card, and Opposite Day paradoxes and are basically the same.
And the crocodile
Arent the sword a shield and unstopable force vs unmovable object the same paradoxes with just different concepts?
Yes
kinda yeah, but still they are little different, because one is about physics and second one is about logic, but the point is similar
@Foxerski but is the second one really about physics? I don't think any physicist would recognize such a concept as applicable to the real world.
Like there may be forces that cannot be stopped, but there is no object that cannot be moved.
An immovable object would violate Newton's laws of motion.
🤫
@@PalaeoJoe Are you unaware of the existence of theoretical physics? Cause these are types of problems they think about.
I think you missed the crux of the unexpected hanging paradox. The prisoner uses the logic you described to deduce that he’ll never be hanged because it can never be a surprise, but he ends up getting hanged on the Tuesday… much to his surprise.
that's great!
And the two god paradoxses
1) can an an powerfull god create a stone too heavy for them to pick up? If yes their not all powerful bc theu cant pick it up and if no theyre not all powerful bc they can create something
2) does free will exist? If an all knowing god created us free will cant exist bc our creator knew our every decision ever during creation. So for free will to exist a god couldnt have created us or they cant be all knowing.
I hear a variation of that but he deduced it just wouldn't be that week and he got hung on Wednesday
@@jakubpuchalski2583they can create you and know what you do before you decide making them all knowing and you having fre will
@@jakubpuchalski2583 both of these require a "human god" or a god who is part of their creation and is bound by the laws of nature (and its logic). If a god created the world, they would also have created the laws/logic of this world. For 1) they could either alter the logic, or simply promise to never pick up a certain rock (assuming it is a god who would never lie, as per the bible or thora). For 2) it doesn't matter if the god knows what each person will decide to do as the god doesn't have to actively spectate or manipulate the world if they exist outside of time anyway. And if the god exists outside of time, it would be absolutely impossible for us to understand how they would work or think, but they definetely would't have to "wait and worry" for something to happen.
We need the “I am so comfortable that I don’t wanna get up to pee, but since I have to pee I’m uncomfortable” paradox
I just pee cuz I could find another comfortable position while also having the comfort of just recently peeing
Just piss your pants
Needs vs Wants paradox, I guess?
ah yes, the pee paradox, or the *peeradox*
Catch 22
The unexpected hanging paradox goes further, the convict reasons that every day is expected, so he won't be hung. And then he's hung on tuesday and is completely surprised
I have concluded that some paradoxes are actually paradoxical, and others just purposefully ignore reality to be quirky.
Finally someone said it
Like the stars one.
There is a scientific explanation to it,like??
@3.1414pi Olber's paradox is still a paradox- just ones to disprove past ideas of the universe.
@@calebchacon8977 It really isn't though. it's just a question and it's been answered. The very nature of a paradox is that it can't have an answer. Nobody's calling any of newtons theories paradoxes
I’m honestly a lot more annoyed about the Achilles paradox. Obviously you would just pass the tortoise
Paint Explainer Paradox: If every paradox is only half explained,
Paint Explainer Paradox: If everything is only a summarization, is it a full or half explaination?
a summary should cover the whole thing in short
@@Sunkenplex I had been thinking about it so I did consider that it wouldn't be paradoxical
911 likes let me not change that for you
Smart comment
A few of these paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes or have an explanation. Olbers' paradox in particular is solved beautifully through cosmology (and actually is one of the more intriguing suggestions that the universe might be expanding), the twins' paradox has actually been proven to be true (not with twins I think, but with extremely precise clocks) and Schrödinger's cat paradox is solved once you consider that the cat and the machine HAVE to be considered observers of the phenomenon occurring
Nope, all of these are paradoxes. Look up the definition
@@Armoliver The definition of paradox is any statement that is self-contradictory. These are only paradoxes if you fail to take into account actual physical reality. The real physics removes all contradictions.
Olbers': The universe we see is not infinite, as there are distance places from which we will never again see light from. There's also some things to be said regarding the convergence of infinite series here.
Twin: For the twins to have been separated and eventually meet again, at least one of them has to have accelerated to change their velocity at the "turn around". Acceleration complicates special relativity, but--long story short--the twin with the greater acceleration is younger. This one only *seems* like a paradox because of how unintuitive relativity is, but it is in fact based in our reality and does not contradict itself.
Schrödinger's cat: No one particle can ever be in complete isolation. The term "observer" is a misnomer that really ought to be corrected to "any physical interaction." Physical interaction resolves quantum mechanical shenanigans. There still remains a lot to be fully fletched out regarding this one.
Technically, the superposition, shich Schrödinger describes exists. The fact that the cat and the machine are observers doesnt change that fact. The only part of the superposition, which is changed is the time. If you are the only possible observer, you can decide when to look at it. Lets say you take a look after a minute. However, if the cat and machine are observers as well, which they are, then the superposition collapses much more quickly. I dont know how fast it would be, but fast enough for it not to matter really.
Point being, they superposition still exists, when the cat and machine are observers.
@@flambambam Not only Olbers' paradox was solved long ago with the expansion of the universe and the speed of light x expansion of the cosmos, but it is also explained with light pollution, as the reason the sky seems so empty for us is because of the intense light in cities, if you go to an isolated place such as deserts or mountains, you will see the entire Milky Way.
@@darkonyx6995 It doesn't make the most sense to call light pollution a solution, as the issue is much younger than the earliest forms of Olber's paradox.
3:04 well the crocodile never says in what for state the child will be, if he eats the child, but spits out like bones, he did both things
3:54 well the arrow isn't a quantum object so it is always moving still
But according to your logic eating doesn't count as not returning him as he still returned his bones
The paradox is correct. Returning and No returning the child are mutually contradictory, the crocodile can do whatever he wants and waits whatever the time he wants, but if in the end he returns the child, the " I wont return" statement is not true
In fact, if the crocodile waits infinite time to return the child, technically, the father still cannot complain about the crocodile lying because there is a chance of the crocodile to return the child (but if he does not return "yet" he is neither wrong or right)
Rick Astley Paradox: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to your as he's "never gonna give you up." However, by not giving you Up, he lets you down, which he also cannot do since he's "never gonna let you down."
he cant walk away because he's "never gonna run around and desert you", he can't insult you because he's "never gonna make you cry", and he can't say he doesn't have it, or simply punch you in the face, because he's "never gonna tell a lie and hurt you".
What if a Guy named Rick punches me in the face? Then It proves your theory wrong
@@skibbledebabble1853it was barely funny until you showed up.
@@hastley64 aren't we talking about rick astley and not about guy named rick
Is this kind of paradoxical Rickrolled?
