If I tell you my previous statement was a lie and I'm telling the truth about it then I'm telling the truth in this statement and was lying in the previous also the "who wrote Beethoven" bit in doctor who, he could of wrote it in the first place but took it too him too early and then it seems as if it wrote itself the paradox. I wonder if everything started because of a paradox the opposite of nothing is everything infinitely no start point .. no end
The Grandfather Paradox is pretty easy to solve, actually. It's just that the answer is too boring for Hollywood. The reason the killer exists is because their birth was not prevented. So either the person they killed was not actually their grandfather, or their grandfather was not killed. What makes up the present already takes the past into account, so whatever happened in the past is always what had happened and there is no "changing" the present by altering the past.
no matter the day, I have a dose of Simon and his deep dive into al these amazing topics. I'm sure my family is tired of my shite. stay safe and awesome evryone, Simon, Writers, viewers! If you got a minute, checkout my links in my bio! xoxo
Giving you a raise would eat into the profits but not giving you a raise dis-incentivizes you from being productive enough to boost the company profits...
My favorite is the Astley Paradox: 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. However, in doing so he lets you down. Thus creating the Astley Paradox.
If the prisoner is told that One day this week you will be executed but not on the day that would be a surprise he would be expecting to be executed any day. The surprise would be if the execution did not happen. Therefore prisoner can not be executed becous it would be expected.
@@1tho3 Except in countries like Japan, you don't get to know what day you'll be executed until the executioner knocks on your door; yet there isn't a prison full of people who can't be executed . . .
So much of this relies on actually having a Time Machine. The last time I popped down to ‘Dimensional Instabilities r Us’, they were clean out of time machines. The sales assistant suggested that as the future hadn’t happened yet, there were none to be had at any price. He did suggest that when the right bit of future had happened, time machines would then be available now and indeed at any time in the past present or future.
Talk to Mr. Adams. He's the manager at Dimensional Instabilities 'R' Us. He's the best. Doug has helped me with all kinds of paradoxical issues over the years. And if your into probability drives,, He also makes a mean cup of tea .. extra hot😉
Surely the lack of evidence that a time traveler hasn't announced themselves to the world must mean time travel is never invented? Well, being able to go back in time at least.
Prisoner's paradox as told by Simon is actually funny double paradox. Even if the executioner came on Friday, the judge would still be right. After Thursday night, you would be sure you've won, so Friday knock would be a terrible surprise for you :D
production feedback: Audio dynamic compression is a great move, but the compression seems to have too fast a release time (inhaled breath comes in loud), and the de-esser needs to aim for a higher frequency.
Yeah, it's actually quite distracting. I wonder if he is coming off some sort of health thing, which also explains why Karl Smallwood took over Biographics.
@@6thwilbury2331 That has absolutely NOTHING to do with why Simon Whistler left Biographics, Geographics, and TopTenz. It was all about personal or business disagreements with the producers (the Harris family) of those 3 channels. If health had anything to do with it, then why did he never stop making videos for almost all of his other many channels?
The Bootstrap Paradox reminds me of something I heard about the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race. The BBC always covered it on the radio, so there'd be a commentator telling the listeners which team was ahead at every stage. However, at one point, the Thames curved in such a way that the commentator couldn't see the boats. However, he knew an ingenious way of telling who was winning at that point: he's heard that a man whose garden was near the river had a flagpole, and he'd hoist the team colour of whichever boat was ahead at that point: dark blue for Oxford and light blue for Cambridge. The commentator could just make out the flagpole with binoculars, so he'd confidently announce who was ahead, never letting on to his audience how he knew. This went on for many years, and finally, one year he decided to visit the man and see this famous flagpole close up. But when he got to it, it noticed something: it was impossible to see the Thames from that location. He pointed this out, and asked the man how he could tell which boat was ahead. "Oh, that's easy", he said, "I have a portable radio beside me, and I listen to the commentary on the BBC".
How would the man raise a flag when he heard it on the radio, and the radio announce it based on the flag? If both are waiting for the other, neither would act.
@@IAmUnderscore Because the flag was only for a single point in the race around a bend. There was someone in the lead prior to the bend so basically whoever was in the lead before going out of sight stayed in the lead (on radio at least) until they turned the bend back into sight.
@@snorgardark1908 No, @IAmUnderscore is correct. The announcer was NOT going by who was in the lead going into the turn. He relied solely on the visual image of the flag itself through the binoculars to determine the leader. So when the competitors approached the turn the announcer would've switched to the binos to see just a flagpole, waiting on the leading flag to be raised, while the guy at home waits on the radio announcer to tell him which to raise. It would fail immediately the first time.
This only works if neither team ever passes the other during the bend. It's not a paradox. The person raising the flag would be going off of the call the commentator last made; the positions before the bend. Otherwise, it leads to what was mentioned above. Neither acting.
@@probusexcogitatoris736 As someone with a BS in CS and has been looking for a job for over a year with not a single interview despite being top of his class because of exactly what Doom stated I can confidently say you are wrong. "Entry level position looking for a recent graduate who hasn't been employed prior. Must have: 8+ years of experience in x,y,z." This is exactly what I see, EVERY FUCKING DAY on most of the job listings for "Entry level". It doesn't matter what position, or business, they almost all have this type of bs.
What about the worlds oldest profession, supposedly prostitution. Peter Hathaway Capstick pointed out there had to be an older profession in order for the prostitute to be paid. So the worlds oldest profession was probably a hunter. Dunno if thats a paradox or just deep thinking.
Stephen King's "November 22, 1963" is quite possibly one of the best books ever written about reverse causation. It's something I've thought about a lot and always agreed with, and Simon mentions it too in this video.
Maybe that's why there is a shooter on the knoll...because of some future time traveler attempted to stop the one shooter, that's why time had to create the 2nd. And when they attempted to stop that guy is why one of the newest theories is that the weird angle is cuz in the panic of the situation one of the secret service guys tripped and accidentally discharged the fatal bullet. 🤔 it's repairing the attempts to stop it. just a quick game of wild suppositions...sorry. lol.
I just love Diogenes. That dude was an OG "No you're wrong and I'll explain why"- kinda dude. Zeno claiming that motion doesn't exist and Diogenes disproving it just by walking in circles or when Plato claimed that Human is just a featherless bi-pedal, so Diogenes plucked feathers off from a chicken and just blasted it on the floor claiming how this is Plato's man in front of his students lmao
I love that when Alexander the great first met him napping naked next to stoop. He stood over him and explained that he was Alexander the great and sought him out because of his notoriety and wanted to meet him and help him in any way he could. Diogenes replied with, "Could you stand over there? You're blocking my sunlight." STRAIGHT GANGSTER AND HARD AF
Zeno was hitting at something very deep but he just couldn't understand it. The mathematics wasn't there and wouldn't be there for 1500 years. That he formulated the concept of an infinite number of things adding up a finite number is a massive intellectual leap. But the idea of the infinite was beyond him so he concluded the premise of the question was invalid and therefore motion is impossible because that's all that made sense to him.
Years ago, at a science fiction convention, I purchased a button that reads, "The statement on this button is false". It is my favorite. It's even more fun when people tell me, "I don't get it". Then I have to explain to people what a paradox is. 🦆🦆
@@michaelhowell2326The pleasure of explaining things wears off quickly, then got becomes have to. There's a stage after that called figure it out yourself that op clearly hasn't reached yet. It's not that hard to Google shit.
@@levilandes1719 one doesn't wear something like a big pin unless they want it as conversation piece. If it got to the "have to" point, just take it off. And Google is no replacement for human interaction. People are losing that ability.
@@michaelhowell2326 It's a shirt, I have a bunch of t shirts with graphics that I barely pay attention to. A shirt is old to me, not to others, and their curiosity is still their problem and still not mine. Not everyone enjoys human interaction, some people are able to meet that need with minimal contact through impersonal means, such as the comment section of a UA-cam video. And other people's needs are again, their problem, not mine. I'll feed you if you're hungry, but if you want company keep marching.
Thank you for pointing out the watch paradox in "Somewhere In Time". I remember having a rather ...ahh ... heated discussion with my then wife about the impossibility of the watch. She thought I was being too picky and should just "enjoyed the film". This may have been part of the reason we are no longer together.
The watch surely follows the Bounty paradox. If you had a ship called the Bounty and over the years had to swap out sails, planks, steering wheel and so on, would that still be the ship? How would it be if you took the swapped out parts and built a ship with them. Which ship is the original Bounty? But if your ex-wife differs that much, it would show on other ends, too. Not every marriage is built to last.
If we consider what he said in the video about time refusing to allow a paradox to exist, then it's likely that somewhere along the way the original watch gets swapped out for one like it, so the same watch isn't going through time over and over. Like she gives him the watch, a pickpocket mugs him and swaps the watch with a cheap knock-off without him realizing, he goes back in time and gives it to her, she carries it all those years, gives it to him, he's mugged and it's swapped for a cheap knock-off, etc, so it's always a "new" watch going through time. Time just sprayed some paradox-be-gone on the watch. :)
My favorite thing about this channel is how everyone acts like they're smart in the comments. And then leaves their Google account settings to public so you can see their history. And see the truth. 😅
That's not a paradox. That's management congratulating themselves on THEIR success managing the disposable fool- errr... employees... while they worked at home, but now, management wants to manage the VALUED EMPLOYEES (remembered to use the polite word that time) at work, because it's more convenient for management.
@@devikwolf I think you mean 'deepen my understanding of the language'. 'Learn the language better' would be in reference to the quality of my learning as I actively learn the language. I'm not learning the language, I mastered it sometime after I read my first novel at 4 y.o. Keep going cobber, you'll get there.
The surprise paradox ceases to be a paradox because, if you accept the premise of the prisoner's logic, Not being hanged becomes a possibility. This means that even being hung on the Friday becomes a surprise.
Eating an entire pizza is one task, no matter how many slices you cut it into. Running a journey with an end point is one task no matter how many times you want to divide it up.
