Get concentrated knowledge from books into 15 minutes summaries by signing up at www.blinkist.com/sciencephile to get unlimited access for 1 week to try it out!
the turtle moves at half the speed. the turtle starts 100m ahead. they will meet at 200m because in the time it takes the turtle to run 100m the man has run 200m. right?
The rick astley paradox: If you ask Rick Astley to 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.
@@maximiliancarl6374 Classical music are boring. I would prefer "Waltz no. 2" by Shostakovich, "Gymnopedie no. 1", Brahms' Hungarian dance 1, 5, ..., "Humoresque no. 7" by Dvorak, and the best of all-the combination of Paganini and Listz-"La Campanella" and "Etude no. 24". By the way, "Gymnopedie no. 1" is inspired by Minecraft, so this guy is right.
A huge problem I have with these super task paradoxes, is that they all treat “infinity” as constant and equal across all uses. But that’s a flawed view, as infinity is not an integer, it is a concept, and can there for be flexible in its uses and value(s)…
when you say that a set of tasks is infinite, you are using a set of integers with an infinite amount of elements. this is very different than taking an infinite set of all real numbers, if you were to do that then there is always another smallest value for the next number. supertasks opperate with a set of tasks structured as [0,1,2,3,4...] since you cannot have a fraction of a task. because of this structure your final time for completing the task is an infinite sumation of each element multiplied by time to complete the task. In order for it to be a supertask you must find that when you take the limit of this function as time goes toward 0 the limit approaches 0. this represents that at some stage the task will take up so little time that an infinite number of steps can be completed without taking up more time.
The execution one is actually pretty neat as at the end, because you’re so confident you won’t get executed, you lose that expectancy, and it will surprise you if you actually do get executed. That is why at the end he’s surprised they managed to murder him
I have an answer for Achilles and the tortoise. The paradox assumes that because you’re going double the speed you’ll halve the distance, when in reality all you’re doing is going half the distance in the same time. It’s like if someone is aged 30 and another is aged 15, when the first person is aged 40, the person aged 15 will be aged 25, not 20. Like if a car is going 30mph and another is going 60mph 1 mile behind, the 60mph car would catch up and overtake in around 1 and a half minutes, there would be a point, around 45 seconds in, where the 60mph car is half the distance, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll keep halving from then on, it’s something that usually happens once, maybe twice or three times, unlikely more, and certainly not consistently. The paradox assumes you’ll always be at a distance that by the time you’re at half, the tortoise will be at double of that, which is impossible as it is going much slower.
The tortoise is more representative of the halfway point between Achilles and a goal line. If Achilles has to reach 100m then he must hit the 50m mark. To reach the 50m mark he must hit the 25m mark. I've heard the paradox without the tortoise and it makes it easier to explain. Though the actual answer was in the video where motion doesn't have a point or it wouldn't be moving.
the age thing doesn't work because everyone ages at the same rate, also the tortose has HALF OF THE TRACK AS A HEAD START, so the time it takes to move half its track is the same as Achilles takes to move half of his, because his track is twice as long, and what do you mean by "The paradox assumes that because your going twice the speed you’ll halve the distance, when in reality all you’re doing is going half the distance in the same time."? You go twice the distence in the same time not half when going at double speed, also the paradox asumes that because the tortose always moves you can't reach it, you are also pretending like the term "Havle The Distence", has meaning when it doesn't, and the last sentence makes no sence, the paradox is that when you get to the tourtose, the turtle adds the next -inverted power of 2, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ect., so ou made so many errors and wrong assumpions, and the age thing making no sence have you argument fall apart. also I am not gonna make this gramaticaly correct acording to Gramerly because english clearly isn't your first language, since you barely understood the paradox.
The Achilles and turtle paradox is about not being able to mathematically prove that Achilles will be able to catch up with the turtle. In reality he can easily catch up to it but mathematically he'll never catch up. When this problem was presented it wasn't yet known that 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...=1 That 1 is him catching up to the turtle
The Planck length is only the smallest theoretically useful measurement, but we're talking about Infiniti here so it doesn't matter how small the increments get
The ladder paradox isn't actually a paradox. Here's why: The simultaneity of events is also affected by relativity. So, from the garage's perspective...not only is the ladder short, but also the doors on each side close at the same time. From the ladder's perspective, yes, the garage is much shorter than the ladder; however, the garage doors on each side do not close at the same time. The events are no longer simultaneous to the ladder's perspective, and close at times that are still consistent with the ladder never colliding with the garage door. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
So... in ladder's perspective, it'd take infinite time for doors to close, regardless of how instantaneous the door was shut from the garage's perspective?
@@shade5554 No. Just that the first door closes and opens again before the door behind it closes. In our view (stationary) the garage door closes super briefly, only containing the ladder for a split second. Remember, the ladder is still moving incredibly fast...so we need to open the doors again before the ladder hits the garage door. To our view, both doors close at the same time. And both doors open at the same time. To the ladder's perspective, events are not simultaneous like they are for us. Objects moving at different speeds perceive simultaneity differently, and the effect gets greater the farther away something is from a moving object. The event in front of the ladder (to its perspective) will happen sooner The event behind the ladder (to its perspective) will happen later. This is how (to us) the doors close, containing the ladder, and open again before a collision happens To the ladder's perspective, even though it is much much longer than the entire width of the garage, it never collides with the garage because the first door (like in our perspective) both closes and opens before the ladder has a chance to collide. Unlike our perspective, however, the rear garage door does not close at the same time as the first. To the ladder's perspective, the rear door closes behind the ladder well after the first door has already closed and opened back up again. It's super trippy...but the math checks out...and all the other components of special relatively have not only been shown to be accurate, the math is absolutely critical for some components of GPS satellite systems, who deal with distances so large yet precise they need math like this (although I think they only use equations for time dilation - I'm not a physicist or even an engineer...just a mild enthusiast...so only take away the key concepts from this convo)
@@justinshaw1720 I know this would require considering general relativity and impossible materials but what if we managed to stop the ladder after the doors are closed? It would have to destroy the door but I'd love to know how it would happen from the perspectives of the garage and the ladder.