Fun fact about the Sword and Shield Paradox: the Chinese word for "Contradiction" is comprised of both the characters for "Spear" and "Shield," because there was an ancient Chinese story about a merchant who tried to sell to the Emperor a Spear that could pierce any Shield, and a Shield that could not be pierced.
and then the question was asked
what happens when they are used on each other
@@therealelement75 Half the spear gets obliterated, and half the shield gets obliterated.
@@evrint not worth it
I'm not buying them
Ace attorney
@@evrint And slowly, the dichotomy paradox kicks in, reducing the two objects to smaller and smaller sizes, yet neither one ever entirely disappears
Grand hotel is not really a paradox. It’s just how infinity works. Infinity is not a number, it’s a concept such that every number is smaller than it. Nor is birthday. That’s pure probability. The problem is people may not understand math well and thus find those counterintuitive and unbelievable. One common confusion is, we may think of “two people sharing a bday” in the same way as “someone shares my bday”. I’ve taken a college level probability course and still feels like that sometimes.
Read up what a paradox is. It's not "thing that is illogical or impossible"
@@sharktos3218I've searched up "what is a paradox" to argue your comment but it turns out you're right😢
@@akospapanitz8390 We all make mistakes in the heat of passion, Jimbo
@@sharktos3218 My point is, just because people don't understand something well doesn't mean the thing has an internal contradiction. There's no logical solution to catch 22, for example, but the birthday problem can be deducted, whatever probability can be calculated and experimented irl. That's the difference
@@sharktos3218 At least I've learned something new
That's not at all the description of Achilles and the tortoise's paradox. The idea is that the distance between Achilles and the tortoise can be infinitely subdivided - so when Achilles has covered, say, half the distance to the tortoise, the remaining half can then be further divided in half. Then, when he's covered half of that new distance, the remaining half can be subdivided - and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
The idea is that, logically, Achilles should never be able to catch up to the tortoise - because he has to travel an infinite subdivision of distances to reach it; yet reality shows us that he can.
The reason it works out in reality is because the infinite subdivisions is conceptual and not put into practice. You can divide something in half as many times as you like, but if the base value (his speed) remains the same, the only factor in play is time and distance. If you half time every single time he reaches the halfway point, you'd realize the effect until he's visually completely still.
And that’s why we have Planck Space and Planck Time!
so its exactly the same as the arrow one then
@@DeaconTaylorit is also the same as the dichotomy paradox in this video
A lot of paradoxes are solved when you stop attributing an underlying, unchanging "essence" to things
or you simply don't overcomplicate things. As well as dealing with problems of opinion or outside what we normally perceive(I.e time travel)
damn straight. this is all such a black and white way of seeing things.
@@AbubakarRaji-c2zWe just simply do not know enough about a lot of physical events, including the possibility of time travel. Actually, I think somebody published a video of the solution to the grandfather paradox. I know a possible hypothesis is that the universe changes the situation in order to prevent the paradox. May just go and check the video.
@@hellothere5500 based
A lot of this paradoxes are
"This statement is false but something makes it true."
3:20 the sword and shield one gives same vibes as “if I punch myself and it hurts am I strong or weak”
My question is, what if a lv100 zacian from Pokémon fights a lv100 zamazenta?
This is the type of stuff that little kids argue about
@@PlayF0R3V3R "hEy thAHTs noT veRy niCE i"m tElgling the TEAcher!1!"""
high damage, low durability
The answer is you're neither strong nor weak, you're stupid 💀
3:20 Fun Fact: this is also the story behind the Mandarin word 矛盾 meaning "contradiction" came to be. 矛 directly translates to "spear" and 盾 directly translates to "shield". The scenario is the same with a spear that is able to pierce through anything and a shield that is able to block anything thus creating a contradiction
Broooo, in Vietnamese, the term "Paradox" can be translated to "mâu thuẫn"
Which "mâu" means a spear, and "thuẫn" means a shield. God dayum
OBJECTION!
@@davidmantiss7105odds are both words came from the same origin.
@@speedy01247 I suppose Vietnamese used to be dominated in a thounsand year by the Chinese in the ancient time, plus we shared the same common ancestor so...
@@davidmantiss7105 Yes, mâu thuẫn is Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary derived from the reading of the two chữ Hán 矛 (mâu) and 盾 (thuẫn). The Sino-Japanese reading is mu-jun (むじゅん), the Sino-Korean reading is mo-sun (모순), and the Modern Standard Chinese reading is máo-dùn (though the older more conservative pronunciation is máo-shǔn, which is where the Sino-Korean reading comes from). The Cantonese pronunciation is maau4 teon5, and the Hakka pronunciation is màu-tún. In Middle Chinese, it was read as myuw zywín/myuw dwón.
It comes from this quote in the 韓非子 (Hàn Phi Tử):
楚人有鬻盾與矛者，譽之曰：「吾盾之堅，物莫能陷之。」以譽其矛曰：「吾矛之利，於物無不陷也。」或曰：「以子之矛陷子之盾，何如？」其人弗能應也。夫不可陷之盾與無不陷之矛，不可同世而立。
Sở nhân hữu chúc *thuẫn* dữ *mâu* giả, dự chi viết: "Ngô *thuẫn* chi kiên, vật mạc năng hãm chi." Dĩ dự kìa *mâu* viết: "Ngô *mâu* chi lợi, ở vật vô bất hãm rã." Hoặc viết: "Dĩ tử chi *mâu* hãm tử chi *thuẫn* , hà như?" Kìa nhân phất năng ứng rã. Phu bất khá hãm chi *thuẫn* dữ vô bất hãm chi *mâu* , bất khá đồng thế nhi lập.
There was once a man in the state of Sở [Chu in Chinese], who was selling shields and lances. He was praising them saying: “My shields are so firm, that there is nothing that can pierce them.” He praised his lances saying: “My lances are so sharp, that there is nothing that they cannot pierce.” Someone asked: “What if you used your lances to pierce your shields?” The man could not answer. A shield that cannot be pierced and a lance that can pierce everything cannot exist in the same world.
Here are 2 paradoxes I felt should've been added in this:
1. Mind Reader Paradox - Let's say two individuals, John and Carlos are both mind readers they meet in a restaurant and sit together to eat. While they are eating, they get curious and without notifying the other, they both start reading each other's minds. So now whose mind or what are they actually reading?
2. The Genie Paradox - If you ask a Genie to make you the most powerful sword that no shield can stop and the most powerful shield that no sword can pierce through. What does he make?
1: you make an infinity mirror in both heads assuming mind reading doesn't take up 100% of your brains cpu,
2: whatever you asked second
Can God create a stone that is so heavy that God can't lift it? That is not a paradox. It just says that he does not have the power to do everything.