The sum of an infinite sequence can be a finite number. Once we proved this mathematically it showed the logical fallacy in Zeno's idea. Zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite sequence must be infinity. See numberphile for surprisingly easy to understand examples.
@@philwood5288 the easist example is a joke. an infinite number of mathematicians go into a bar. the 1st order 1 pint, the second orders 1/2 of a pint, the 3rd orders 1/4 of a pint, the 4th orders 1/8 of a pint the barman pours 2 pints and tells them they should know their limit
This is the best explanation that I have seen for visualizing the apparentparadox, though the fundamental error of Zeno's analysis is disregarding that each step becomes shorter in time as it becomes shorter in distance. That is the analysis that gives rise to the mathematical concept of limits.
The steps or yards the runner walks may be divided down, but at some point, the size of the division becomes so small, that he just steps over it. This is also why animation in computers has traditionally had a 1% breaker. The amount of computing power needed to animate beyond that point far exceeds the visible capabilities, so the end of any animation is always a jump we don't see as one.
Years ago the tax service I used for my business would send me a huge packet of paperwork. Quad duplicate everything. For a one man business. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. So is the page actually blank?
Is that what's causing it? I was doing P.A. announcing just a few days ago. I had run across the field to get a pronunciation on a name, then ran back to the box about 20 seconds before I had to start talking. Almost certainly sounded just like Simon does in this video.
The answer to the dichotomy paradox always seemed so obvious to me. The idea that you have to take an infinite number of steps to cover a finite distance inherently presupposes that you have to "arrive" at each halfway point and stop there before continuing on meaning that, at some point, for some arbitrary reason you have to start taking smaller and smaller 'steps' so that you don't pass the next halfway point without stopping and counting a new step. There is no reason to do that other than to satisfy the artificial restriction imposed by the wording of the paradox. Another version of this would be filling a cylindrical bucket from hose with a constant stream of water. If the bottom to the top of the bucket is thought of as equivalent to the distance run by the runner in the dichotomy paradox, the water could only satisfy the requirements of the paradox if you stoo the flow of water as you go along each time you hit the next halfway point, but then you are denying the initial condition that I mentioned that you are filling the bucket with a constant flow from a hose. The fact that we observe time flowing and have not actually figured out a way of stopping it indicates that this type of paradox simply doesn't describe the reality we live in so it is a mathematical/philosophical curiosity but not something that describes anything we see I'm the real world such as motion through space.
Dresden Files had a funny retort to the Grandfather paradox Harry: So if I go back in time to kill my grandfather Vadderung: he beats you senseless I suspect
(This statement is true (+) x is true (+)) = true (+) (This statement is true (+) x is false (-))= false (-) (This statement is false (-) x is true (+)) = false (-) (This statement is false (-) x is false (-)) = true (+) (This statement is t or f) is the first variable. The (is t or f) part is the second variable. No matter what the second variable is it doesn’t change the first variable. They both combine to give a new answer. The self reference part is meaningless. It is no different than saying this is the number 5. The only reason this is a paradox is because for some reason we are allowing the original statement to change. Instead of combining the statement with the response. This is equivalent to saying a=a or b therefore a can also be b. Instead of a x b = c.
If someone exists then they will still exist even if they kill their parents before their own conception. It is just that now there will not be another one of them born. The entire thing is nonsensical though so why am I even writing a comment about it...
Man it's funny I was rambling to my Mom the other day about a version of one of Zeno's paradoxes (the arrow paradox) because it was used to explain asymptotes to me by my honestly amazing Algebra 2 teacher. I had that lesson over a decade ago but it still sticks with me! Took me some time but when my brain finally connected how asymptotes and limits worked together it made infinite limits much easier for me to wrap my head around. There must be some miss information out there because my Algebra 2 teacher said the arrow paradox was debunked by Diogenes firing an arrow and it ya know... hitting the target. Or maybe he was using some creative liberties!
When I was eight, I asked my babysitter why I couldn't pick myself up. I knew I couldn't, I understood that experientially, I was just trying to work through the logical semantics....
If they developed the paradox long before crack was invented, then they couldn't have been smoking crack in order to create said paradox. Though you might be able to find a chain of events between the birth of the paradox leading to the creation of crack. Then you could take that crack back in time to have them smoke it in order to develop the paradox that would then lead to the creation of crack and begin the cycle anew. Ironically, creating yet another paradox.
A long time ago when I took a few university classes in philosophy, an acquaintance told me 'philosophy is just mental masturbation'. These paradoxes reminded me of that and boy, was he right!
If a problem or question has an answer that causes you to go in a infinite loop then it is not a paradox, it is a logic knot. Paradoxes are impossibilities, imagine if someone gave you a math problem and you got the answer 2=7. You think to yourself, “I must of made a mistake” so you look over the problem and can’t find a mistake. So you redo the entire the problem but slower but you get 2=7. Confused you get a smart person, a proper mathematician and he goes through the same issue, 2=7 and there is no mistakes made and there is nothing wrong with the equation. That is a paradox 2=7. But… Bootstrap Logic-knot doesn’t sound as cool as Bootstrap Paradox There is also Conundrums which are problems/questions that can have a answer that is both correct and incorrect at the same time.
Xeno's Paradox is based on a mistake in thinking. That mistake is attempting to smuggle the concept of infinity into a definitely finite realm. In any case, you CAN'T keep diving the remaining distance "infinitely." You can do it a mind-numbingly large number of *finite* times, but you can NEVER do it an *infinite* amount of times, since you can always do it once more, which renders the whole exercise rather pointless. So, you're only ever going to diving the remaining distance a *finite* number of times, for a *finite* distance, where the runner/ arrow/ etc, travels a fixed, *finite* distance with each step/ over each arbitrary time period. Since all our variables here are *finite* we can represent them with numbers. However, infinity is NOT a number, it's a concept (it's another mistake in thinking to assume that infinity is a number, or that we can achieve infinity in any way) and so it fails to interact meaningfully with any of the variables. It's like trying to multiple the number 3 by the concept of justice; it produces no meaningful results.
How about you just DON'T go back in time? I consider it proof enough that time travel is impossible,that no one has come back from the future to win every lottery and buy the planet... because you KNOW that's the first thing the inventor is going to do!
As a mathematical physicist of 8 years, I find none of these that mind blowing. Paradoxes arise from a simple lack in understanding of something somewhere along the line.
With regard to the Lair's Paradox, it seems the true value of a statement isn't always to be found in it but might rely on the web of statements in which it's found/embedded. Wittgensteinian-like.
Well yes, when intentionally manipulating something like a language or equation to break logic then the only thing that statement is making is that language is not perfect method of defining logical statements. Still useful to know.
@@kyleellis1825No, it was just taken out of context. The previous page ended with "So by the aforementioned reasoning I can only come to one conclusion:" and the next page read: "This statement is false." Feels bad, when people assume you're a great philosopher yet all you did was forget to throw the last page of a script into the bin as well.
5:58 damn, u didn't mention Loki season 2,which is pretty much this....who wrote the tva book? Oroboros wrote it from the teachings of He Who Remains, but He Who Remains got his teachings from reading the TVA book by Oroboros coz someone went back in time and gave him that book when he was a child
Comic book logic actually seems very logical to me. The universe itself isn’t thinking of ways to prevent the paradox but say if you went back in time to kill your grandfather, then you wouldn’t exist to go back in those to kill your grandfather. So the only universe to exist would be one in which your grandfather never had you as a grandson. Or you died before the act could be committed. Or you just never decide to commit the act. Or any other thing that prevented you from doing it. So any action you took to change the past would be futile because it is self correcting. I think that’s what the Avengers Endgame writers had in mind when they said they had to return the stones to the moment they were taken from. Although they did change the past when they let Loki escape, that changed the past. So I think if we ever invented time travel we would have unlimited historical knowledge but no way to change it.
Regarding which came first, "The Chicken or the Egg" paradox/problem of causality, there is a possible resolution. I think this problem/paradox can be solved by substituting the Chicken with a Horse and Donkey, and the Egg with a Mule. By doing this, the direction of causality can be established, and should hold true for other characters or similar scenarios. This is because a Mule is the offspring of a Horse and Donkey, and not the other way around. As far as I can tell, Paradoxes typically have a hidden fallacy masquerading as a truth, thus setting up an unresolvable quandary.
It's also the egg in the sense that eggs existed millions of years before birds, and the egg that hatched the first chicken was not laid by a chicken (they're a hybrid species of two Indian Junglefowl) very much in the same way that neither parent of the mule was a mule.
The prisoner being "suprised paradox".... This is based on assuming the prisoner is intelligent enough to come to that conclusion.... Their intelligence could be limited to just calculate "its not today, so it cant be tomorrow" and live day by day with that thought until the day they died a natural death.... So the answer to the "Surprise Paradox", is with a prisoners intelligence level rather than assuming all prisoners are the same... The less intelligent in this paradox lives forever, the intelligent and overconfident prisoner dies an early death ... Also, based on the fact they are facing the death penalty, id say they couldnt be that intelligent in the first place ... Theirs the answer to that particular paradox imo lol 👍
I believe the grandfather paradox is truly not a paradox but misunderstood. If I were to go back in time to kill my grandfather I will always be foiled because I exist. No matter how many times I try he will survive because I exist in the future and energy can not be erased once it exists. So my grandfather will always survive my attempts and/or I will be stopped from trying every single time.
@@vali3033 I don’t believe time travel will ever exist. Just because the equations say it’s possible doesn’t mean in practice it can be achieved. Even if you could send atoms into the future for a few seconds or into the past it won’t translate to humans being able to.
A favourite of mine: You assert that time travel is real, you boast/brag whatever. Then pick your stooge. Say to them that you can prove Time travel exists and when you do, they have to buy you a drink. Once agreed tell the truth "If time travel doesnt exist, how do we get older?" Then enjoy your drink. The point is, when we talk about Time Travel, people assume going back in time to see/do something or jumping forward in time in order to gwin something, such as see the first manned mission to mars land or see if mankind does move to another planet or whatever. We dont talk about what time it is.