@@Kycilak That's a fantastic question. I'm sure there's a solution, similar like the one I initially posted...in that it doesn't appear intuitive at first but the math checks out. I am no physicist, engineer, nor mathematician...and I think you need to ask one of them. Honestly, your question would be a phenomenal topic for a channel like PBS Spacetime
9:48 "Can you do an infinite amount of steps in a finite amount of time?" Yes, it's called a super task. I believe Vsauce made a video about those a while back.
@@louisrobitaille5810 quantify? No. A set is countably infinite if there exists an injection from the set into the natural numbers. It’s something we can qualify, but not quantify. Of course we can define the cardinality of the natural numbers to be infinity, but it isn’t a measurable quantity.
10:54 I have the answer for that, in the ladder reference system the closing of the doors isn't simultaneous, when the first end of the ladder reaches the second door it closes and opens instantly, the ladder continues and as it just barely crosses the first door this one closes (in the garage point of view you'd fit the ladder instantly since it's moving at high speed). No paradox at all
Thank you sir, I was going in the comments to say exactly this. Time needs to be considerated in relativist theory it is a space-time phenomena, not only space
The existence of infinity is assumed axiomatically in most set theories like ZF, ZFC and NBG. But you don't need infinity to do math. It makes for less paradoxes but kinda sabotages things like Calculus and Analysis...
Regarding that: you can only make a logical chain out of finately many steps. Mathematical induction, which is proving stuff for x=n+1 given x=n and having proof for x=1, can be applied to an arbitrary large number x, yet infinity is not a number, therefore you cannot reason in such a way about an infinite number of steps, even if each step preserves a quantity / property.
Theseus' paradox was definitely revealed to me by way of building my own computer. When I was 11 my mom gave me a hand-me-down best buy PC, and every Christmas I got a new part to put in it. At some point I thought to myself that exact thing: Is it still that same PC if I have none of the original parts? The way I see it is: The idea of "my PC" was changing to incorporate the new computer part, such that the old one was no longer part of "my PC". It used to be part of that piece of information, but presently, the definition of "my PC" now incorporates its new parts. The only way I can do this is by conservation of information; there was never a point I destroyed the idea of "my PC", thus it must be continuous "function" with meaning being the y axis and time being the x axis, and as time progresses, the meaning fluctuates. However, the function is still "my PC", just like in math terminology, f(8) may not be equal to f(9), but they are undeniably both f(x). With this in mind, if f(100) is the present "my PC", then the PC made of my old parts would simply be f(x
The Achilles vs Tortoise problem has a more interesting solution than just the uncertainty principle: The catch is that although the distance can be cut in half infinitely many times, these infinitely many tasks can be completed within a finite amount of time. So while Achilles cuts the distance in half each time, the time it takes to do so also becomes infinitely small, and so despite cutting the distance in half infinitely often, there must be a point in time at which he has completed these infinitely many tasks, and thus overtakes the tortoise.
The bootstrap theory; your first version made it and traveled to the extremely far future, after the first big bounce (watch previous episode) occurred, and gave it to the second version as a nice shortcut.
thats still bullshit, like say you downloaded all of shakespheares work on your phone and you went to the past to see him cos your a crazy fanboy with your time machine. you come to realize that shakespheare didn't really existed and it was just a myth. still sad you decided to publish all the works which now you have in your phone/memorised in the name of shakespeare. so where did the information come from
@@indrajithlal6160 if the first version arrives thats the beginning of time loop then at that time the information lost its original state on what they called “uncaused” which is a bit absurd so we need 2nd or multiple space time dimensions in order to make sense of time travel so the information is not loss
One way to solve all of the paradoxes that involve traveling back in time is the fact that it may not be possible to change your past. If you travel back in time, it may be more like your traveling to an alternate timeline, therefore not changing your timeline.
@@ArtamisBot the first thing isn't even a paradox... It's just a stupid way of describing a simple situation, because every time he halves the distance, he also halves the time it took to get there, so of course it will infinitely keep getting smaller. If he simply observed the situation with a constant change of time, it is very simple to see that he passes the turtle at 200 meters. Nothing mystical about it...
Couldn't the first paradox be solved by the Planck length? He would only be able to pass the tortoise because there is a point that can't be divided into smaller parts
@@khytron06 There are some Planck seconds where they move a Planck length and some where they don’t. Achilles moves more frequently than the tortoise, so the distance between then will eventually reach 0 Planck lengths.
2:00 Okay, so this logic problem is one I keep seeing crop up and it's honestly a lot simpler than it looks. The answer is that the refurbished ship is Theseus', inasmuch as an object can belong to a dead person. The second "ship" made from the decayed parts is not a ship. It's a pile of garbage that resembles a ship. To make this more clear, I'll refer to the example you used, but correct it for more technical accuracy. Over the course of your life, most if not all of the cells in your body and are replaced by new, fresh cells. Imagine that someone had the capacity to somehow collect your dead cells and arrange them into the shape of a body that resembled you, and even animate it. Are you "you", or is the animate collection of your former cells? I think the answer should be obvious. The version of this paradox that gets legitimately tricky is where it involves teleportation by matter conversion to energy, transfer, and reconstitution. Such as the transporters in Star Trek. The question these devices raise is whether the new "body" built by the transporter is "you" or "you" died the moment your disintegration caused a cessation of life functions and the "you" everyone engages with is just a passable clone. Also, there is no reason why, once any computer attached to the receiving end of such a transporter has such detailed information on you, it can't just make another copy of you whenever it is compelled to, provided it has the necessary energy and materials to work with.
I don't think the answer is so simple. It depends on how you define the concept of "Theseus's ship". Depending on that definition, you could argue that both ships are Theseus's ship (because they both carry the "idea" of the ship) or that neither is the ship (because the ship only exists for a moment in time and any future ship is inherently a different ship).