It is just a simple contradiction. God can't also make it rain and not rain at the same time.
@@skyscraperfan i mean it's raining somewhere and it's not raining somewhere else
He mentioned the sword and shield one in the video
@@skyscraperfanAssuming God is an omnipotent character, and going by regular powerscaling conventions, then he can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it and he can, then, lift it
paradoxes: make a rule, think of how things are, refuse to comprehend thing because of said rule
Yeah, a paradox is just the smoking gun that you've made a flawed assumption somewhere in the construction of the question. If it resolves when the assumptions are revised, the paradox never existed.
Some times, it's merely a language thing, what to call, consider what that's causing the paradox. They are paradoxes in our imagination, not in nature of things outside of it.
3:46 The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
Banger video I love that explanation, non sensical yet explains as best it can
Short version: I (followed by either an "n", a "t" or an "f")
“The missile knows where it is at all times.”
SRAAM users would have something to say about that.
This sounds like it was generated by a chat bot.
@@kenthartig7065 it’s a copypasta
2:49 i have a bone to pick with this one: if he says “my nose will grow”, that’s an indeterminate statement, seeing as it would only apply if he’s consciously lying. for it to be definitively true, he would have to know that at no point in the future would he ever lie again, and if it were false, the same. since pinocchio would have no knowledge, however, the statement would not count as either. so nothing would happen.
(this is why asking pinocchio about government secrets would never work)
unless he knows about government secrets
@@ThiagoGlady yes, but he’s a nine year old child in semi-rural italy, so the odds of that would be pretty low
@@endernightblade1958
correction: he is a nine year old child in semi-rural Italy with acsses to MAGIC
@@endernightblade1958The odds may be extreamly low, _but are never zero._
@Roblox-NewsYT
I don't think so. Consciouslly, Pinochio would have a oppinion wether or not his nose would grow. And if he has no opinion, then the nose would not grown since it wouldn't be a lie anyway
“Second sentence is lying”
“First sentence is telling the truth”
But this is meaningless because the sentences do not refer to anything in our reality that could be true or false.
@@fikujez I mean they are refering to the fact the other sentences are either lying or telling the truth which is a variation of the card paradox
Olbers paradox is explained by the fact that there is so much space between objects in space that there isn’t enough collective matter to consistently scatter light in space
i was looking for this comment!
While this is less important light also changes to lower wavelengths over time fading from human vision due to expanding space so that is another reason why it's not so bright. (Though only really matters for super far away things)
@@speedy01247 indeed that is very correct
Yeah it's not really a paradox at all, just an incorrect hypothesis about how space ought to look
It says that if the Universe is infinite (which is not), then you should see infinite stars, and the should be infinetly bright.
The one with the stars kinda cracked me up because it's completely solvable
Yea I'm not sure how that's a paradox, just sounds like a lack of knowledge regarding how light works
Isn't the reason we can't see stars at night (or at least not a lot of them) because of our atmosphere and pollution? With photos of astronauts in space and stuff like that we can't show the stars because we have to turn the exposure up so much, we wouldn't be able to see anything else.
We can't see all the stars there probably are because they are too far away, and light from them hasn't reached us yet
Physics grad here: it’s because as stars get further away their wavelength gets red shifted into the invisible part of the spectrum.
The light still reaches us, but we can’t see it. (have a look at the Hubble Telescope’s infrared images!)
Plenty of them are solvable in some way
You're missing the Astley Paradox.
If you ask Rick Astley for a DVD of the movie Up, he won't give it to you because he's never gonna give you Up. However, by not giving you Up like you asked for it, he's letting you down.
bro this is genius XD
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Oh, that is hilarious. XDDDD
Best text version of Rickroll
This is a genius's work. Whoever made this paradox is.
For the barber one, just have 2 barbers give each other a haircut...
The barber should develop a dissociative identity disorder and shave themself/themselves
Yeah
Then it stops being a paradox cuss the paradox exists for a single barber, I had the same thought as you but well
But then each barber is not giving himself a haircut, which, according to the rule, means they must give themselves haircuts.
No the paradox says “anyone who does not shave themselves”, and this includes the barber themselves.
You forgot the Astley paradox. Basically, if you ask Rick Astley for his copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to you as he will never give you up. But in doing so, he has let you down, thus creating the Astley paradox.
Edit: I did not come up with this myself, I just thought it was worth including. I believe it originated as a Reddit meme.
Solution: “give you up” in the context of the song obviously means “to abandon to yield control” as if he was saying “Never gonna abandon you.”
(Also the “up” in “give you up” is not capitalized while the movie Up is as it’s a proper noun)
@@deadchannelnowatch I know that! It’s funnier if you don’t think too hard about it!
@@deadchannelnowatch Okay then, you ask that Astley gives you up, abandons you. If he does, he's given you up. If he doesn't, he's letting you down.
@@deadchannelnowatch🤓👆
Freakin genius!
2:00
Actually this is not a paradox, there is a reason for this. It's because stars really far away are moving away from us at very fast speeds due to the expansion/acceleration of the universe, so their wavelengths are red-shifted until they become infared and invisible to the naked eye.
It is a paradox for a flat earther or science denier
There are also clouds of gas and dust in the universe that block light. Plus, light from each individual star naturally weakens the further you are from it.
You could also more simply explain it by the fact that there’s tons of empty space between stars.
read this in prismo's voice
Also the light from those stars may be sucked into a black hole and never reached Earth.
A cat always lands on its feet
Buttered bread always lands buttered side down
So if strap buttered bread on a cat buttered side up and throw the cat, the cat will be spinning forever
Infinite energy
-buttered cat paradox
If the cat spins forever then it would be in perpetual motion, which would also be impossible.
Cats do not necessarily always land on their feet, especially if landing on their feet would cause more harm, and I’m presuming buttered bread lands buttered side down simply because the butter side is heavier than the non-buttered side
Lowkey kinda confirmed the paradox
@@qwart22Since it seems you are intrested in it:
The buttered bread lands with the buttered side down not really because that side is heavier, but because the bread spins.
So:
If you hold the bread buttered side up and drop it from, let's say, 1m height it will perform half a spin and thus fall with the buttered side down.
But if you now drop it from 2m, it will have time to make a full rotation and it will fall with buttered side up.
If you drop it from 3m - buttered side down.
4m - buttered side up.
And so on.
The height and number of rotations are of course simplified for the example.
No, the bread landing on one side is either pure luck or someone dropped it like that and it didn't have time to flip over. The cat will still land on its feet, and the bread will be dirty and wasted due to being put on a cat. Congratulations, you've abused a cat and dirtied a perfectly good piece of bread just to be proven wrong.