It's not that time travel isn't possible, and indeed we _all_ time travel whenever we change our motion (eg "the faster you move through space the slower you move through time"). Indeed, travelling into the future doesn't create _any_ issues whatsoever (Einsteins "twins paradox" is _not_ a paradox!), it's only travelling into the past that is problematic.
Time doesn't exist, so time travel is meaningless. We have a flawed perception of reality that makes us believe time exists, when in fact there is no such thing as time. Einstein's theory of relativity suggests the universe is a static, four-dimensional block that contains all of space and time simultaneously - with no special “now”. The future to one observer is the past to another. That means time doesn't flow from past to future, as we experience it. Time is an illusion.
The real problem with the grandfather paradox is assuming it has any basis in reality to begin with. This particular discussion is nothing more than "thought logic", and there has never been any basis in history that is known of this actually ever existing. Therefore, there is no grandfather paradox to begin with.
Regarding the running paradox: at some point, each of the two parts of the divided space will be less than the length of the runner's foot, which automatically means that he has completed the task and moves on to the next one, thus the entire distance is covered.
Motion IS impossible. Motion is a concept of going from point a to point b through time But time can not be divided any further than the plank length.....since there is no half plank length, movement through time can not occur from one plank to the next, it is a jump from one plank to the next....hence, no motion is actually taking place
Regarding the Dichotomy Argument, that reminds me of something I read that relates. A mathematician and (I believe it was) an engineer are put in a room with a beautiful woman and told that they can have their way with her. But they can only approach her every 5 minutes by halving the distance to her. The mathematician storms out saying it's impossible because he'd never reach her. The engineer stays saying eventually he'd be close enough for all practical purposes.
In your example, the distance is halved every time but the duration is always the same (5 minutes), that means the speed is halved too every time so it tends to 0. The mathematician will never be able to reach the woman (in theory at least, because in physics the Planck length seems to be the smallest bit of space possible). In the Dichotomy Argument, both the distance and the duration are halved so the speed remains the same, which means it will take a finite amount of time to run a finite total distance.
Einstein wrote it. You can't find published in your (his future) time otherwise. I must have been written before you found it, therefore Einstein wrote it..
I am the only one who thinks his speech cadence and deep, exasperated inhales make it hard to follow? Genuine question, i often find the topics interesting but have the worst time understanding.
Liars paradox isn't one because the statement is a modifier not a subjects itself so without a subject its redundant, bootstrap paradox has 2 solutions, either time travel isn't possible and it's a non issue or every time you give the details to Einstein you create a new parallel dimension so Einstine from the source world did create it and that doesn't change and you are just creating variant worlds every time you do this.
An episode of Doctor Who posited the Bootstrap Paradox where the world suddenly doesn't know about Beethoven. The Time Traveler travels back in time with all of Beethoven's works and teaches him (Beethoven) how to play his own music. Beethoven passes the work off as his own and makes no mention of the Time Traveller.
Not quite. In the explanation the time travellers wants the music sheets to be signed by Beethoven. But there is no Beethoven at all. So the time traveler publishes Beethoven's music himself and basically becomes Beethoven.
Life lesson. If a man says he is lying, you can’t trust him. Same rules as in Scream 4. To quote Sidney, “if you can’t trust him don’t open the door.” If Scream isn’t your franchise then maybe Dune when the Baron killed the Doctor. You can’t trust traitor. Crumbled paper can’t be perfect again so if a man says he’s lying. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not because trust is gone.
About the surprise paradox: the solution is that the judge and the prisoner have different definitions of the term "surprise". It's just a linguistic fallacy.
Me throughout this whole video... how do people even come up with this stuff? Then thinking, they have way too much time on their hands, and do they literally get paid to come up with these things?
- "I did not know what I should gift you for your birthday. So, I travelled to the future and had a look." - "Oh cool, a pair of socks... and a paradox!"
"This statement is false." It is indeed true to say that the statement is false. So the statement is truthful about its falseness. This is not complicated.
What timing - I was writing a friend today about a restaurant they recommended named Burger Paradox. Because I'm such a nerd, I wrote "...What's the paradox of the burger? Do you bite into said burger and taste a taco, or something? Does the sheer deliciousness defy logic and reason? Do you show up to eat, then finish AS you arrive?"
Tripped out. Regarding the Xeno paradox, I believe the answer is simple: there aren't infinite subdivisions of space to traverse, there's only a finite number of Planck length segments. The paradox statement itself contains a factual error.
@@simesaidIndeed, however, my understanding is that the pixelated nature of spacetime is fairly certain at this point, but of course not an absolute certainty as you point out.
@@simesaid Electrical charge, energy, light, angular momentum, and matter are all quantized. Given that distance is just a measurement of the space between 2 things, it kind of follows that distance is also quantized. It would make no sense to talk about the distance between 2 photons that are next to each other as that doesn't exist. You can't be 1/2 a photon away.
Thought you might have mentioned the Ship of Theseus paradox, if a ship has every part of it replaced, is it still the same ship... It's also known as Triggers Broom Paradox, where Trigger from Only Fools and Horses said his broom had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, thus leaving the question...is it still the same broom
The real paradox is why the British use Maths and Amercia uses Math and why Canada which usually takes the Britsh way of things uses Math not maths. But we use colour not color and others.
It’s not a paradox. It’s just the result of linguistic & grammatical evolution based upon various societal factors/demographics, etc. “Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato” as they say.
UNEXPECTED HANGING PARADOX SOLUTION: This is an example of what we call a flim-flam or double speak problem where you allowed the speaker to redefine a problem’s original parameters within such narrow margin that all FALSE STATEMENTS in a solution set are removed and only the TRUE STATEMENTS remain thus proving the speaker right and thus creating the paradox. In the UNEXPECTED HANGING PARADOX, the judge’s statements need be accepted at face value and as facts since they create a problem’s parameters and thus solution set. Let’s look at what the judge actually said: A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Let’s use probability to outline the scenario. There are five (5) days possible to be hung so 100%/5 = 20% probability (or 1 in 5 (lowest common denominator)) of being hung on any given day during the week. Given that our probability is 1 in 5; we can then assume that there are five (5) possible paths that could occur: This can be represented as Possible Paths: PATH #1: Hanged Monday PATH #2: Hanged Tuesday PATH #3: Hanged Wednesday PATH #4: Hanged Thursday PATH #5: Hanged Friday Now in a table “Probability of Being Hung on any Given Weekday”: PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 X DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD 2 NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD DEAD 3 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD 4 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD 5 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X X=HUNG Table 1. Probability of being hung on any given weekday BUT IT MUST BE A SURPRISE so Friday would not work as at noon on Thursday (after the time of the knock); you would know if you were to be hung or saved depending on the knock. PATH #1: Hanged Monday PATH #2: Hanged Tuesday PATH #3: Hanged Wednesday PATH #4: Hanged Thursday PATH #5: NOT HANGED ON FRIDAY DUE TO IT BEING KNOWN (due to limiting factor of surprise). PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 X DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD 2 NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD DEAD 3 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD 4 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD 5 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG SAFE So based on my above table: there is 100% probability that the prisoner will be hanged between Monday and Thursday and 0% chance that he will be hanged on Friday. So, mathematically there is only 1 path in 5 that will result in the prisoner not being hanged (due to it not being a surprise) BUT 4 paths will lead directly to a dirt nap. Remember that this is random so he could be hanged on any day (BUT PATH #5). Now review the exact deduction from the prisoner listing the different assumptions (Bullets #1-3): “Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. 1. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. 2. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday noon, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. 3. By similar reasoning, he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all.” Observe how in this Paradox, the prisoner immediately redefines the problems parameters of “any day of the week,” to “as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday.” STOP THERE - By his own words, this statement is only valid for Path #5 because it is the only path in which he is alive after Thursday. On paths #1-4 he is already hung. Now what the prisoner does is fool everyone with his quick change of detail directions by listing all the arguments to prove that Path #5 is true in reverse. Now his comments are 100 % correct because he is not proving that the other possible paths (PATH #1-4) are safe but only justifying why the previous days in this timeline are safe (WHICH WE ALREADY KNEW OR YOU WON’T BE THERE ON FRIDAY!!!!) PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 5 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #1 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #2 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #3 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #4 SAVED BY FRIDAY He selects an argument which is true (and to his benefit) but only for a specific PATH and does not include any PATHS which proves his argument wrong (hell, this would make publishing scientific papers a wrong lot easier). Now he can string this collection of true statements together only because he is coming from the opposite side of the timeline (future) thus walking his argument backwards for that path only. Another way to say it; this argument is only true” describing why PATH #5 is safe and not PATH #1-#4 (spoiler alert - he still dies). So what am I missing? I mean, this is your guy if you want to sell ice to Inuit but it still comes down to probabity.
But the Zeno's paradox is easy to dispel if you consider time to be a factor. If you assume a constant speed for the completion of the distance then the time for a part of this is going to equal the overall time divided by the length of the sub distance. Thus 1/2 the distance = 1/2 the time, 1/4 distance = 1/4 time etc. So although technically you can subdivide the distance into infinity then the time would subdivide the same amount until an infinite subdivision would equal 0 time.
11:00 f Zeno's locomotion paradox is a bad example for unsolvable paradoxes: He actually argues that a sum of ▪︎infinitely many and ▪︎each finite timespans could not be finite. By this time he already has split _a finite distance_ into ▪︎infinitely many ▪︎each finite distances, thus _proving himself_ that a sum of infinitely many each finite quantities _can_ be finite.