Ah, the Fermi paradox. I always love thinking that one over. I don't claim to have answered it by a longshot, but I can try to expand on a few possible explanations. In evolutionary terms, intelligence doesn't come too naturally. After all, it's easy to just be a grazing animal that reproduces very quickly, or a predator that eats them, and neither requires a very high degree of intelligence to function optimally. Some argue that human intelligence has become over-evolved to the point that it just begins to drain on us, as we slowly realize the fragile and doomed nature of being alive in the physical world, resulting in depression, mental anguish and strain, and in certain cases outright insanity. For much of earth's history, intelligence on our level was really not something that was explored since it takes a lot of time to even start paying off. The only reason our ancestors evolved to have it is because intelligence and forward eyesight were necessary to climb tree branches. Eventually, a creature with all four limbs optimized for grasping branches eventually evolved to use two of them for walking upright, even though it was a lot more dangerous to do so. We risked and were rewarded, while some others who risk it die out. Another answer could be that it's not possible to efficiently travel between stars at will, as in there's no way to achieve a speed faster than light that we can actually manipulate for our own means. Or perhaps there is something we should be afraid of and the first message from another intelligence is either a warning to be quiet or an ominous greeting by our coming death. Another thing could be that intelligent life may occur frequently but manages to obliterate itself before it can reach out to anyone else, like we've almost done a few times during the Cold War and narrowly avoided by the gut feeling of a single man each time. One case was a Soviet submarine commander who refused to launch while his peer and superior had both agreed, another an operator of a Soviet early warning system who deduced that the US would not fire on them without fear of retaliation and found that the sensors were simply faulty. Both times, the human race's survival hinged on one man being in the right place. Others may not have been so lucky as we were and got burned by mutually assured destruction.
fermi paradox is just too easy to explain imo, there is no tech to travel or send messages over milions and bilions of lighyears, so we probably will not know another civilization ever, not to mention universe expansions at speed of light.... i bet there are gazilion of life in universe just in some planets its microbes, in other fish, in another maybe mammals, in some probably high tech civilization, but they are just too far away from us
If you ask Rick Astley to give you the movie up, he cannot give it to you, because he’d give you up, but if he doesn’t give the movie to you, he’d let you down. This is the, Astley paradox
@@ArtamisBot You can always try again. Don't force something though. There is always people out there for you. Let things happen naturally. Sometimes it's the person you least expect to make you happy and loved. I assure you. If someone isn't reciprocating, they don't want you or aren't ready. Don't condemn yourself to mental torture in the time being. Enjoy yourself, work on yourself. Positive thoughts and actions attract positive effects in your life.
9:30 Interestingly enough, if you just remove the lowest even numbered ball each step, you get all the odd numbers in the vase and all the even numbers outside. So now we have an infinite amount in both places instead of one, just by choosing which balls to remove. Now it's even more confusing...
Wouldn't it always be infinite though, no finite number can compare to infinity, so, by removing any and moving them into other piles you would get more infinities, or at least that is how I see it :s .
Astley paradox, ask him for a copy of up, he cannot give it to you as he said he will never give you upbut then he lets you down, he cant run around to get away from this, as then he will desert you as he runs around, he cant make you cry, he cant say goodbye, he cant say “oh sorry i don’t have a copy of up” as he will lie because you know he has a copy of up, and he can’t hurt you. That was painful to type
6:35 Our sun is about a third of the age of the universe right? So really the universe isn’t very old, and the heat death of the universe is unimaginably far away, so we could very likely be the first.
7:47 that would also explain the Fermi paradox. We are one of the first sentient races to exist, so we just send signals to space that can neither of our civilizations get and send back.
solving as many paradoxes as i can 1. achilles runs 100 metres in 10 seconds the tortoise moves a total of 150 metres in 10 seconds with 50 metres per second after 20 seconds both racers hqve moved a total of 200 metres per second but achilles is moving faster, so after 21 seconda achilles overtakes the tortoise 2. everything is in a constantly changing state so for an identity to be created it also has to have a time to reference which identity of itself its referencing as it can have multiple identities relative to its timeline 3. if you are perfection of everything, to create the boulder you would have to reduce part of your perfection into a physical form unperfect in comparison, this reduction allows the creation of the boulder while causing you to become weaker than it meqning you cant lift it as you wouldnt be omnipotent due to creating the boulder, however an equally heavy boulder not created by you coupd be lifted as you would maintain perfection 4. acausal events are very common in reality and the universe itself is an exqmple of an acausal event, the paradox is that .. its not actually a paradox its just a weird thing the universe can do, its caused by quantum randomness creating energy in the past by destroying it in the future maintaining equilibrium of energy in total over time 5. if you go back on time you either, go to a parallel universe, meqning your actions dont affect your timeline, you become acausal as the timeline rewrites over itself, or you go into a pocket time loop where all involvement vanishes and the rest of the timeline continues as normal, etc. 6. by expecting it on friday and removing all days, you just move the expectation forward making the other previously crossed off days no longer crossed off as they would now become unexpected due to your prediction 7. grabby aliens dont exist yet, meaning we are the first to be grabby aliens, rare but someone had to do it 8. scarcity of energy just causes stronger competition and maintains evolution to do so, also thermal vents provably 9. expansion of the universe causes the enregy emmited to not be in a visible light spectrum of light, or tye light doesnt reach us as the space ir travels across expands faster than light so the distance is unnable to e crossed 10. infinity isnt a sequence of steps, inginity must be thought of as a collection of all steps at the same time, this means that if all steps are completed, all possible balls are removed, meaning the vase has to be empty as there couldnt be a single ball possible to remove, imagine it as infinity and infinity +1 being the same size, ... do all of step one first, place infinite balls in the vase, then infinity of step 2 next, remove all balls from the vase 11. the frame of the relative stationary observer is correct as it is not being affected by any energy and does not have the increased relative mass effects due to speed, the ladder shrinks ... or logically the shed would increase in length as well as half of it accellerated away from you once you reach the halfway point 12. again, not really a paradox, just a cool thing the universe does ... bonus round 13. russels paradox a set that contains all sets that do not contain themself, does it contain itself? ... consider a set of all dogs, .. a cat wouldnt be a possible candidate for this set ... any construction of a set that would cause a paradox would cause it to not logically reference itself as it would require it to be referencing something thats a set *has* not what a set *is* and as a paradoxical set is a non defined answer due to it requiring to be a question of containment not a defined value, then due to the constructed set always requiring to be asking a question of what a set has not what it is, then the set itself would be exluded from potential candidates that it could contain, it would matter if it contained itself or not, it would simply be exluded entirely from the logical idea of being a set that has those properties, its the cat in a set of dogs put mathematically {x : x is a set that does not contain itself} is not an x value
If I always lie, then the statement I am always lying must be false. This means I am not always lying. If I am not always lying, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am always telling the truth, which means the statement I am always lying can still be false, which leads to no contradiction.