If an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object, they take a screenshot
Wouldn't they just go through eachother?
well said
@@josecorzo5517 its not a paradox, its physically impossible to even have an unmovable object and an unstoppable force in the universe, as they would completely ignore the laws of physics to exist. Nothing would happen because it cannot possibly occur in our universe. Not a paradox, if we lived in a universe with different laws of physics that allowed for it, then I'm sure that the laws of physics of that universe would have an answer.
@@sigmaoperator1688 it's theoretical, just like about half of the other ones on there. They aren't meant to be taken literally.
It spontaneously combusts
7:47 Y2K is a great example of this. My dad works in IT and gets really annoyed by people saying Y2K wasn’t as big of a deal as people had thought, because it absolutely was, but people who worked in IT helped stop it, and no one gives them the credit.
That was basically the conclusion made by the _Well There’s Your Problem_ episode on Y2K.
Still should have updated some hospital computers. Imagine parents having to explain to their son that he could have had a sibling but the doctor said he had Down Syndrome or some other debilitating condition and the parents decided not to continue the pregnancy for that reason (it was 2000 I don’t know how much popular views on the matter have changed since) and then they find out later the results were a false positive.
I feel like that could have happened to hundreds, maybe thousands of expectant parents.
But yeah computer technicians knowing what they’re doing are good to have around.
7:47
@@jaesjmes5498whoops yeah ty lmao
@@jaesjmes5498whoops yeah ty lmao
@@jaesjmes5498whoops ty lol
I swear half of them aren't even paradoxes
More like thought experiments
I don't get Olbers paradox, like that's not a paradox that's just a poor understanding of what "light" is.
The paradox of thrift illustrates how saving can be bad for the economy. The grand hotel paradox shows that some infinities are only countably infinite. The grain of millet paradox explains how sound works. The birthday paradox is literally just probability. The twin paradox is a demonstration of the theory of relativity.
Interesting facts are cool and all, but these aren't even paradoxes.
The grandpa one will just give u a new grandpa
and half the others are duplicated
You made some of these paradoxes 10 times harder to understand than they actually are.
i still dont get the achilles one
@@saturos5068It doesn’t make sense even if someone starts a race ahead of you if you’re faster you’ll overtake eventually lol
Yeah that litterally isn't a paradox it's just hey let's ignore the fact you can overtake in a race and the guy in second will never win haha. It basically says even if you are faster than someone you will never beat them in a race because for example, if they are at the 10 meter point and you run there then you'll still behind because by the time you get there they will have moved further ahead. The "paradox" just ignores the fact people can overtake in a race by using dumb phrasing haha.@@saturos5068
@@saturos5068so basically, in order for Achilles to pass the turtle they say that he must reach where the turtle is, but by the time he reaches why the turtle is the turtle has moved a little bit, so he can never pass the turtle because everytime he reaches where the turtle was the turtle had moved a little
I think it would only work if Achilles would be forced to stop at certain moments such as stopping everytime he is right beside the turtle.@@bjbeast4633
When I think of zero effort content made only to feed the algorithm, I think of vids like these
4:31 I don't care if he's lying or not, I'm just convinced that he is the one who knocks.
in am not in a paradox, skyler. i AM the paradox.
Heisenberger
Heisenburger
Heisenberger
Heisenberger
Achilles and the Tortoise, Dichotomy, and Fletcher (Zeno's paradoxes) make sense until you remember literally any time you've moved or seen movement ever
real
I don't see any contradiction here, if you half the distance, you also half the time that takes to complate that particular distance. Therefore, it is true you don't move because closer you are to the starting position, time slows down as well respectively.
@@Thr35her Things move at different speeds yk. What you're assuming is every movement is relative to each other in terms of distance over time but it's not.
Xeno's paradoxes were never meant to suggest that movement is impossible, but to demonstrate that there was a serious gap in our understanding of the universe; in an age where integrals hadn't been invented, converging infinite sums hadn't been discovered, and we couldn't even conceive of the scales involved in possible quantisation of time and space this was a very pertinent thought experiment, and is still a good demonstration of how our intuitions often fail to hold up to scrutiny.
Or calculus gets invented
My personal favourite:
If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he can’t give it to you, because he’s never gonna give you up. But in doing so, he lets you down, thus creating the Astley paradox.
nice one
This is mine:
Can you forget how to forget?
If so how did you know you forgot?
Damn you rickrolled me
@@Toadey2012not a paradox if the answer is no.
@@Toadey2012 you can't forget how to forget because you don't consciously forget things
Marty McFly and Chuck Berry played off the bootstrap paradox. He went back in time and played old school rock and roll on the guitar, totally influenced by Chuck Berry, but then it was that Chuck Berry’s cousin that heard Marty play and then called Chuck about the “new sound” they were looking for
“We know who tried to erase someone from existence, but we will never know who managed to erase someone.”
Similar to the "you do not know what you do not know"
Its like the fact how you will never find out about the prefect crime
@@OMGg4m3r Well, you can, if the killer decides to tell it himself, it was perfect crime because his whole life nobody found out what he did and he told it himself so it can still be called perfect
@@mantasignatavicius7787 So it isn't perfect, if the killer decided to tell himself and be arrested, the plan wasn't immune to social pressure/community guidelines/morality standards/inflated ego/boredom or whatever other reason that made him tell it, thus making it imperfect as it has flaws.
The same way you can drop a hair string in the crime scene, you can drop a bit of guilt in your self being.
3:20 it can cut any shield, the shield can block any blade.
Blocking a blade does not mean it is uncut. It can be a 1-time block.
Gamer minds solving paradoxes :D love it
Invent a word that means the opposite of block and you substitute it like math
the original paradox has a spear that can pierce any shield and a shield that is unpiercable
I think that both the shield and the sword will break
@@cergeyivanov7566 a blocked strike does not necessarily mean a broke sword. - and it would be quite a poor sword if that were the case.
However, if we tolerate not tolerating intolerance, would that make not tolerating intolerance tolerable, thus making all anti-intolerant intolerance tolerable?
would that mean intolerance is no longer intolerance but tolerance, but without intolerance tolerance cannot exist because tolerating something means intolerance should be possible otherwise why do you need to tolerate it
If toleration is tolerable to tolerate intolerance, isn’t a toleration of tolerance tolerable to not tolerate when toleration is tolerant and when a toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable person? And when toleration becomes tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable? Is tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration?
thats a mouthful
That's exactly why it's a paradox - absolute tolerance is somehow less tolerant than anti-intolerant tolerance.
i cant tolerate this
2:44 counterpoint: it only grows if he knows he’s lying
Olbers paradox is like asking why a single candle can't light up a whole auditorium. It makes no sense.
ton of these paradoxes got me thinking "this makes no sense"
Fr
I don't think it has to do with the intensity of light given off by stars. I think the paradox stems from a misunderstanding that since the universe is infinite, there should be in theory a star anywhere you look into space, therefore there should be light coming from any given point in space and it should be completely illuminated.