Zeno’s paradox is the most amusing of these. It is based on the false assumption that adding up an infinite number of quantities must give a total of infinity. This is false. 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+… =1. Let X be the infinite sum. 1/2 times X is 1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+… . If we add 1/2 to this, we get X back. So, we have X=(1/2)X+1/2. Subtracting (1/2)X from both sides, we get (1/2)X=1/2. Cancelling 1/2, we get X=1. Sorry, Zeno.
3mo video but... 2+2=5 is bad math, not a paradox. "This statement is false" is bad English, not a paradox. Other paradoxes that don't really exist are bad math, like you can't succeed at being a failure. Both of these can be rated as a percentage, so technically, you can be a failure 99% of the time, and the success of being a failure would still fall into that 1% success rate. I'm starting to think that paradoxes don't really exist but instead reflect our own ignorance. Like bad math (or math tricks/shortcut), but in word form.
Before I ever heard the expression "Bootstrap Paradox" I read a story by Robert Heinlein called By His Bootstraps, about a time traveller who goes back in time to thwart a dictatorial ruler and eventually realizes that the dictator was (will had have of be?) in fact the traveller's future self. He became the dictator in order to try to prevent the dictator existing, if you catch my drift. I assume the expression "Bootstrap Paradox" is an allusion to that story since the story is over 80 years old and I'm guessing the expression is more recent? (Also see Doctor Who... "Who wrote Beethoven's Fifth?") The Grandfather Paradox IS consistent and preserves its own limited causality if you assume a *double* loop - a figure-of-eight shaped timeline: I go back in time and kill baby Hitler, WW2 never happens, I don't go back because there's no Hitler for me to kill, baby Hitler survives, WW2 happens, I go back to kill Hitler... in the double loop Hitler alternates between existing and not existing. (Actually, what really happened was young Hitler was killed in a car accident and then rescued by a time traveller who didn't know who he was saving. True story 😉) One of the best illustration of Goedel curves for the layman that I've seen was in Brian Cox's R.I. christmas lecture in 2013... he didn't reference Goedel directly but it was all about using gravity to tilt light cones. Zeno isn't paradox, it's just semantic misdirection.
“Includes paid promotion” thumbs down to UA-cam. What a joke! 2:30 BURNED IN AD. I’m just blocking this channel now. I swear UA-cam is pile of money grabbing creator garbage.
For more on the liar paradox, Russell's paradox, Zeno's paradox, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem I recommend reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter.
The Einstein paradox is one of the obviously less intelligent ones. I totally understand the idea of time travel, but REGARDLESS OF TIME TRAVEL there has to be something called an ORIGIN POINT. The EXACT POINT IN TIME that this idea/notion/theory came into being. Time travel plays no part in the VERY FIRST TIME this thought is encountered, it can only replay the events, or it's structure in a way that suits their theory. You cannot say, I travel back in time to implant said idea in (for example) 1830 when the first time it was discovered is 1930. People that spout these theories are very intelligent, but lack one thing...the knowledge that the universe doesn't give a shit what they think, it keeps going as it always has....and always will...
The only paradox that concerns me is reverse time travel. It is "theoretically" possible according to Einstein but my take is the ONLY theory that makes sense and solves all paradox is infinite eternal multiverse. Prove me wrong... Go... 3.2...1.. GO!...
I'd like a movie about some shadowy society insisting you have to go back in time and kill a specific baby in the 1930's for seemingly no reason. End of the movie is a montage of that baby rising to power and causing a nuclear exchange during the cold war. So, the time traveller spares the baby. The montage starts all saccharine with the baby growing up, going to school, hanging out with friends, graduating. It gets iffy with an election or two being depicted, then ominous music and video of bombers and nuclear tests being introduced, heated arguments over dramatic music, and finally someone turning a key and pushing a button, followed by nukes going off everywhere.
Me again: Anyone remember that sci fi movie (1980's) where people from the future would time travel to back and replace airline crash victims with exact copies and take them into the future? If someone messed up and created a paradox, the future would experience what they called a "time quake."
The Grandfather Paradox is no paradox at all. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather you create a NEW timeline (you won't disappear out of existence). It won't affect your ORIGINAL reality. That universe still exists - just you can't get home by traveling forwards in time (unless you went back to 5 mins before you killed him and persuaded yourself not to ... or even if you killed the younger you - again, CURRENT you will not pop out of existence).
In realms of thought, where paradoxes dwell, Mysteries untold, where minds do swell, Questions posed with no resolve in sight, In the depths of darkness, where truth takes flight. The liar's paradox, a twisted tale, "I always lie," the words assail, If true, it's false, if false, it's true, A loop of logic, where reason's askew. The grandfather's paradox, a time-bound scheme, If I kill my ancestor, what does it mean? For if he's dead, I could not be, A puzzle of time's intricate decree. The ship of Theseus, a vessel worn, Each plank replaced, each sail reborn, At what point does it cease to be, The ship we knew upon the sea? The Fermi paradox, a cosmic quest, In a universe vast, why do we jest, With silence reigning, among the stars, Are we alone, in our cosmic bars? These paradoxes, they tease and taunt, Infinite loops where logic's gaunt, For in their depths, we find our awe, In mysteries that none can draw. So let us ponder, let us delve, Into the paradoxes that none can shelve, For in their riddles, we find our grace, In the mysteries of time and space.
Get 30% off your first box, plus a FREE gift, when you give Tiege Hanley a try at tiege.com/sideprojects
Whats with the weird skip to a sponsor in mid sentence at 2:26
A GIFT is something you get for FREE, so a FREE GIFT is an....
Free item you get for free.
?
If I tell you my previous statement was a lie and I'm telling the truth about it then I'm telling the truth in this statement and was lying in the previous also the "who wrote Beethoven" bit in doctor who, he could of wrote it in the first place but took it too him too early and then it seems as if it wrote itself the paradox. I wonder if everything started because of a paradox the opposite of nothing is everything infinitely no start point .. no end
The Grandfather Paradox is pretty easy to solve, actually. It's just that the answer is too boring for Hollywood. The reason the killer exists is because their birth was not prevented. So either the person they killed was not actually their grandfather, or their grandfather was not killed. What makes up the present already takes the past into account, so whatever happened in the past is always what had happened and there is no "changing" the present by altering the past.
no matter the day, I have a dose of Simon and his deep dive into al these amazing topics. I'm sure my family is tired of my shite. stay safe and awesome evryone, Simon, Writers, viewers!
If you got a minute, checkout my links in my bio! xoxo
My favorite paradox is how my company has record profits yet doesnt have the budget to give me a raise
The solution is simple, you are not a manager
hmm i wonder why
Yours too?
Giving you a raise would eat into the profits but not giving you a raise dis-incentivizes you from being productive enough to boost the company profits...
Not a paradox, the cost of running the company also goes up every year
My favorite is the Astley Paradox:
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.
However, in doing so he lets you down. Thus creating the Astley Paradox.
😂😂😂
Naw, he just gives you ones of his extra copies.
🕺🗞
@@kyleellis1825but then he’s giving you up, which he will never do
Up is fiction and therefore a lie. He said he would never tell a lie so he actually he did not let you down. Paradox solved.
If you think about it, the prisoner will always be executed on the last day, his last day.
Donnie Darko
If the prisoner is told that One day this week you will be executed but not on the day that would be a surprise he would be expecting to be executed any day. The surprise would be if the execution did not happen. Therefore prisoner can not be executed becous it would be expected.
@@1tho3 Except in countries like Japan, you don't get to know what day you'll be executed until the executioner knocks on your door; yet there isn't a prison full of people who can't be executed . . .
and yet...there isn't a definition to 'ecuted'...so how do you ex-ecute somebody ;P
He will never be executed if he requests an all you can eat buffet and just keeps eating forever 😄
On my waterfront property, 2 boat landing piers washed ashore. We never found the owners. I now have an unsolved pair a docks
That's terrible😂
Haha, I see what you did there
Thanks dad.
That's dumb... I liked it
Awful.
So much of this relies on actually having a Time Machine. The last time I popped down to ‘Dimensional Instabilities r Us’, they were clean out of time machines. The sales assistant suggested that as the future hadn’t happened yet, there were none to be had at any price. He did suggest that when the right bit of future had happened, time machines would then be available now and indeed at any time in the past present or future.
Talk to Mr. Adams. He's the manager at Dimensional Instabilities 'R' Us. He's the best. Doug has helped me with all kinds of paradoxical issues over the years. And if your into probability drives,, He also makes a mean cup of tea .. extra hot😉
Back order it, and it will be instantly available. :)
@@RobertRedland I find that improbable, therefore I'll allow it.
Surely the lack of evidence that a time traveler hasn't announced themselves to the world must mean time travel is never invented? Well, being able to go back in time at least.
@@casinodelongething is, lots of people have claimed to be time travelers. Just because nobody believes them doesn’t mean they didn’t do as you say
Prisoner's paradox as told by Simon is actually funny double paradox. Even if the executioner came on Friday, the judge would still be right. After Thursday night, you would be sure you've won, so Friday knock would be a terrible surprise for you :D
Fry did the nasty in the past-y.
Verily🤣
“Did ya ever get the feeling you're only going with girls 'cause you're supposed to?”
Verily, and that past nastification is what shields him from the Brain Spawn
Are you talking about Stephen Fry?!
_How do you like_ *_THESE_* _cookies_ .. _Sugar?_
production feedback: Audio dynamic compression is a great move, but the compression seems to have too fast a release time (inhaled breath comes in loud), and the de-esser needs to aim for a higher frequency.
Thank goodness someone else noticed. I stopped watching after a minute because of this. So irritating listening to that breathing!
@@paulbessell6154 Yeah, I started focusing on the breathing vs the content. Weird.
Those inhalations are strong and sharp. Is he fighting off and talking through an asthma attack?
No it's too take in as much air in a short time to keep his pace. Microphones are a bitch for picking up moving air
@@christopherhammond9467 did you just explain breathing to me? 🤣
Yeah, it's actually quite distracting. I wonder if he is coming off some sort of health thing, which also explains why Karl Smallwood took over Biographics.