6:09 I love how you don’t insult the viewers intelligence and assume that they if interested are already capable of getting the information for free, it would just be time consuming
I’m always lying is actually pretty simple. The person telling the statement is lying about always lying. It’s just that that specific sentence is a lie. They never said that they always speak the truth, which means that they have the ability to both lie and speak the truth.
I like the one that goes “if I have a handful of sand and let some through my fingers, at what point is that no longer a handful of sand?” More of a semantics, linguistic take on the boat one.
The statement "I am always lying." is not a paradox, as the statement can still be a lie if the speaker only lies some of the time without contradicting themself. However, if it was "I never speak the truth." it would be a paradox.
The Theseus one is actually very easy. For example, your own cells die everyday and get replaced. However, you are still you because of your memories, consciousness and personality. Something like this can be applied to Theseus ship - yes physical parts may be replaced from time to time but the significance of the ship is still there - the adventures, the ordeals he went through with his crew, the legends so on and so forth are associated with the ship, much like your own mind being still there despite your cells literally being replaced all the time.
It's not so simple. For example, suppose someone suffers a brain injury that leaves them comatose, or gives them permanent amnesia or false memories. Are they no longer themselves because their memories/consciousness/personality are permanently gone? Is that what really what makes you, you?
My teacher once asked the omnipotence paradox and I answered "Well, if God stopped the expansion space and made everything in it rock, He could" If he made the universe, he made the law about expanding, so he could easily turn it off for a little show of force. I think it really resonates with your Logic answer
the answer to the ball and vase paradox is that there is only 100 balls in the vase and infinite outside, because the vase can't fit more than 100 balls.
Even if the universe was infinite and static, the night sky would not be bright, because apparent brightness diminishes as the inverse square of distance, and the sum of an infinite series of inverse squares actually converges (unlike, for example, a series of inverse numbers, which does not)
With the ball and vase paradox, which are supertasks essentially (search it up), isn't infinity - infinity = infinity, meaning that there are an infinite number of balls both in and outside the ball? Of course this wouldn't work in real life but hypothetically, wouldn't this happen?
These are either just language games that don't apply to reality or questions that show a lack in our understanding of reality: 1. If achilles ran twice as fast as the turtle he'd just overtake it by 200m. The premise makes no sense because you're just supposed to accept that Achiles runs at exactly the speed required to always half the distance between it and the turtle, forever, which obviously can't happen. 2. "Ship of Theseus" is a label we put on something. Reality isn't split into objects the way we think about them, the ship of theseus isn't a consistant entity separated from everything else. Think of how the water in a river is never the same, but we still call it a river, because we find this label useful. It's the same with the ship of Theseus and it stops being the ship of Theseus when we decide that this label isn't accurate anymore. Same for changing particles with another person. 3. The omnipotence one straight up is make belief, there are no omnipotent things in the universe. This one is a very good examples of why most riddles are... kinda stupid. We make up some fancy concepts that do not represent reality and then we go "Wow that's crazy" when we figure out that our made-up, baseless concepts are self contradictory. 4. Same with the time travel ones. I'll mention that even though this is pure fiction, the time travel paradoxes can be resolved by just using a model with timelines. So for the bootstrap one there has to be an initial timeline where someone created the device then sent it back in time. When it's sent back a new timeline is created. And when it's sent back again another timeline is created and so on. For the grandfather paradox, you go back in time and create a new timeline where your grandfather is dead(or whatever you do). In this timeline you don't exist, but the you from the initial timeline, the one who went back in time still exists. 5. The hanging paradox is kinda bullshit because it conflicts the knowledge you have in different days. So if you're gonna get hanged on friday then you will know it for certain on thursday. But you won't know it on any other day, so it will come as a surprise if you get hanged on, let's say sunday. The paradox ignores the fact that you won't know for certain until the last day. 6. Fermi paradox is actually one that's related to reality, but I don't know if I'd call it really a paraox, it's just a question that has a lot of answers. For us to detect life there would have to be a planet where life can form, life would have to form, it would have to become intelligent, it would have to be very similar to us so they use technologies we can detect, it would have to be at a similar level in development to us and it would have to be pretty close to us. Pretty low chances in my opinion. 7. The cold sun paradox also has a bunch of answers, but they're a bit more technical so I won't get into details, you can google it. 8. The dark sky paradox is explained in the video and also a good example of this kind of paradoxes: we just don't know enough to answer the questions we're posing. 9. The balls and vase are just like the achilles and tortoise paradox. Language (or abstract math in this case) games that do not apply to reality. 10. The ladder paradox is assuming something that's wrong. Length contraction doesn't say that a moving object is shorter, it says that a moving object will appear shorter to a stationary entity. So it's not shorter, it just looks like that from the outside. 11. The last one is also explained in the video.
And the vase one really really simple: there are infinite balls inside and infinite balls outside. Proof: This is analogous to the integers mod 10, also known as the integers. 1 in every 10 integers is divisible by 10, so if you remove just the ones that are divisible, you still have the ones that are not. Therefore, if there are 0 inside the vase, there are no integers that are not divisible by 10, which is absurd. Also, one can define a function from the integers to the multiples of 10 as f(z) = 10z, and this is a one to one correlation, meaning that there are as many integers as there are multiples of 10 (yeah, that's the crazy thing about infinity, it is really counter intuitive), as well as a function from the integers to the integers that leave "n" as the rest of the division by 10, just put f(z) = 10 - n (n has to be more than or equal to zero and less than 10). q.e.d.
From the ladders perspective each end is in the garage simultaneously, from the garage's perspective they are both inside the garage however not simultaneously.
I can add a take to all of the time travel paradoxes, specifically I'll do the grandfather one. So, if backwards time travel exists then time itself must be an actual part of the universe. This means it would be an actual dimensional plane and would still go through the future but not the time future (sorry I had a lack of other words to use) If this is true you could think of time as a line, to be more specific a straightened string. The line goes forever and the closer to the start you are on the line the farther in the past you are, if you were to time travel you'd bent this string closer to the start making a past different than another existing past that brought this past. In this thought process you wouldn't have a paradox. Aight it's 02:41 I need sleep cya I hope I gave you another possible thought process on time travel and if not I don't really care I need sleep.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but if I do, then what you're suggesting is the "Alternate Timeline theory". The Grandfather paradox is the one discussed in the video. The Alternate timeline theory suggests that going into the past and changing events won't affect you or your timeline, because the universe will diverge from your timeline and create a parallel timeline where different events happen.