The misunderstanding comes from the fact while it may be true there is a star at any given direction you point to in space, this does not necessarily mean the light of that star has reached earth and we see it as a star. Similarly, the light from stars we currently see in space might be light from stars that have already gone extinct but are still receiving light from.
Apart from the finite speed of light to consider there is also the expansion of the universe that also plays a role.
I think this paradox was from the days when we didn’t know how many stars there were, and people might’ve theorized there were infinite stars
@@trydodis690and that there’s nothing to reflect all of that light.
Most of these are on the level of "How me go place if place far away?" Nice paradoxes.
😂
Haha..
Anime pfps try not to be critical of everything challenge
@@hyoonoot dunno what my choice of pfp has to do with the quality of the video, but nice try I guess
@@thatriverguy nice try pal ☝
2:30 you forgot to mention the rest of the paradox. The prisoner then crosses out every other day, concluding that he wouldn’t be executed. He was then surprised when he got executed on Wednesday.
I love this paradox, it presents illogical thinking that feels like it should make sense. A lot of the other ones do this and try to make it seem like there's no solution, which makes it more comical when the solution is presented right in front of you
My theory is, if an immovable object meets an unstoppable force, a massive explosion would occur, obliterating both. The immovable object stopped the unstoppable force because the unstoppable force was destroyed, and vice-versa.
Or the force just bounces off in another direction/passes through.
the grandfather paradox seems like the worst way to find out your adopted
lmao
That was always my favorite solution; Either you didnt kill him or hes not... you know
I think I need an 8 minute video for each of them.
That’s exactly my problem with this channel. You simply can’t synthesize certain things and, if you do, they become increasingly more complicated. Wait… oversimplifying something makes it more complicated? THAT’S ANOTHER PARADOX!
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the unstoppable force will stop, but keep exerting force on the immovable object. The unstoppable force will appear to stop but the force will keep exerting itself onto the immovable object.
“Do we run duos because we suck at the game, or do we suck at the game because we run duos?”
This feels like the things you would think of if you had 4 hours of sleep in last 7 days
My granduncle beautifully reduced the Ship of Theseus idea to its simplest form when he claimed he had a shovel that had lasted him 20 years (the head and handle had each been replaced several times, but never at the same time)
It's only a paradox if you subscribe to the ideology that there is a TRUE original and everything else is a copy. But realistically speaking picking the original is based on consensus between the parties discussing the originality. So people can agree the reconstructed ship is the original, or the original parts assembled together is what makes the original.
I like that and agree with it. It's the same as a human, we completely replace all of the matter we are made up of many times throughout our lives but the more important ideological human is still the same (although changed with life experience admittedly).
Sir, you just killed it, this is easily the most thought-provoking UA-cam video ever.
6:20
"meoow"
"no no no your ruining my presentation"
"MEEEEOW"
"STOP MEOWING PLZ"
lmfao
The prisoner being brought to hanging site on thursday: "Well, this wasn't surpising."
Suddenly sees the executioner pull out a bicycle, a wrench and fifteen rubber ducks ..
6:06 yooo it’s kiki and bouba 🔥🔥
Glad someone was thinking the same thing im thinking
nooo i already commented that only to notice someone noticed afterwards
BOUBA IS [ROUND]
KIKI IS [SHARP]
wait where have i heard that before-
@@my.fav.no..is.12.point.9 TLDR when people are shown these 2 shapes (that are very similar to those) and are asked which is kiki and which is bouba they usually answer that kiki is the sharp one and bouba is the round one
it doesn’t answer questions it brings more..
Tiredness paradox: Imagine being so tired, that you are too tired to be tired.
Then you’d fall asleep.
"Imagine"? 😑
But those are 2 different types 1 is physically and the other is mentally
Here's a sort of paradox I saw:
Benny doesn't fix the hole in his roof when it rains because it's too wet to work, but when it's not raining it doesn't need to be fixed
Tell Benny to stop being a lazy fuck and you don’t have a paradox to solve anymore.
That's not a paradox, that's just Benny being a baffoon.
thats not a paradox thats just like me fr fr
That's not a paradox that's common sense
Bennie is a moron
0:17 bruh, he is faster than the tortoise
yeah, but if you keep subdividing, there seems to be and infinite number of steps he has to take before he can pass the tortoise, and so he never does.
@@motixorthen dont subdivide it. He doesnt walk infinitively small amounts at a time.
A lot of people believed it to be true even tho it's counterintuitive until humans figured out calculus.
That is why is a paradox in the first place. We know he will catch the tortoise eventually but the logic in the explanation still applies.
lets say the turtle walk 1 meter. Aquiles must walk 1 meter, but at that time, the turtle would have walked a little bit more, like 10cm. Aquiles then has to walk 10cm, but the turtle will have walk 1cm, and so it goes
@@ThiagoGlady more like the logic in the explanation sucks. You can graph their speeds and distance and see exactly when he overtakes it
Dichotomy paradox is basically how one of gojos abilities works
1:01
That's close, but not quite
The fermi paradox doesn't need an infinite universe
It just suggests that aliens are a statistical certainty due to the large amount of stars in the observable universe, even the galaxy. So, of all of those stars, some must have life sustaining planets, and then some must have developed life. Some of those civilizations must have advanced far enough to be able to travel through space, and thus we must have already interacted with them. However, there is no extraterrestrial life that we have found so far. The observable universe is big enough to be virtually infinite.
I never understood why that’s the case, though. We don’t know the probability of life existing on other planets. Yeah the universe is gigantic and it’s been around for a few billion years, but so what? Just because life happened on one planet, why should it have to have happened on another? It could have, but we can’t quantify a probability until we understand the universe better
@@IAmSkystrikeThat's because we know how life on Earth came to be, and what is needed for that to happen.
Simplifying a lot, in our current understanding the most important factor is liquid water. We know that for that to happen, a planet must be at a certain distance from it's star for water to exist (so called Goldilocks Zone - planet is to close and water evaporates, planet is to far and water freezes).
Then we combine that with the averege number of planets in Goldilocks Zone per star system. Add the probability of hydrogen and oxygen existing in it's atmoshepre (they are both quite common elements, actually) and then probability of live evolving on such a planet (our sample size is extreamly low on universal scale, but we have to work with what we have).