@@6thwilbury2331 that’s a thought. I was thinking it was something he developed or fell into over time and a new mic was picking it up.
@@6thwilbury2331 That has absolutely NOTHING to do with why Simon Whistler left Biographics, Geographics, and TopTenz. It was all about personal or business disagreements with the producers (the Harris family) of those 3 channels. If health had anything to do with it, then why did he never stop making videos for almost all of his other many channels?
The Bootstrap Paradox reminds me of something I heard about the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race. The BBC always covered it on the radio, so there'd be a commentator telling the listeners which team was ahead at every stage. However, at one point, the Thames curved in such a way that the commentator couldn't see the boats. However, he knew an ingenious way of telling who was winning at that point: he's heard that a man whose garden was near the river had a flagpole, and he'd hoist the team colour of whichever boat was ahead at that point: dark blue for Oxford and light blue for Cambridge. The commentator could just make out the flagpole with binoculars, so he'd confidently announce who was ahead, never letting on to his audience how he knew.
This went on for many years, and finally, one year he decided to visit the man and see this famous flagpole close up. But when he got to it, it noticed something: it was impossible to see the Thames from that location. He pointed this out, and asked the man how he could tell which boat was ahead. "Oh, that's easy", he said, "I have a portable radio beside me, and I listen to the commentary on the BBC".
How would the man raise a flag when he heard it on the radio, and the radio announce it based on the flag? If both are waiting for the other, neither would act.
@@IAmUnderscore Because the flag was only for a single point in the race around a bend. There was someone in the lead prior to the bend so basically whoever was in the lead before going out of sight stayed in the lead (on radio at least) until they turned the bend back into sight.
@@snorgardark1908 No, @IAmUnderscore is correct. The announcer was NOT going by who was in the lead going into the turn. He relied solely on the visual image of the flag itself through the binoculars to determine the leader. So when the competitors approached the turn the announcer would've switched to the binos to see just a flagpole, waiting on the leading flag to be raised, while the guy at home waits on the radio announcer to tell him which to raise. It would fail immediately the first time.
This only works if neither team ever passes the other during the bend. It's not a paradox. The person raising the flag would be going off of the call the commentator last made; the positions before the bend. Otherwise, it leads to what was mentioned above. Neither acting.
He only raised the flag to tell who was in the lead and the announcer only said who was in the lead. It was not about the final outcome.
I present to you the modern paradox.
You need experience to get the job.
You need the job to get experience.
Tada!
Clearly that is not a paradox, because then all young people would be unemployed.
@@probusexcogitatoris736 As someone with a BS in CS and has been looking for a job for over a year with not a single interview despite being top of his class because of exactly what Doom stated I can confidently say you are wrong. "Entry level position looking for a recent graduate who hasn't been employed prior. Must have: 8+ years of experience in x,y,z." This is exactly what I see, EVERY FUCKING DAY on most of the job listings for "Entry level". It doesn't matter what position, or business, they almost all have this type of bs.
@@probusexcogitatoris736it’s commentary, simmer down republican.
@@xero6912then you manufacture experience. All college activities are experience. All lab or personal project time is experience. You can do it.
What about the worlds oldest profession, supposedly prostitution. Peter Hathaway Capstick pointed out there had to be an older profession in order for the prostitute to be paid. So the worlds oldest profession was probably a hunter. Dunno if thats a paradox or just deep thinking.
Stephen King's "November 22, 1963" is quite possibly one of the best books ever written about reverse causation. It's something I've thought about a lot and always agreed with, and Simon mentions it too in this video.
Maybe that's why there is a shooter on the knoll...because of some future time traveler attempted to stop the one shooter, that's why time had to create the 2nd. And when they attempted to stop that guy is why one of the newest theories is that the weird angle is cuz in the panic of the situation one of the secret service guys tripped and accidentally discharged the fatal bullet. 🤔 it's repairing the attempts to stop it.
just a quick game of wild suppositions...sorry. lol.
I agree. It's something I've thought about a lot. Stephen King did a great job with the concept while writing an awesome book.
0:45 - Chapter 1 - Liar paradox
2:25 - Mid roll ads
3:45 - Back to the video
4:40 - Chapter 2 - Bootstrap paradox
7:45 - Chapter 3 - Grandfather paradox
11:00 - Chapter 4 - Zeno's paradoxes
13:40 - Chapter 5 - Unexpected hanging paradox
Bloody legend. Allegedly.
I just love Diogenes. That dude was an OG "No you're wrong and I'll explain why"- kinda dude.
Zeno claiming that motion doesn't exist and Diogenes disproving it just by walking in circles or when Plato claimed that Human is just a featherless bi-pedal, so Diogenes plucked feathers off from a chicken and just blasted it on the floor claiming how this is Plato's man in front of his students lmao
Dude was the OG troll. Hilarious as hell 🤣
In other words, proving paradoxes are just social constructs.
That reality doesn't care about the sounds we make.
I love that when Alexander the great first met him napping naked next to stoop. He stood over him and explained that he was Alexander the great and sought him out because of his notoriety and wanted to meet him and help him in any way he could.
Diogenes replied with, "Could you stand over there? You're blocking my sunlight."
STRAIGHT GANGSTER AND HARD AF
He didn’t know calculus back then but he used it well. Zeno is something of an idiot.
Zeno was hitting at something very deep but he just couldn't understand it. The mathematics wasn't there and wouldn't be there for 1500 years. That he formulated the concept of an infinite number of things adding up a finite number is a massive intellectual leap. But the idea of the infinite was beyond him so he concluded the premise of the question was invalid and therefore motion is impossible because that's all that made sense to him.
Years ago, at a science fiction convention, I purchased a button that reads, "The statement on this button is false". It is my favorite. It's even more fun when people tell me, "I don't get it". Then I have to explain to people what a paradox is. 🦆🦆
How does anyone above the age of 10 not know what a paradox is. Thats amazing.
Then you "got" to explain?
@@michaelhowell2326The pleasure of explaining things wears off quickly, then got becomes have to. There's a stage after that called figure it out yourself that op clearly hasn't reached yet. It's not that hard to Google shit.
@@levilandes1719 one doesn't wear something like a big pin unless they want it as conversation piece. If it got to the "have to" point, just take it off. And Google is no replacement for human interaction. People are losing that ability.
@@michaelhowell2326 It's a shirt, I have a bunch of t shirts with graphics that I barely pay attention to. A shirt is old to me, not to others, and their curiosity is still their problem and still not mine. Not everyone enjoys human interaction, some people are able to meet that need with minimal contact through impersonal means, such as the comment section of a UA-cam video. And other people's needs are again, their problem, not mine. I'll feed you if you're hungry, but if you want company keep marching.
Thank you for pointing out the watch paradox in "Somewhere In Time". I remember having a rather ...ahh ... heated discussion with my then wife about the impossibility of the watch. She thought I was being too picky and should just "enjoyed the film". This may have been part of the reason we are no longer together.
The watch surely follows the Bounty paradox. If you had a ship called the Bounty and over the years had to swap out sails, planks, steering wheel and so on, would that still be the ship? How would it be if you took the swapped out parts and built a ship with them. Which ship is the original Bounty?
But if your ex-wife differs that much, it would show on other ends, too. Not every marriage is built to last.
If we consider what he said in the video about time refusing to allow a paradox to exist, then it's likely that somewhere along the way the original watch gets swapped out for one like it, so the same watch isn't going through time over and over. Like she gives him the watch, a pickpocket mugs him and swaps the watch with a cheap knock-off without him realizing, he goes back in time and gives it to her, she carries it all those years, gives it to him, he's mugged and it's swapped for a cheap knock-off, etc, so it's always a "new" watch going through time. Time just sprayed some paradox-be-gone on the watch. :)
I think you're thinking of the Ship of Thesues @@migga86
Simon's new channel: The Whistler Zone
My favorite thing about this channel is how everyone acts like they're smart in the comments. And then leaves their Google account settings to public so you can see their history. And see the truth. 😅
My favorite paradox is how "working from home has been a great success" and yet "it's time to return to the daily commute"
That's not a paradox. That's management congratulating themselves on THEIR success managing the disposable fool- errr... employees... while they worked at home, but now, management wants to manage the VALUED EMPLOYEES (remembered to use the polite word that time) at work, because it's more convenient for management.
Quit and start your own business. Come and go as you please. Until then get back to work scrub.
Not at all a paradox. Did you write this three seconds into the video/after hearing of paradoxes? This is a contradiction.
@@PremIndi You should learn the language better.
@@devikwolf I think you mean 'deepen my understanding of the language'. 'Learn the language better' would be in reference to the quality of my learning as I actively learn the language. I'm not learning the language, I mastered it sometime after I read my first novel at 4 y.o. Keep going cobber, you'll get there.
Here's a paradox. I pay to not watch ads on UA-cam. Yet I have to always watch ads on UA-cam.
Time travel is obviously not possible, or someone would have stopped the Kardashians from being born....
Or they did go back in time but couldn't stop them being born because they didn't stop them being born
WOWO HAHAHHHAHA YOU ARE SO FUNNY !!! HAHAHAHSHS WOW
If there will ever be time machines there have always been time machines.
All these paradoxes can be solved by understanding just two simple premises:
1. Lies exist
2. Time travel doesn’t
This is probably the most logical comment here... and thus, is ignored.
⚠️Warning the following text is a joke⚠️
But it could. What if someone went back in time and prevented time travel from ever existing?
@@gunner_melon445 - OMG! You just stopped me from killing my grandfather.
@@markgearing 😂
So the time travel stuff, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff?
Too much Dr Who for you young lady.
Alons-y! Doctor Who is actually where I first learned about the bootstrap paradox
@@43bigstevePeter Capaldi and Mozart?
That sentence got away from you.
@@Chris-hx3om yep, that’s the one!
The surprise paradox ceases to be a paradox because, if you accept the premise of the prisoner's logic, Not being hanged becomes a possibility. This means that even being hung on the Friday becomes a surprise.