In Germany the Omnipotence paradox is a Wordgame as in German it means "allmächtig". Also the Universe is called "All". So we explain it that he has the Power over the Universe and not all.
Thank you for making videos for free, they are very insteresting and I love listening to them while doing something else. Paradoxes are very peculiar too, it makes me think more than the usual. (Sorry for bad english)
My personal answers to all these paradoxes (based on solutions I watched online and my own thought process): 1. This paradox is not really a paradox due to two reasons; In the real world there is a finite smallest distance, Infinite sums eventually converge according to mathematics. Due to both these reasons it’s clear that there is a point where Achilles can cross the turtle. 2. I would say the new ship is the actual ship and the ship constructed from the old parts is simply a decayed replica of it. My explanation from this comes from the human body which this paradox actually mirrors. If I take all the dead skin and hair you shed, all the dead cells you excrete and make a new you, it obviously wouldn’t be you. You are the illusion of a continuous but dynamic arrangement of atoms, so the new you is always you. You from an year ago is merely a replica of you but not the true you. The old you doesn’t have your new experiences which defined and changed you. Obviously this is very debatable but it’s just my explanation. 3. This paradox simply arises from the vague definition of omnipotence as the video suggests. 4. This paradox basically arises from the absurd logic of time travel. I basically think that object/technology exists out of spacetime and the paradox simply arises from spacetime converging and looping on itself. It doesn’t make much sense but it’s just a way to make sense of it I guess. 5. Minute physics had a good explanation for this, basically comparing the timelines to a Möbius strip, happening simultaneously yet still preserving the cause and effect logic. On the other hand there is a simpler explanation of parallel universes which obviously is not as satisfying. 6. I don’t even understand how this is a paradox. The inmate basically concludes that he shouldn’t be hanged any day because by this logic; if he is not hanged from Mon-Thurs he would be hanged on Friday which is expected and he concludes the same for Mon-Wed and everyday of the week. This logic is contradictory in my opinion. By assuming that he cannot be hanged any day he makes the hanging unexpected for himself. 7. The Fermi paradox has a lot of explanations, so I am not going to try and answer it. Lot of science channels have touched this topic, so I recommend checking them. 8. This channel actually provided some explanations to this paradox, mainly that there could have been more greenhouse gases at that time creating a blanket to heat up the earth. 9. Well this is answered 10. This is the most paradoxical in my opinion. My answer to this is something like this: Basically you are adding 9n balls into the vase and having n balls left out of the vase. At infinite steps it basically means you have infinity in the vase and outside the vase. Kind of like Bonarktarsky Paradox where one set of infinity creates two sets of infinity. 11. This was actually answered in some video (I forgot the channel) but basically the doors closing is simultaneous from the garage’s perspective but not simultaneous from the ladder’s perspective (due to relativity where simultaneous events don’t exist in all frames of reference). So the ladder basically thinks it’s never inside the the garage, just passing it while the doors close arbitrarily. 12. Vsauce has a whole video in this which I think perfectly explains the absurdity of the paradox. This paradox and the vase one basically show how logic breaks at infinity.
3:02 (AOT SEASON 1-4.2 SPOILERS) 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽 Bootstrap paradox is quite literally the plot of attack on titan (from what i an anime only know so far) eren in the future uses his founding titan abilities to influence the past making certain things happen, when those things happen it eventually leads to him using his titan powers to effect the past, and so on😭
Oh don't worry about the Omnipotence paradox, St. Thomas Aquinas actually addressed that one long ago when he was still alive. Simply put, it was about the same answer as was said here: "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God" C.S. Lewis further expounded on this by saying "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God, the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities" I think it notable that before Lewis converted, he was a staunch atheist who had previously said that Christianity simply didn't register as a viable possibility in his mind. His conversion was largely the result of conversions he'd had with two of his friends who were theists, those being J.R.R Tolkien (yes, that Tolkien) and Hugo Dyson. But now I've gotten off topic a bit. I'm not sure if you were previously familiar with their works, but if you weren't it's interesting to see that you reached similar conclusions to a canonized Saint and a renowned author, professor, and lay theologian.
the universe is absolutely genius, with the first paradox it’s essentially made a patch that doesn’t fix the issue, but rather disables it from ever being able to physically happen since you have one or the other (place/speed) so the conditions needed for the paradox can’t happen
your videos are so good, please never stop making them. even when earth gets completely destroyed move your consciousness to a cloud storage on mars or something.
An answer that I like to the grandfather paradox is that no matter how hard you try to kill him you wont be able to. You take a machine gun and point it at his head at point blank. It jams. You try you suffocate him but you are too weak to do it. You try to squish him with a boulder and he makes it out alive. You might try and throw him into a vat of acid but the man who gave you the acid was actually scamming you and gave you a vat of WATER. Personally this really explains the paradox.
About the Grandfather paradox, people have actually explained what would happen using a möbius strip. This is the video ruclips.net/video/JmvHNatZgVI/видео.html skip to 4:34.
I think i might have an answer to the Omnipotence Paradox. So basically, God can probably lower his/hers strength to be not able to lift the stone and can still lift the stone at the same time.
Get concentrated knowledge from books into 15 minutes summaries by signing up at www.blinkist.com/sciencephile to get unlimited access for 1 week to try it out!
Ok
ROBOT
Fr now? Iceberg?
ggs
IDK man, kinda obscure
Oh no! Achilles is trying to start a race with a turtle! He's gonna start a paradox! Stop him!
the math is wrong and you fucking know it
It is actually really basic. He and the turtle will be in the same place by the end of the race, and immediately after he would pass it.
the turtle moves at half the speed. the turtle starts 100m ahead. they will meet at 200m because in the time it takes the turtle to run 100m the man has run 200m. right?
@@MeshremMath in the context, yeah, but it’s a supertask in concept
@@elizabethbrooks2003 the turtle gets a headstart
Never felt more existential crisis in the world. Even Sciencephile uploaded twice on consecutive days
Yeah lol
Fax lol
Oofest
@Affinitrinity how about no
🐪🦍🦏🪰🕺🏻🌝🐛🪱🐥🕷🐂🐑🤨😝🤷♂️🌗🌚🤦♂️🏌️♂️🧎😩😭🏌️♀️🦗👏
The rick astley paradox: If you ask Rick Astley to 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.