Then we use Fermi's formula and we get how many technological civilizations there are in the Universe.
However, iirc, there is one important factor Fermi's formula doesn't take into consideration - time. So the number we get is in reality the number of technological civilizations that ever existed, exist and will exist in the Universe according to our current knowledge.
We shouldn't forget about how lucky we are, since most planets are very likely to collide with another celestial body which destroys all evolved forms of life that existed so far (like the dinosaurs in our case). Statistically, we are very lucky that we managed to evolve that far (probably thanks to jupiter)! This might never have happened anywhere else
Or the low chance that they get hit by a GRB (Gamma ray burst) and get sterilized.
@@IAmSkystrikethat is one of the possible solutions to the paradox - maybe we're overestimating how likely it is for life to form. I think many scientists don't find that to be a very satisfying answer though, because there are so many stars and so much time before us that in order to make the low probability explanation make sense, the chance of life forming would need to be next to impossible. Like, incomprehensibly close to impossible. And since we're not willing to accept that Earth is somehow magically unique, we expect that if Earth-like conditions are repeated billions of times over billions of years then an Earth-like result should reoccur.
7:30
i remember minutephysics explaining this theoretical scenario! since the immovable object cannot move, it must stay still, and since the unstoppable force cannot stop, it must pass through the object
Wouldnt the force gling through the object count as moving it? Unless its intangible
@@elianhg2144 If the unstoppable force phases through the immovable object without displacing it then there is no paradox as the force did not get stopped and the object did not get moved. I think it neatly resolves the paradox and you'd have to keep adding conditions to the paradox to turn it back into a paradox.
I have a better explanation. Basically, they can’t even both exist. If there is an unstoppable force, there *can’t* be an immovable object, and vise versa. Only one or the other can be a thing. But yeah, theoretically if they both were a thing, the force would do some weird particle stuff and phase through.
anime pfp using peddle file
@@banallanimeandfurries it isnt even anime 💀 its from touhou
A lot of these aren’t really paradoxes
I feel like he’s debunking the ones that don’t work
Some paradoxes arise from a lack of knowledge in the past. For example, the Fletcher’s paradox was solved because people learnt that time can’t be split up into instances, thus debunking the paradox.
Fr
A few of them are named paradoxes because they simply appear to be oxymoronic. In reality, they are just empirical anomalies and hypothetical conundrums which seem to have no solutions. Hence, they are false ‘paradoxes’
Thanks! i didnt understand over half of these paradoxes😀👍
Some of these aren’t paradoxes
Yeah some of them look like Relationship Paradox: s(he )be(lie)ve(d)
Paradigms.
@@Molteniceee sbeve
@The_Shimp how can you tell?
@@Sadrock316 idk I don’t remember the video
Achiles and tortoise paradox, you missed the key ingredient, it is said he has to first catch up and only then he can overtake the tortoise that is why he never overtakes
Yeah, he explained it properly in the “Dichotomy Paradox”, which is as much the same thing as sword and shield vs unstoppable force vs immovable object
To my understanding he messed up dichotomy paradox as well as he said to get to a destination you have to get halfway there and to get there you need to get a quater way there......
I don't see what's the problem here we do this every day im in my room the fridge is my destination yes I pass the halfway and even the quarter mark and still get to my destination fine what is he talking about infinite steps?
This must be explained wrong as there must be more to this puzzle than what video says as how it's said in video its a non issue
@@lowgrav5900
The story I’ve heard is told Aesop’s Fable style where the hero Achilles and a tortoise are going to have a race, but since it’s so unfair Achilles agrees to give the poor old tortoise a headstart.
Having gotten the hero’s word, the tortoise points out how no matter how slow he might be, the hero can never catch up because in the time it takes him to get to where the tortoise was when he started, the tortoise will have moved a little further, and by the time he makes up that difference the turtle will have gotten a little further still, and so on and so on, such that since Achilles gave the tortoise a headstart he can now never win. Convinced by the tortoise’s logic, Achilles admits defeat before the race starts.
Of course, we all know this is nonsense, since as you said we all reach out and grab things without having to travel an infinite distance. In reality there would’ve reached a point where Achilles would’ve been so close to the tortoise’s position that it’s as if there was no headstart and his faster speed would then obviously overcome the tortoise.
I personally see this as a moral story more than anything, but beyond that I see it as a thought experiment about how sometimes our mathematical and logical intuitions are wrong, and maybe at most an argument that the universe really is made out of analog Planck length sized pixels rather than infinitely continuous.
That isn't how racing works
@@lowgrav5900the distance doesn't become "infinitely further" either. If i'm 10 steps from my fridge, and i take a step, that's 9 steps away now, not 18
Categorizing these based on Jan Misali's 5 kinds of paradox (ua-cam.com/video/ppX7Qjbe6BM/v-deo.html):
Grandfather Paradox - Normal Impossible Question
Achilles and the Tortoise - Counterintuitive Fact (similar to Zeno's Paradox)
Ship of Theseus - Normal Impossible Question
Sorites Paradox - Normal Impossible Question†
Barbershop Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Catch-22 - Normal Impossible Question(?)†
Fermi Paradox - Normal Impossible Question
Opposite Day Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Simpson's Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Tolerance Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact/One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published†
Bootstrap Paradox - Normal Impossible Question
Stockdale Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact‡
Jevons Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*‡
Olbers Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published
Paradox of Thrift - Counterintuitive Fact‡
Unexpected Hanging Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Value Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact/One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published†‡
Pinocchio Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Hedonism Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*‡
Crocodile Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Sword and Shield Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Dichotomy Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Fletcher Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Grand Hotel Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Card Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Liar Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Grain of Millet Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published
Boltzmann Brain - Normal Impossible Question/Counterintuitive Fact
Paradox of Enrichment - Counterintuitive Fact
Service Recovery Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*
Stability-Instability Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published
Ironic Process Theory - Counterintuitive Fact/Not a Paradox*
Paradox of Choice - Counterintuitive Fact‡
Birthday Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Schrodinger's Car - Normal Impossible Question
Twin Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Friendship Paradox - Counterintuitive fact
Raven Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact
Temperature Paradox - One guy getting confused, writing it down, and getting it published†
Interesting Number Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Irresistible Force Paradox - Logical Contradiction
Lottery Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*
Preparedness Paradox - Counterintuitive Fact*
I've added an asterisk (*) for a few of these that I think are more like a 'quirk of human psychology' than an actual paradox, a dagger (†) for a few that are 'problems of definition,' or those that are semantic tricks and a double dagger (‡) for 'counterintuitive facts' that are too broad to necessarily be correct for all situations, or those that I cannot verify as 'facts'
Ay i was thinking about that video!
What about the country borders length as being fractals, isn't it also a paradox?