Eating an entire pizza is one task, no matter how many slices you cut it into. Running a journey with an end point is one task no matter how many times you want to divide it up.
Would not that runner's foot and or stride would be the limiting factor in the number of divisions one could make along his path?
The sum of an infinite sequence can be a finite number. Once we proved this mathematically it showed the logical fallacy in Zeno's idea. Zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite sequence must be infinity. See numberphile for surprisingly easy to understand examples.
@@philwood5288 the easist example is a joke.
an infinite number of mathematicians go into a bar.
the 1st order 1 pint, the second orders 1/2 of a pint, the 3rd orders 1/4 of a pint, the 4th orders 1/8 of a pint
the barman pours 2 pints and tells them they should know their limit
This is the best explanation that I have seen for visualizing the apparentparadox, though the fundamental error of Zeno's analysis is disregarding that each step becomes shorter in time as it becomes shorter in distance. That is the analysis that gives rise to the mathematical concept of limits.
The steps or yards the runner walks may be divided down, but at some point, the size of the division becomes so small, that he just steps over it.
This is also why animation in computers has traditionally had a 1% breaker. The amount of computing power needed to animate beyond that point far exceeds the visible capabilities, so the end of any animation is always a jump we don't see as one.
Years ago the tax service I used for my business would send me a huge packet of paperwork. Quad duplicate everything. For a one man business. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. So is the page actually blank?
The speeding up and cutting is making your breathing in so prominent
Yes. It gets very distracting.
I though it was just me- it is unusually loud in this one
Is that what's causing it?
I was doing P.A. announcing just a few days ago. I had run across the field to get a pronunciation on a name, then ran back to the box about 20 seconds before I had to start talking. Almost certainly sounded just like Simon does in this video.
I came to the comments to make sure it wasn't just me! Thank you for the validation.
Ok, glad I'm not the only one that noticed it.
I love the stories about how sassy Diogenes was, even if some likely never actually happened.
Knowing Diogenes, it most certainly did happen😂
What if you’re like Fry and are your own grandfather?🤔
The answer to the dichotomy paradox always seemed so obvious to me. The idea that you have to take an infinite number of steps to cover a finite distance inherently presupposes that you have to "arrive" at each halfway point and stop there before continuing on meaning that, at some point, for some arbitrary reason you have to start taking smaller and smaller 'steps' so that you don't pass the next halfway point without stopping and counting a new step. There is no reason to do that other than to satisfy the artificial restriction imposed by the wording of the paradox.
Another version of this would be filling a cylindrical bucket from hose with a constant stream of water. If the bottom to the top of the bucket is thought of as equivalent to the distance run by the runner in the dichotomy paradox, the water could only satisfy the requirements of the paradox if you stoo the flow of water as you go along each time you hit the next halfway point, but then you are denying the initial condition that I mentioned that you are filling the bucket with a constant flow from a hose. The fact that we observe time flowing and have not actually figured out a way of stopping it indicates that this type of paradox simply doesn't describe the reality we live in so it is a mathematical/philosophical curiosity but not something that describes anything we see I'm the real world such as motion through space.
Dresden Files had a funny retort to the Grandfather paradox
Harry: So if I go back in time to kill my grandfather
Vadderung: he beats you senseless I suspect
Less commentary on the paradox and more Vadderung being one of the few who knows who Harry's granddad is, but still :D
(This statement is true (+) x is true (+)) = true (+)
(This statement is true (+) x is false (-))= false (-)
(This statement is false (-) x is true (+)) = false (-)
(This statement is false (-) x is false (-)) = true (+)
(This statement is t or f) is the first variable. The (is t or f) part is the second variable. No matter what the second variable is it doesn’t change the first variable. They both combine to give a new answer. The self reference part is meaningless. It is no different than saying this is the number 5.
The only reason this is a paradox is because for some reason we are allowing the original statement to change. Instead of combining the statement with the response. This is equivalent to saying a=a or b therefore a can also be b. Instead of a x b = c.
I just noticed this guy takes loud short sharp breaths inbetween every sentence and now i cant get passed it. My gift to you
There's more to it than that....
Oh yeah that’s really annoying, thanks I hate it & can’t finish the vid now
If someone exists then they will still exist even if they kill their parents before their own conception. It is just that now there will not be another one of them born. The entire thing is nonsensical though so why am I even writing a comment about it...
Man it's funny I was rambling to my Mom the other day about a version of one of Zeno's paradoxes (the arrow paradox) because it was used to explain asymptotes to me by my honestly amazing Algebra 2 teacher. I had that lesson over a decade ago but it still sticks with me! Took me some time but when my brain finally connected how asymptotes and limits worked together it made infinite limits much easier for me to wrap my head around. There must be some miss information out there because my Algebra 2 teacher said the arrow paradox was debunked by Diogenes firing an arrow and it ya know... hitting the target. Or maybe he was using some creative liberties!
When I was eight, I asked my babysitter why I couldn't pick myself up.
I knew I couldn't, I understood that experientially, I was just trying to work through the logical semantics....
who ever thought up these ideas was smoking some crack while thinking about this stuff
Yep, most of them involve time travel or just semantics, and are therefore not practical or even possible to test.
If they developed the paradox long before crack was invented, then they couldn't have been smoking crack in order to create said paradox. Though you might be able to find a chain of events between the birth of the paradox leading to the creation of crack. Then you could take that crack back in time to have them smoke it in order to develop the paradox that would then lead to the creation of crack and begin the cycle anew. Ironically, creating yet another paradox.
A long time ago when I took a few university classes in philosophy, an acquaintance told me 'philosophy is just mental masturbation'. These paradoxes reminded me of that and boy, was he right!
There's an episode of Doctor Who that goes over the boot strap paradox
"It's the Boot Strap paradox, google it"
Peter Capaldi doing a good job explaining it. 😁
If a problem or question has an answer that causes you to go in a infinite loop then it is not a paradox, it is a logic knot.
Paradoxes are impossibilities, imagine if someone gave you a math problem and you got the answer 2=7. You think to yourself, “I must of made a mistake” so you look over the problem and can’t find a mistake. So you redo the entire the problem but slower but you get 2=7. Confused you get a smart person, a proper mathematician and he goes through the same issue, 2=7 and there is no mistakes made and there is nothing wrong with the equation. That is a paradox 2=7.
But… Bootstrap Logic-knot doesn’t sound as cool as Bootstrap Paradox
There is also Conundrums which are problems/questions that can have a answer that is both correct and incorrect at the same time.
Xeno's Paradox is based on a mistake in thinking. That mistake is attempting to smuggle the concept of infinity into a definitely finite realm. In any case, you CAN'T keep diving the remaining distance "infinitely." You can do it a mind-numbingly large number of *finite* times, but you can NEVER do it an *infinite* amount of times, since you can always do it once more, which renders the whole exercise rather pointless.
So, you're only ever going to diving the remaining distance a *finite* number of times, for a *finite* distance, where the runner/ arrow/ etc, travels a fixed, *finite* distance with each step/ over each arbitrary time period. Since all our variables here are *finite* we can represent them with numbers. However, infinity is NOT a number, it's a concept (it's another mistake in thinking to assume that infinity is a number, or that we can achieve infinity in any way) and so it fails to interact meaningfully with any of the variables. It's like trying to multiple the number 3 by the concept of justice; it produces no meaningful results.
Two minutes in and my smooth brain hurts already
How about you just DON'T go back in time? I consider it proof enough that time travel is impossible,that no one has come back from the future to win every lottery and buy the planet... because you KNOW that's the first thing the inventor is going to do!
As a mathematical physicist of 8 years, I find none of these that mind blowing. Paradoxes arise from a simple lack in understanding of something somewhere along the line.
With regard to the Lair's Paradox, it seems the true value of a statement isn't always to be found in it but might rely on the web of statements in which it's found/embedded. Wittgensteinian-like.
Wow, when I was 8 years old I couldn't do simple math!!
Well yes, when intentionally manipulating something like a language or equation to break logic then the only thing that statement is making is that language is not perfect method of defining logical statements.
Still useful to know.
It was just someone with poor hand writing. It's really
"this State Men tis falsetto."@@phrontifugist
@@kyleellis1825No, it was just taken out of context. The previous page ended with "So by the aforementioned reasoning I can only come to one conclusion:" and the next page read: "This statement is false." Feels bad, when people assume you're a great philosopher yet all you did was forget to throw the last page of a script into the bin as well.
5:58 damn, u didn't mention Loki season 2,which is pretty much this....who wrote the tva book? Oroboros wrote it from the teachings of He Who Remains, but He Who Remains got his teachings from reading the TVA book by Oroboros coz someone went back in time and gave him that book when he was a child
Pinocchio says "my nose will now grow"
*the universe implodes*
It just wouldn’t grow. Pinocchio is not lying with this statement, he’s simply wrong. Being wrong isn’t lying.
Comic book logic actually seems very logical to me. The universe itself isn’t thinking of ways to prevent the paradox but say if you went back in time to kill your grandfather, then you wouldn’t exist to go back in those to kill your grandfather. So the only universe to exist would be one in which your grandfather never had you as a grandson. Or you died before the act could be committed. Or you just never decide to commit the act. Or any other thing that prevented you from doing it. So any action you took to change the past would be futile because it is self correcting. I think that’s what the Avengers Endgame writers had in mind when they said they had to return the stones to the moment they were taken from. Although they did change the past when they let Loki escape, that changed the past. So I think if we ever invented time travel we would have unlimited historical knowledge but no way to change it.
Regarding which came first, "The Chicken or the Egg" paradox/problem of causality, there is a possible resolution. I think this problem/paradox can be solved by substituting the Chicken with a Horse and Donkey, and the Egg with a Mule. By doing this, the direction of causality can be established, and should hold true for other characters or similar scenarios. This is because a Mule is the offspring of a Horse and Donkey, and not the other way around.