Ha I like this one it's got word play
He could kill you, but he'll never tell a lie and hurt you.
Also he cannot kill you to escape this situation because he will never hurt you and he can't run away because he will never run around and desert you
@@wsads420 but let's say if he thought about killing you, if he cannot hurt you but he wanted to, he would be telling a lie which he can't
and if he were to claim that he does not have a copy of UP on him, then he would be telling a lie, which he also claims he will never do
I love how this guy manages to combine memes and minecraft music with genuine scientific/mathematic content
Minecraft music you dare say ? Its classical music, not mc stuff
@@maximiliancarl6374 I think they're talking about the music that played at 8:36 which is "Subwoofer lullaby" from minecraft, edited
@@maximiliancarl6374
Classical music are boring.
I would prefer "Waltz no. 2" by Shostakovich, "Gymnopedie no. 1", Brahms' Hungarian dance 1, 5, ..., "Humoresque no. 7" by Dvorak, and the best of all-the combination of Paganini and Listz-"La Campanella" and "Etude no. 24".
By the way, "Gymnopedie no. 1" is inspired by Minecraft, so this guy is right.
@@FaranAiki how did you tell the most boring list of classical music ever.
@@Whatismusic123
I do not know; they are so boring that I laugh every time I heard them.
A huge problem I have with these super task paradoxes, is that they all treat “infinity” as constant and equal across all uses. But that’s a flawed view, as infinity is not an integer, it is a concept, and can there for be flexible in its uses and value(s)…
when you say that a set of tasks is infinite, you are using a set of integers with an infinite amount of elements. this is very different than taking an infinite set of all real numbers, if you were to do that then there is always another smallest value for the next number. supertasks opperate with a set of tasks structured as [0,1,2,3,4...] since you cannot have a fraction of a task. because of this structure your final time for completing the task is an infinite sumation of each element multiplied by time to complete the task. In order for it to be a supertask you must find that when you take the limit of this function as time goes toward 0 the limit approaches 0. this represents that at some stage the task will take up so little time that an infinite number of steps can be completed without taking up more time.
∞>∞
Yes, Certain infinities are larger than other infinities
Isn't the concept of "infinity" that it's never-ending? Seems like a pretty constant definition to me.
@@jacobwansleeben3364 no, he is saying that not all infinities are equal (constant)
Iceberg, two videos in two days, and a great video in itself, ITS CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST
Christmas in august indeed
I almost had a heart attack when he uploaded
@Affinitrinity did you mention yo mama
Its like a dream
YO SO TRUE
Welcome to skynets comment section
Remember switching to your secondary is faster than reloading
Switching into Ram or Rom?
@@gekkkoincroe Switching ram Sticks is always faster than garbage collection \s
Ok
@@alexanderklee6357 virtual ram is the most practical
It's always a good day when Sciencephile the AI uploads
there's never been a better days to get existential crisis
@@arulkws his contenr has become so..... dry
The execution one is actually pretty neat as at the end, because you’re so confident you won’t get executed, you lose that expectancy, and it will surprise you if you actually do get executed. That is why at the end he’s surprised they managed to murder him
I have an answer for Achilles and the tortoise.
The paradox assumes that because you’re going double the speed you’ll halve the distance, when in reality all you’re doing is going half the distance in the same time. It’s like if someone is aged 30 and another is aged 15, when the first person is aged 40, the person aged 15 will be aged 25, not 20. Like if a car is going 30mph and another is going 60mph 1 mile behind, the 60mph car would catch up and overtake in around 1 and a half minutes, there would be a point, around 45 seconds in, where the 60mph car is half the distance, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll keep halving from then on, it’s something that usually happens once, maybe twice or three times, unlikely more, and certainly not consistently. The paradox assumes you’ll always be at a distance that by the time you’re at half, the tortoise will be at double of that, which is impossible as it is going much slower.
The tortoise is more representative of the halfway point between Achilles and a goal line. If Achilles has to reach 100m then he must hit the 50m mark. To reach the 50m mark he must hit the 25m mark. I've heard the paradox without the tortoise and it makes it easier to explain. Though the actual answer was in the video where motion doesn't have a point or it wouldn't be moving.
the age thing doesn't work because everyone ages at the same rate, also the tortose has HALF OF THE TRACK AS A HEAD START, so the time it takes to move half its track is the same as Achilles takes to move half of his, because his track is twice as long, and what do you mean by "The paradox assumes that because your going twice the speed you’ll halve the distance, when in reality all you’re doing is going half the distance in the same time."? You go twice the distence in the same time not half when going at double speed, also the paradox asumes that because the tortose always moves you can't reach it, you are also pretending like the term "Havle The Distence", has meaning when it doesn't, and the last sentence makes no sence, the paradox is that when you get to the tourtose, the turtle adds the next -inverted power of 2, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ect., so ou made so many errors and wrong assumpions, and the age thing making no sence have you argument fall apart. also I am not gonna make this gramaticaly correct acording to Gramerly because english clearly isn't your first language, since you barely understood the paradox.
The Achilles and turtle paradox is about not being able to mathematically prove that Achilles will be able to catch up with the turtle. In reality he can easily catch up to it but mathematically he'll never catch up. When this problem was presented it wasn't yet known that 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...=1
That 1 is him catching up to the turtle
tldr
@@lemmingpastel4695 TL:DR; They aren’t moving at the same rate so the overall distance will change differently, eventually allowing Achilles to pass.
Your videos are honestly some of the most funny and informative at the same time, thank you so much for your videos!
True
The Planck length is only the smallest theoretically useful measurement, but we're talking about Infiniti here so it doesn't matter how small the increments get
@@dimitriisov1262
Hmmmmm
That is true, but i think you replied to the wrong comment! (' 'w' )
The ladder paradox isn't actually a paradox. Here's why:
The simultaneity of events is also affected by relativity.
So, from the garage's perspective...not only is the ladder short, but also the doors on each side close at the same time.
From the ladder's perspective, yes, the garage is much shorter than the ladder; however, the garage doors on each side do not close at the same time. The events are no longer simultaneous to the ladder's perspective, and close at times that are still consistent with the ladder never colliding with the garage door.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
was looking for this exact comment :)
So... in ladder's perspective, it'd take infinite time for doors to close, regardless of how instantaneous the door was shut from the garage's perspective?