@@Evandroworks id argue it falls under the same category of the heap question, as the exact borders aren't defined to the atom.
Nice work!
most of the video is a summarization of jan misali’s video. feel like it should be made more clear 😕
Corporate needs you to find a difference between Pinochio, Crocodile, Card and Liar paradoxes.
"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"
They marry and give birth to a blue cat, and a pink rabbit and adopt an orange fish bought from a mysterious store.
AYYY
Wouldn't the unstoppable force move out of the way of the immovable object, or pass through it
@@thengspjo4716 no they will stop moving and be not alive anymore because they probably died to the neurotoxin which should be not released cinematically you should really do it immediatel- you know what to self release the neurotoxin immediately
@@thengspjo4716i don't think you understand what "immovable" means
3:41
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
6:33
And the sensor that senses the particle absolutely does count as an observer
The Dichotomy Paradox is just how it feels to work in retail. “Ok my break is in 4 hours, just got to make it to two hours, then make it to one hour, then I have to make it to half an hour….”
When you explained the sword and shield paradox my brain instantly started playing sounds of two metal objects clipping inside each other and spazzing out in Garry's Mod lmao
the grand hotel paradox isn't really a paradox because it's math and can be explained easily. this is shown in the text, Math Without Numbers by Milo Beckman. He uses this paradox to try explain how infinity plus one is equal to infinity
The piss paradox: too tired to piss but too full of piss to sleep
3:50 "say… say that again…"
5:21 basically every war right now
this is how the world now works because of deadly technology with which you can attack, but you can't defend from it, so the best defense is offense
And so it should be. If one has a weapon the other one aslo should have a weapon.
Well, every except war in Ukraine :P .
Mutually assured destruction.
That said, we could always have a crazy person who doesn't care about it who just happens to get access in some freak possibility.
So still not good to have such powerful weapons from the beginning due to that. Unless all processes in which to activate them require much more interactivity than technological failure, crazy people or misunderstanding.
Which given one Russian guy who was told to fire at a American submarine, but didn't and literally stopped WWIII, I can only hope the process of actually activating nuclear bombs requires a lot less sheer luck that someone thought something was wrong and didn't follow through with orders.
@@ComissarYarrickUkraine doesn't have access nuclear weapons, if it did it would never be invaded according to the paradox.
0:44 2 barbers, shave each other and everyone else too
There is 1 barber, and if they shave each other they break the rule that they need to shave everyone that can’t shave, for they won’t shave everyone in the way your awnser works
@@retr0of300 did it not say that cant shave themselves? In this situation the barbers can't shave themselves and therefore can shave each other
The Barber Paradox is only a paradox so long as we insist in cataloging people according to their profession. When "the barber" is at home he is off-duty, so he isn't "the barber", he's just "Bill", meaning he can shave himself without causing a paradox.
Also, in this day and age, a woman can also be a barber, and women don't usually shave their face (nor do barbers usually shave their patron's legs or any other body-part bellow the neck).
I think the paradox comes from the fact that this town only has one barber, "the barber". Otherwise you're completely right, so it would be great if they put up a sign inviting any barbers to join their town lol
The barber is a lady. Solved!
The dichotomy paradox is only a paradox if you need to stop at every step. If you just need to reach it before going to the next step, you can still just start walking. Infinitely small steps are still always steps ahead of you.
But there are infinite number of subdivisions as well
but you can add an infinite amount of infinitely small subdivisions to get a finite amount
Here’s one:
If you win an award about “not having any awards” you now have an award, but if they take it from you, you don’t.
Pillow paradox: Flipping the cold side of the pillow, but using it ends up warming the pillow, thus flipping endlessly
the common theme here is that people love to overthink and make shit more complicated than it has to be, some of these can be answered with common sense while others actually are just unsolved either because we haven’t figured it out or don’t have the means to figure it out
It's what happens when we don't apply occam's razor to things.
It's slightly more complicated than that: all of these are fully explained/understood, the ones you think are unsolved are either explained via some formal logic stuff (fuzzy logic, defining logic to avoid self-referential statements) and is so well understood it is abused in weird ways, or collapses when considered from some more accurate perspectives.
Schrodingers cat doesn’t belong in this video. It was a thought exercise used to show how ridiculous it would be if a particle was in two different states simultaneously. Now, of course, we have put certain particles into superposed states but the thought experiment still applies to objects larger than an atom
It's interesting how many of these big things that people learn about often get reversed from their purpose. Much like IQ measurement was never meant to elevate people to feel superior or inferior, it was meant to help find people who may need some help in life due to to certain issues/conditions.
It also has a racist history as far as I understand, but the intent was never about finding and favoring the smart people. If anything it was about finding those who scored lowly, as they might need assistance in life.
It's also wrong. There are people with 70 IQ who still function decently enough or far more than we thought capable, so the measurement wasn't even that useful for it's intended purpose.
The paradox isn’t schrodingers cats but the principle of uncertainty. You are correct in saying the cars are just a thought experiment to demonstrate what happens which I find tends to confuse people even more. It’s very real tho, for really small things like an electron it means two things really which I will simplify as much as I can. If you observe something small like an electro you have it’s position but cant know it’s momentum and vice versa if you calculate the momentum you can’t know the position. One big reason for that has to do with how we see things. Light photons have to bounce off something and reach your eyes for you to see. So for something really small the act seeing it causes the light photon to shoot it in any direction which means you can only see it where it was when you looked but can’t know where it went. So in its application around atoms there are little pockets called orbitals where electrons are. Within that orbital the electron can be everywhere and any where so basically the electron is everywhere at once in that moment the same way the cat is dead and alive as long as the box remains closed. Once you look then the electron will be in a precise location which is where you have seen it same as if you open the box then the cat will be either dead or alive. Because if the above mentioned the electron instantly goes back to being every where. It’s a bit more complex than that because there are probabilities for where the electron could be and where it could perhaps not be. It’s a hell of a rabbit hole but if you like it then you learn some very interesting things about our existence.
The paradox is, is it dead or alive?
I have a paradox: For example, if there are 10 people and 9 of them are interesting, the remaining one becomes interesting for being the only uninteresting.
4 of these paradoxes are just varitions of the pinocchio paradox lol
"This sentence is a lie" describes half of this video. Sad
Like the shield and sword paradox and the immovable object and unstoppable force are almost the exact same thing
my favourite paradox is that it doesn’t matter how many times a video is made about a paradox, there will never really be a video containing all of the paradoxes in the world due to the fact that the video will eventually become obsolete and not mention one of the paradoxes and end up creating a paradox of never ending every paradox video
how many youtubers does it take to make a video about every paradox?