As far as I can tell, Paradoxes typically have a hidden fallacy masquerading as a truth, thus setting up an unresolvable quandary.
It's also the egg in the sense that eggs existed millions of years before birds, and the egg that hatched the first chicken was not laid by a chicken (they're a hybrid species of two Indian Junglefowl) very much in the same way that neither parent of the mule was a mule.
The egg was laid by an evolutionary pre-chicken and it mutated enough to be the final nugget leading to chickendom...
@@chezsnailez Looks like it lead to "chickendoom." 😉
…exactly. They are simply a series of words in a nonsensical order that the “big brains” attempt to “solve.” Too funny.
What laid the pre-evo chicken, what laid that, what laid that, back to the first cellular life form. Which came first, the microbe or the clone?
The prisoner being "suprised paradox".... This is based on assuming the prisoner is intelligent enough to come to that conclusion.... Their intelligence could be limited to just calculate "its not today, so it cant be tomorrow" and live day by day with that thought until the day they died a natural death.... So the answer to the "Surprise Paradox", is with a prisoners intelligence level rather than assuming all prisoners are the same... The less intelligent in this paradox lives forever, the intelligent and overconfident prisoner dies an early death ... Also, based on the fact they are facing the death penalty, id say they couldnt be that intelligent in the first place ...
Theirs the answer to that particular paradox imo lol 👍
I believe the grandfather paradox is truly not a paradox but misunderstood. If I were to go back in time to kill my grandfather I will always be foiled because I exist. No matter how many times I try he will survive because I exist in the future and energy can not be erased once it exists. So my grandfather will always survive my attempts and/or I will be stopped from trying every single time.
What if it’s not a paradox because it hinges on time travel being possible which to our limited knowledge is not.
@@vali3033 I don’t believe time travel will ever exist. Just because the equations say it’s possible doesn’t mean in practice it can be achieved. Even if you could send atoms into the future for a few seconds or into the past it won’t translate to humans being able to.
Disappointed in the absence of the Astley Paradox. He cannot give you his copy of "Up," thereby letting you down.
A favourite of mine: You assert that time travel is real, you boast/brag whatever. Then pick your stooge. Say to them that you can prove Time travel exists and when you do, they have to buy you a drink. Once agreed tell the truth "If time travel doesnt exist, how do we get older?"
Then enjoy your drink.
The point is, when we talk about Time Travel, people assume going back in time to see/do something or jumping forward in time in order to gwin something, such as see the first manned mission to mars land or see if mankind does move to another planet or whatever. We dont talk about what time it is.
Nice. 😆 We are all traveling through time at 1 second per second.
It's not that time travel isn't possible, and indeed we _all_ time travel whenever we change our motion (eg "the faster you move through space the slower you move through time"). Indeed, travelling into the future doesn't create _any_ issues whatsoever (Einsteins "twins paradox" is _not_ a paradox!), it's only travelling into the past that is problematic.
Time doesn't exist, so time travel is meaningless. We have a flawed perception of reality that makes us believe time exists, when in fact there is no such thing as time.
Einstein's theory of relativity suggests the universe is a static, four-dimensional block that contains all of space and time simultaneously - with no special “now”. The future to one observer is the past to another. That means time doesn't flow from past to future, as we experience it. Time is an illusion.
The real problem with the grandfather paradox is assuming it has any basis in reality to begin with. This particular discussion is nothing more than "thought logic", and there has never been any basis in history that is known of this actually ever existing. Therefore, there is no grandfather paradox to begin with.
Regarding the running paradox: at some point, each of the two parts of the divided space will be less than the length of the runner's foot, which automatically means that he has completed the task and moves on to the next one, thus the entire distance is covered.
Sigh. Try spreading your arms out wide and then bringing them in by halves as if going to clap your hands together... No overlap there.
@@simesaid you're assuming my hands have 0 width
Motion IS impossible. Motion is a concept of going from point a to point b through time
But time can not be divided any further than the plank length.....since there is no half plank length, movement through time can not occur from one plank to the next, it is a jump from one plank to the next....hence, no motion is actually taking place
Only pure secularists cannot solve these paradoxes.
Only a pure theist could say such a thing.
Let me guess: JESUS DID IT
No thanks, I have a mind
Regarding the Dichotomy Argument, that reminds me of something I read that relates. A mathematician and (I believe it was) an engineer are put in a room with a beautiful woman and told that they can have their way with her. But they can only approach her every 5 minutes by halving the distance to her. The mathematician storms out saying it's impossible because he'd never reach her. The engineer stays saying eventually he'd be close enough for all practical purposes.
In your example, the distance is halved every time but the duration is always the same (5 minutes), that means the speed is halved too every time so it tends to 0. The mathematician will never be able to reach the woman (in theory at least, because in physics the Planck length seems to be the smallest bit of space possible).
In the Dichotomy Argument, both the distance and the duration are halved so the speed remains the same, which means it will take a finite amount of time to run a finite total distance.
Einstein wrote it. You can't find published in your (his future) time otherwise. I must have been written before you found it, therefore Einstein wrote it..
My favorite paradox is the omnipotence paradox
I also like this paradox. It's a real mind bender.
I am the only one who thinks his speech cadence and deep, exasperated inhales make it hard to follow? Genuine question, i often find the topics interesting but have the worst time understanding.
Liars paradox isn't one because the statement is a modifier not a subjects itself so without a subject its redundant, bootstrap paradox has 2 solutions, either time travel isn't possible and it's a non issue or every time you give the details to Einstein you create a new parallel dimension so Einstine from the source world did create it and that doesn't change and you are just creating variant worlds every time you do this.
The surprise hanging paradox: He eliminated all 5 days and was hung anyway, that's the surprise.
Thats what he said in the vid. Surprised?
I'll ref. FUTURAMA myself: "The instant this random number generator reaches zero, you'll be executed."
An episode of Doctor Who posited the Bootstrap Paradox where the world suddenly doesn't know about Beethoven. The Time Traveler travels back in time with all of Beethoven's works and teaches him (Beethoven) how to play his own music. Beethoven passes the work off as his own and makes no mention of the Time Traveller.
Not quite. In the explanation the time travellers wants the music sheets to be signed by Beethoven. But there is no Beethoven at all. So the time traveler publishes Beethoven's music himself and basically becomes Beethoven.
Life lesson. If a man says he is lying, you can’t trust him. Same rules as in Scream 4. To quote Sidney, “if you can’t trust him don’t open the door.” If Scream isn’t your franchise then maybe Dune when the Baron killed the Doctor. You can’t trust traitor. Crumbled paper can’t be perfect again so if a man says he’s lying. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not because trust is gone.
Time travel is theoretically possible? If so, then it just goes to prove that not all theories are worth the weight of the paper they’re written on.
"this statement is false." It's true, the statement and the truth of it is two different things.
It's not a paradox.
About the surprise paradox: the solution is that the judge and the prisoner have different definitions of the term "surprise". It's just a linguistic fallacy.
nope. you should LISTEN to the explanation, again.
Zenon. He didn't traverse an infinite distance, but a finite one... (1 mile)
Rick and Morty is the best example of the Bootstrap Paradox Theory.
Me throughout this whole video... how do people even come up with this stuff? Then thinking, they have way too much time on their hands, and do they literally get paid to come up with these things?
Some are just the fever dreams of madmen.
- "I did not know what I should gift you for your birthday. So, I travelled to the future and had a look."
- "Oh cool, a pair of socks... and a paradox!"
"This statement is false." It is indeed true to say that the statement is false. So the statement is truthful about its falseness. This is not complicated.
What if the statement is true?
What timing - I was writing a friend today about a restaurant they recommended named Burger Paradox. Because I'm such a nerd, I wrote "...What's the paradox of the burger? Do you bite into said burger and taste a taco, or something? Does the sheer deliciousness defy logic and reason? Do you show up to eat, then finish AS you arrive?"
Tripped out. Regarding the Xeno paradox, I believe the answer is simple: there aren't infinite subdivisions of space to traverse, there's only a finite number of Planck length segments. The paradox statement itself contains a factual error.
The Planck length is a _hypothesised_ limit of knowable distance... It doesn't mean that space _isn't_ continuous.
@@simesaidIndeed, however, my understanding is that the pixelated nature of spacetime is fairly certain at this point, but of course not an absolute certainty as you point out.
@@simesaid Electrical charge, energy, light, angular momentum, and matter are all quantized. Given that distance is just a measurement of the space between 2 things, it kind of follows that distance is also quantized. It would make no sense to talk about the distance between 2 photons that are next to each other as that doesn't exist. You can't be 1/2 a photon away.
8:23 Isn't he just adorable?
Thought you might have mentioned the Ship of Theseus paradox, if a ship has every part of it replaced, is it still the same ship...
It's also known as Triggers Broom Paradox, where Trigger from Only Fools and Horses said his broom had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, thus leaving the question...is it still the same broom
One of my favorite lines from a video game.
"History abhors a paradox."
The real paradox is why the British use Maths and Amercia uses Math and why Canada which usually takes the Britsh way of things uses Math not maths. But we use colour not color and others.
It’s not a paradox. It’s just the result of linguistic & grammatical evolution based upon various societal factors/demographics, etc. “Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato” as they say.
@@razzle1964 I bet your fun at parties!
@@nukakay7098 I try. But, your reply endears me to you already. It’s the kind of thing I’D say. Well played. 😉✌️🙏
Thanks Simon, Is there any thing no matter how difficult, that this man cannot explain and make perfectly understandable.
G'day Simon,
One of my favourite shirts says...
"I'm Confused, No Wait... Maybe I'm Not" 😁 I love wearing it
I don’t approve this message👍🏾
Your breathing noise is very distracting
Yeah Simon, stop breathing!