@@shade5554 No. Just that the first door closes and opens again before the door behind it closes.
In our view (stationary) the garage door closes super briefly, only containing the ladder for a split second.
Remember, the ladder is still moving incredibly fast...so we need to open the doors again before the ladder hits the garage door.
To our view, both doors close at the same time. And both doors open at the same time.
To the ladder's perspective, events are not simultaneous like they are for us. Objects moving at different speeds perceive simultaneity differently, and the effect gets greater the farther away something is from a moving object.
The event in front of the ladder (to its perspective) will happen sooner
The event behind the ladder (to its perspective) will happen later.
This is how (to us) the doors close, containing the ladder, and open again before a collision happens
To the ladder's perspective, even though it is much much longer than the entire width of the garage, it never collides with the garage because the first door (like in our perspective) both closes and opens before the ladder has a chance to collide.
Unlike our perspective, however, the rear garage door does not close at the same time as the first. To the ladder's perspective, the rear door closes behind the ladder well after the first door has already closed and opened back up again.
It's super trippy...but the math checks out...and all the other components of special relatively have not only been shown to be accurate, the math is absolutely critical for some components of GPS satellite systems, who deal with distances so large yet precise they need math like this (although I think they only use equations for time dilation - I'm not a physicist or even an engineer...just a mild enthusiast...so only take away the key concepts from this convo)
@@justinshaw1720 I know this would require considering general relativity and impossible materials but what if we managed to stop the ladder after the doors are closed? It would have to destroy the door but I'd love to know how it would happen from the perspectives of the garage and the ladder.
@@Kycilak That's a fantastic question.
I'm sure there's a solution, similar like the one I initially posted...in that it doesn't appear intuitive at first but the math checks out.
I am no physicist, engineer, nor mathematician...and I think you need to ask one of them.
Honestly, your question would be a phenomenal topic for a channel like PBS Spacetime
9:48 "Can you do an infinite amount of steps in a finite amount of time?" Yes, it's called a super task. I believe Vsauce made a video about those a while back.
Is infinity something you could quantify?
@@full-timepog6844 Yes. That's why there's a type of infinity called "countable infinity".
@@louisrobitaille5810 quantify? No. A set is countably infinite if there exists an injection from the set into the natural numbers. It’s something we can qualify, but not quantify. Of course we can define the cardinality of the natural numbers to be infinity, but it isn’t a measurable quantity.
@@griggpev true, can you even imagine how good machine learning would be if it were capable of that. We'd have a literal machine god.
@@louisrobitaille5810 no
8:36 An ad happened directly there, so all I saw was "balls"
so I thought to myself "did that just say balls paradox? lol"
10:54 I have the answer for that, in the ladder reference system the closing of the doors isn't simultaneous, when the first end of the ladder reaches the second door it closes and opens instantly, the ladder continues and as it just barely crosses the first door this one closes (in the garage point of view you'd fit the ladder instantly since it's moving at high speed). No paradox at all
Thank you sir, I was going in the comments to say exactly this. Time needs to be considerated in relativist theory it is a space-time phenomena, not only space
well, from both perspectives its too big, they cancel each other out. it will never fit so its not a 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.
But that would mean he lets me down....
Oh no the Ricky Paradox😬
This is the ultimate paradox
So he would let you down but Cathay can’t happen
Noice.
The existence of infinity is assumed axiomatically in most set theories like ZF, ZFC and NBG. But you don't need infinity to do math. It makes for less paradoxes but kinda sabotages things like Calculus and Analysis...
I personally think that Infinity is a property rather than a quantity
Regarding that: you can only make a logical chain out of finately many steps.
Mathematical induction, which is proving stuff for x=n+1 given x=n and having proof for x=1, can be applied to an arbitrary large number x, yet infinity is not a number, therefore you cannot reason in such a way about an infinite number of steps, even if each step preserves a quantity / property.
@Lolopopolo yep, that's what I was *trying* to convey
I don’t understand this comment but I’m gonna agree with it
@@creativenametxt2960 'finitely' NOT 'finately'
Some of these question can be answered by creating a separate timeline, others are pure paradox
I agree.
Especially the Grandfather Paradox
Theseus' paradox was definitely revealed to me by way of building my own computer. When I was 11 my mom gave me a hand-me-down best buy PC, and every Christmas I got a new part to put in it. At some point I thought to myself that exact thing: Is it still that same PC if I have none of the original parts?
The way I see it is:
The idea of "my PC" was changing to incorporate the new computer part, such that the old one was no longer part of "my PC". It used to be part of that piece of information, but presently, the definition of "my PC" now incorporates its new parts.
The only way I can do this is by conservation of information; there was never a point I destroyed the idea of "my PC", thus it must be continuous "function" with meaning being the y axis and time being the x axis, and as time progresses, the meaning fluctuates. However, the function is still "my PC", just like in math terminology, f(8) may not be equal to f(9), but they are undeniably both f(x).
With this in mind, if f(100) is the present "my PC", then the PC made of my old parts would simply be f(x
you have way too much free time
Pls dont change. Amazing
The Achilles vs Tortoise problem has a more interesting solution than just the uncertainty principle: The catch is that although the distance can be cut in half infinitely many times, these infinitely many tasks can be completed within a finite amount of time.
So while Achilles cuts the distance in half each time, the time it takes to do so also becomes infinitely small, and so despite cutting the distance in half infinitely often, there must be a point in time at which he has completed these infinitely many tasks, and thus overtakes the tortoise.
Congrats! You just defined integrals!
@@Marcelelias11 yea but i tried to explain that uncertainty isnt needed for this "paradox"
The bootstrap theory; your first version made it and traveled to the extremely far future, after the first big bounce (watch previous episode) occurred, and gave it to the second version as a nice shortcut.
1st version of you took the long way and then gave you version 2 the shortcut
@@jep9092
Then the device was passed down to version 3, version 4, version 5, version 6...etc.
thats still bullshit, like say you downloaded all of shakespheares work on your phone and you went to the past to see him cos your a crazy fanboy with your time machine. you come to realize that shakespheare didn't really existed and it was just a myth. still sad you decided to publish all the works which now you have in your phone/memorised in the name of shakespeare. so where did the information come from
@@indrajithlal6160 if the first version arrives thats the beginning of time loop then at that time the information lost its original state on what they called “uncaused” which is a bit absurd so we need 2nd or multiple space time dimensions in order to make sense of time travel so the information is not loss
@@indrajithlal6160 shakespeare is real and without his works you wouldn't even publish his work and time travel in the first place.