That's not a paradox, though. That's just people making up new stuff. Besides, our brains are made up of a limited number of atoms, so we can only ever think of a limited number of paradoxes.
The paradox video paradox
Grandfather Paradox (Aka the Back to the future paradox): Can be solved if you allow for multiple timelines to exist.
Achilles and the Tortoise: A very nice "limit" problem. if we allow for discreet lenght there is a point in time, albeit as infinitesimal as you might want it to be, in which Achilles will reach and surpass the Tortoise. The paradox just points you towards finding the perfect exact time at which that happens, but you dont need to know where it is, just that it exists.
Ship of Theseus (also known as the teleport paradox): Both are theseus ships and the original it's obviously the oldest for parts not for construction. as for the teleport paradox (if get dematerialized and reassebled somewhere else, is it still you or a perfect copy?) it's kind of the same thing, there is no apparent difference and not even you would know.
Sorites paradox (also knows as per parts for the whole paradox): purely semantic. a heap is an undefined amount of congruent or similar things. as soon as you are willing to count what's left of the heap, it becomes an amount. since it's subjective it can be anything from 2 and upwards.
The Barbershop Paradox: Self recurring paradox. When the premise changes due to the effect it creates it's called a superposition. where both answers are both true and false depending on which premise you assume as true.
Catch22: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Fermi's Paradox (which is butchered here a lil bit): No information can travel faster than light, but the universe expands faster than light. therefore if there's alien life. we will never be able to be reached by that information.
Opposite day paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Simpson Paradox: not per sé a paradox but a statistical quirk: the smaller the group, the more individuals quality influence the "norm". since the norm swings wildly between groups. averaging the norm of smaller groups may result counterintuitive. Basically the smaller the unit of measure, the better you can see the whole (think pixels in pictures)
Tolerance paradox: sort of a self recurring paradox. if you assume everyone has to be as tolerant as possible, then there cannot be intolerants. if there are intolerants. then it's not unlimited tolerance, cause the very presence of intolerant limits it.
Bootstrap Paradox: See Grandfather paradox.
Stockdale paradox: you tend to put more perspective in your work when you plan it for the long run. and therefore avoid making more mistakes than just focusing on only what you see (similar to the "time passes faster as you get older, cause 1 year for a 10yo is 10% of their life and for a 20yo is only 5%")
Jevons Paradox: If something gets cheaper. it gets used more. not a paradox but a law of the market. it would be a paradox only in a zero-sum economy.
Olber's Paradox: If you could throw a torch a near light-speed, you'd be able to see only part of the light as most of it is still traveling to you. also, diffraction and diffusion.
Thrift Paradox: It's a game theory problem, not a paradox, if we all act in furtherance of our selfish interest then a society based on a collaborative economy cannot sussist.
Hanging paradox: it's a logical fallacy, not a paradox. and it's explained like shit. "a prisoner is told that he will be hanged next week, but it will be saved if he can tell which day he will be executed, so he reason it cant be on friday, as it is the last day and he would know by thursday, it can be thursday cause it cant be friday and that would make thurday the last day and so on until monday so he concluded he wont be executed next week, to his surprise, he's hanged on wednesday" the reasoning seems sound but the fallacy is that it deal with probabilities and not absolutes.
Value Paradox: ??? items that arent necessities cost more.. when you have ample access to the necessities. ask for water in the desert in exchange for diamonds and you'll see the rate of exchange slightly change.
Pinocchio Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Hedonism paradox: is this a paradox or just... pure bullshit?
Crocodile Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Sword and shield: one or both statement must be false. because a sword that can cut anything has clearly never been tested on the unbreakable shield and viceversa. so at least 1 statement is lying.
Dichotomy paradox: pretty sure that's not it's name but the paradox is similar to Achilles and the tortoise so refer to that (appling uncountable infinities into a finite world doesnt work)
Fletcher paradox (god how badly it's explained) basically another achilles and tortoise but from another angle (instead of approaching the point. it sets the point and tries to escape from it)
Gh paradox: Infinities break a finite world: there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers. this is true because there is no end to them, even tho you'd think odd numbers to be half of the numbers.
Card Paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Liar paradox: Self recurring paradox. refer to Barbershop Paradox.
Grain of Millet paradox...... huh? you even explained yourself. this is not a paradox it's just stupid.
Boltzman paradox: that's not what it says at all jesus. it's basically monkey and typewriters. since a brain is a lot less complex than a full scale universe. you can easily tell why it might be easier for a monkey to write 1 full sentence rather than the full shakespeare collection.
Enrichment paradox: It's very complicated but yes. seems like a paradox but it really isnt.
Service recovery paradox: it's why people take out insurances.
Loved your explanations, I didn't checked all of them yet but about the Achiles and tortoise I think he missed point about the rule that Achile has to catch up first and only then he can pass the tortoise that is why it is not just basic math problem
@@mantasignatavicius7787the tortoise is given a ten meter head start, Achilles must first sprint ten meters. In the time it takes Achilles to go ten meters, the tortoise will have continued moving and will now be 1 meter further, leading to Achilles now having to sprint one meter, in which time the tortoise will have continued one tenth of a meter, etc.
Thank you for your time and wisdom, didn't think I would see anyone explaining them all
@@kerbe3 yeah its a limit function basically. But the paradox lies in the fact that you infer that Achilles will never pass the Tortoise when in fact, we are just determining where it will be, which is an order of numeral infinity higher than where distance lies.
If pinnochio says anything paradoxical, he spontaneously combusts
Birthday paradox: You would need 367 people to have a 100% chance of 2 people having the same birthday, because a leap year has 366 day so there could be all different birthdays.
glad I wasn't the only one to pick this up
I almost said something stupid 😂 i wanted to say that there should be more than 367 because birthdays would be random. After i typed it out i realized that “me stoopid” 😂
1:06 if we make rules for opposite day like talking or telling how opposite day work it isnt effected by the opposite day
exactly
And another if it was opposite day the opposite of opposite day is a normal day
4:56 gave me a existential crisis ☺️
Your not fake 😭💀
The fact that he described the Catch-22 with _the_ Catch-22 from the novel of the same name earns my like.
the Achilles, Dichotomy and Fletcher Paradoxes are all the same one tbh. should be called the 'instance paradox'
Zeno moment
fletcher paradox is literally how derivatives work in physics
It wasn't easy to explain it so quickly.. Nice job my friend!
unrelated but my friend just made me wait 3 hours just for him to say “oops I forgot”
In the Einstein twin paradox, the paradox is not that one twin will become older than the other (that's simply what relativity predicts), the paradox is that from the astronaut twin's perspective, the other twin is the one moving relative to them, so they should be aging slower instead of themself.