I love Futurama sooo much lol
UNEXPECTED HANGING PARADOX
SOLUTION: This is an example of what we call a flim-flam or double speak problem where you allowed the speaker to redefine a problem’s original parameters within such narrow margin that all FALSE STATEMENTS in a solution set are removed and only the TRUE STATEMENTS remain thus proving the speaker right and thus creating the paradox.
In the UNEXPECTED HANGING PARADOX, the judge’s statements need be accepted at face value and as facts since they create a problem’s parameters and thus solution set. Let’s look at what the judge actually said:
A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day.
Let’s use probability to outline the scenario. There are five (5) days possible to be hung so 100%/5 = 20% probability (or 1 in 5 (lowest common denominator)) of being hung on any given day during the week. Given that our probability is 1 in 5; we can then assume that there are five (5) possible paths that could occur: This can be represented as Possible Paths:
PATH #1: Hanged Monday
PATH #2: Hanged Tuesday
PATH #3: Hanged Wednesday
PATH #4: Hanged Thursday
PATH #5: Hanged Friday
Now in a table “Probability of Being Hung on any Given Weekday”:
PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
1 X DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD
2 NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD DEAD
3 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD
4 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD
5 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X
X=HUNG Table 1. Probability of being hung on any given weekday
BUT IT MUST BE A SURPRISE so Friday would not work as at noon on Thursday (after the time of the knock); you would know if you were to be hung or saved depending on the knock.
PATH #1: Hanged Monday
PATH #2: Hanged Tuesday
PATH #3: Hanged Wednesday
PATH #4: Hanged Thursday
PATH #5: NOT HANGED ON FRIDAY DUE TO IT BEING KNOWN (due to limiting factor of surprise).
PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
1 X DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD
2 NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD DEAD
3 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD DEAD
4 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG X DEAD
5 NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG NOT HUNG SAFE
So based on my above table: there is 100% probability that the prisoner will be hanged between Monday and Thursday and 0% chance that he will be hanged on Friday. So, mathematically there is only 1 path in 5 that will result in the prisoner not being hanged (due to it not being a surprise) BUT 4 paths will lead directly to a dirt nap. Remember that this is random so he could be hanged on any day (BUT PATH #5).
Now review the exact deduction from the prisoner listing the different assumptions (Bullets #1-3):
“Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts.
1. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday.
2. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday noon, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either.
3. By similar reasoning, he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all.”
Observe how in this Paradox, the prisoner immediately redefines the problems parameters of “any day of the week,” to “as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday.” STOP THERE - By his own words, this statement is only valid for Path #5 because it is the only path in which he is alive after Thursday. On paths #1-4 he is already hung. Now what the prisoner does is fool everyone with his quick change of detail directions by listing all the arguments to prove that Path #5 is true in reverse. Now his comments are 100 % correct because he is not proving that the other possible paths (PATH #1-4) are safe but only justifying why the previous days in this timeline are safe (WHICH WE ALREADY KNEW OR YOU WON’T BE THERE ON FRIDAY!!!!)
PATH # MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
5 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #1 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #2 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #3 NOT HUNG DUE TO PATH #4 SAVED BY FRIDAY
He selects an argument which is true (and to his benefit) but only for a specific PATH and does not include any PATHS which proves his argument wrong (hell, this would make publishing scientific papers a wrong lot easier). Now he can string this collection of true statements together only because he is coming from the opposite side of the timeline (future) thus walking his argument backwards for that path only. Another way to say it; this argument is only true” describing why PATH #5 is safe and not PATH #1-#4 (spoiler alert - he still dies).
So what am I missing? I mean, this is your guy if you want to sell ice to Inuit but it still comes down to probabity.
But the Zeno's paradox is easy to dispel if you consider time to be a factor. If you assume a constant speed for the completion of the distance then the time for a part of this is going to equal the overall time divided by the length of the sub distance. Thus 1/2 the distance = 1/2 the time, 1/4 distance = 1/4 time etc. So although technically you can subdivide the distance into infinity then the time would subdivide the same amount until an infinite subdivision would equal 0 time.
11:00 f
Zeno's locomotion paradox is a bad example for unsolvable paradoxes: He actually argues that a sum of
▪︎infinitely many and
▪︎each finite
timespans could not be finite. By this time he already has split _a finite distance_ into
▪︎infinitely many
▪︎each finite
distances, thus _proving himself_ that a sum of infinitely many each finite quantities _can_ be finite.
Zeno’s paradox is the most amusing of these. It is based on the false assumption that adding up an infinite number of quantities must give a total of infinity. This is false. 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+… =1. Let X be the infinite sum. 1/2 times X is 1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+… . If we add 1/2 to this, we get X back. So, we have X=(1/2)X+1/2. Subtracting (1/2)X from both sides, we get (1/2)X=1/2. Cancelling 1/2, we get X=1. Sorry, Zeno.
3mo video but... 2+2=5 is bad math, not a paradox. "This statement is false" is bad English, not a paradox. Other paradoxes that don't really exist are bad math, like you can't succeed at being a failure. Both of these can be rated as a percentage, so technically, you can be a failure 99% of the time, and the success of being a failure would still fall into that 1% success rate.
I'm starting to think that paradoxes don't really exist but instead reflect our own ignorance. Like bad math (or math tricks/shortcut), but in word form.
Before I ever heard the expression "Bootstrap Paradox" I read a story by Robert Heinlein called By His Bootstraps, about a time traveller who goes back in time to thwart a dictatorial ruler and eventually realizes that the dictator was (will had have of be?) in fact the traveller's future self. He became the dictator in order to try to prevent the dictator existing, if you catch my drift. I assume the expression "Bootstrap Paradox" is an allusion to that story since the story is over 80 years old and I'm guessing the expression is more recent? (Also see Doctor Who... "Who wrote Beethoven's Fifth?")
The Grandfather Paradox IS consistent and preserves its own limited causality if you assume a *double* loop - a figure-of-eight shaped timeline: I go back in time and kill baby Hitler, WW2 never happens, I don't go back because there's no Hitler for me to kill, baby Hitler survives, WW2 happens, I go back to kill Hitler... in the double loop Hitler alternates between existing and not existing. (Actually, what really happened was young Hitler was killed in a car accident and then rescued by a time traveller who didn't know who he was saving. True story 😉)
One of the best illustration of Goedel curves for the layman that I've seen was in Brian Cox's R.I. christmas lecture in 2013... he didn't reference Goedel directly but it was all about using gravity to tilt light cones.
Zeno isn't paradox, it's just semantic misdirection.
“Includes paid promotion” thumbs down to UA-cam. What a joke! 2:30 BURNED IN AD. I’m just blocking this channel now. I swear UA-cam is pile of money grabbing creator garbage.
Quantum Zeno bahavior? Oh god. What's next? Imaginary "i" numbers? If you know. You know... Which is... Why do so many ppl take this shit seriously?
For more on the liar paradox, Russell's paradox, Zeno's paradox, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem I recommend reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter.
Grandfather paradox.... easy, grandmother was pregnant BEFORE he gets killed.
The Einstein paradox is one of the obviously less intelligent ones. I totally understand the idea of time travel, but REGARDLESS OF TIME TRAVEL there has to be something called an ORIGIN POINT. The EXACT POINT IN TIME that this idea/notion/theory came into being. Time travel plays no part in the VERY FIRST TIME this thought is encountered, it can only replay the events, or it's structure in a way that suits their theory. You cannot say, I travel back in time to implant said idea in (for example) 1830 when the first time it was discovered is 1930. People that spout these theories are very intelligent, but lack one thing...the knowledge that the universe doesn't give a shit what they think, it keeps going as it always has....and always will...
The only paradox that concerns me is reverse time travel. It is "theoretically" possible according to Einstein but my take is the ONLY theory that makes sense and solves all paradox is infinite eternal multiverse. Prove me wrong... Go... 3.2...1.. GO!...
I'd like a movie about some shadowy society insisting you have to go back in time and kill a specific baby in the 1930's for seemingly no reason. End of the movie is a montage of that baby rising to power and causing a nuclear exchange during the cold war.
So, the time traveller spares the baby. The montage starts all saccharine with the baby growing up, going to school, hanging out with friends, graduating. It gets iffy with an election or two being depicted, then ominous music and video of bombers and nuclear tests being introduced, heated arguments over dramatic music, and finally someone turning a key and pushing a button, followed by nukes going off everywhere.
Me again: Anyone remember that sci fi movie (1980's) where people from the future would time travel to back and replace airline crash victims with exact copies and take them into the future? If someone messed up and created a paradox, the future would experience what they called a "time quake."
The Grandfather Paradox is no paradox at all. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather you create a NEW timeline (you won't disappear out of existence). It won't affect your ORIGINAL reality. That universe still exists - just you can't get home by traveling forwards in time (unless you went back to 5 mins before you killed him and persuaded yourself not to ... or even if you killed the younger you - again, CURRENT you will not pop out of existence).
In realms of thought, where paradoxes dwell,
Mysteries untold, where minds do swell,
Questions posed with no resolve in sight,
In the depths of darkness, where truth takes flight.
The liar's paradox, a twisted tale,
"I always lie," the words assail,
If true, it's false, if false, it's true,
A loop of logic, where reason's askew.
The grandfather's paradox, a time-bound scheme,
If I kill my ancestor, what does it mean?
For if he's dead, I could not be,
A puzzle of time's intricate decree.
The ship of Theseus, a vessel worn,
Each plank replaced, each sail reborn,
At what point does it cease to be,
The ship we knew upon the sea?
The Fermi paradox, a cosmic quest,
In a universe vast, why do we jest,
With silence reigning, among the stars,
Are we alone, in our cosmic bars?
These paradoxes, they tease and taunt,
Infinite loops where logic's gaunt,
For in their depths, we find our awe,
In mysteries that none can draw.
So let us ponder, let us delve,
Into the paradoxes that none can shelve,
For in their riddles, we find our grace,
In the mysteries of time and space.
All of these paradoxes can be explained as quantum superposition. Everything is a probability until observed ..... :-)