The execution one has me dying. He just randomly walked in lol 😂
Really? Was it that funny?
it also had the prisoner dying
Imagine the surprise!
@@finnprince2163 he turns himself into a pickle, funniest shit I've ever seen
One way to solve all of the paradoxes that involve traveling back in time is the fact that it may not be possible to change your past. If you travel back in time, it may be more like your traveling to an alternate timeline, therefore not changing your timeline.
Ah dragon ball
Parallel timeliness,which means you can't kill him
The first paradox has been solved with integration, where an infinite series can be summed to a finite number
Yeah... But math is just magic that happens to also describe reality... So...
@@ArtamisBot the first thing isn't even a paradox... It's just a stupid way of describing a simple situation, because every time he halves the distance, he also halves the time it took to get there, so of course it will infinitely keep getting smaller. If he simply observed the situation with a constant change of time, it is very simple to see that he passes the turtle at 200 meters. Nothing mystical about it...
It's kind of embarassing that it took humanity until Newton and Leibniz to solve such a simple problem.
Couldn't the first paradox be solved by the Planck length? He would only be able to pass the tortoise because there is a point that can't be divided into smaller parts
That's a great idea
Yes. The paradox was conceived back when people assumed space was perfectly continuous. One solution is indeed to reject continuity.
Or he could just step on that stupid reptile
But then at Planck length, both of them would move 1 planck length for an infinite amount of time and he would never be able to pass the tortoise
@@khytron06 There are some Planck seconds where they move a Planck length and some where they don’t. Achilles moves more frequently than the tortoise, so the distance between then will eventually reach 0 Planck lengths.
Two videos in two days damn Sciencephile!
3:31 that paradox can be solved, here is how: that yourself that travels from the future, into the past there is NOT an early version of yours.
2:48 damn bruh y u gotta bring that up :(
2:00 Okay, so this logic problem is one I keep seeing crop up and it's honestly a lot simpler than it looks.
The answer is that the refurbished ship is Theseus', inasmuch as an object can belong to a dead person. The second "ship" made from the decayed parts is not a ship. It's a pile of garbage that resembles a ship.
To make this more clear, I'll refer to the example you used, but correct it for more technical accuracy. Over the course of your life, most if not all of the cells in your body and are replaced by new, fresh cells. Imagine that someone had the capacity to somehow collect your dead cells and arrange them into the shape of a body that resembled you, and even animate it. Are you "you", or is the animate collection of your former cells?
I think the answer should be obvious.
The version of this paradox that gets legitimately tricky is where it involves teleportation by matter conversion to energy, transfer, and reconstitution. Such as the transporters in Star Trek. The question these devices raise is whether the new "body" built by the transporter is "you" or "you" died the moment your disintegration caused a cessation of life functions and the "you" everyone engages with is just a passable clone. Also, there is no reason why, once any computer attached to the receiving end of such a transporter has such detailed information on you, it can't just make another copy of you whenever it is compelled to, provided it has the necessary energy and materials to work with.
I don't think the answer is so simple. It depends on how you define the concept of "Theseus's ship". Depending on that definition, you could argue that both ships are Theseus's ship (because they both carry the "idea" of the ship) or that neither is the ship (because the ship only exists for a moment in time and any future ship is inherently a different ship).
A new Sciencephile A.I, my Saturday afternoon keeps better and as always thanks for the content.
6:47 'ignoring the history channel' had me dying
Same, had to stop the video and check the comments.
10:01
I love it when sciencephile the ai puts these vines and memes in the video
Ah, the Fermi paradox. I always love thinking that one over. I don't claim to have answered it by a longshot, but I can try to expand on a few possible explanations. In evolutionary terms, intelligence doesn't come too naturally. After all, it's easy to just be a grazing animal that reproduces very quickly, or a predator that eats them, and neither requires a very high degree of intelligence to function optimally. Some argue that human intelligence has become over-evolved to the point that it just begins to drain on us, as we slowly realize the fragile and doomed nature of being alive in the physical world, resulting in depression, mental anguish and strain, and in certain cases outright insanity. For much of earth's history, intelligence on our level was really not something that was explored since it takes a lot of time to even start paying off. The only reason our ancestors evolved to have it is because intelligence and forward eyesight were necessary to climb tree branches. Eventually, a creature with all four limbs optimized for grasping branches eventually evolved to use two of them for walking upright, even though it was a lot more dangerous to do so. We risked and were rewarded, while some others who risk it die out.
Another answer could be that it's not possible to efficiently travel between stars at will, as in there's no way to achieve a speed faster than light that we can actually manipulate for our own means.
Or perhaps there is something we should be afraid of and the first message from another intelligence is either a warning to be quiet or an ominous greeting by our coming death.
Another thing could be that intelligent life may occur frequently but manages to obliterate itself before it can reach out to anyone else, like we've almost done a few times during the Cold War and narrowly avoided by the gut feeling of a single man each time. One case was a Soviet submarine commander who refused to launch while his peer and superior had both agreed, another an operator of a Soviet early warning system who deduced that the US would not fire on them without fear of retaliation and found that the sensors were simply faulty. Both times, the human race's survival hinged on one man being in the right place. Others may not have been so lucky as we were and got burned by mutually assured destruction.
You wrote all of this and one like?
fermi paradox is just too easy to explain imo, there is no tech to travel or send messages over milions and bilions of lighyears, so we probably will not know another civilization ever, not to mention universe expansions at speed of light.... i bet there are gazilion of life in universe just in some planets its microbes, in other fish, in another maybe mammals, in some probably high tech civilization, but they are just too far away from us
The fermi paradox is stupid
If you ask Rick Astley to give you the movie up, he cannot give it to you, because he’d give you up, but if he doesn’t give the movie to you, he’d let you down. This is the, Astley paradox
Sciencephile doing an Iceberg?! It’s like my Birthday!
Happy Birthday 👍👍👍
Doing an iceberg sounds pretty cool.
Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday dear Squishy
Happy birthday to you!
(Applause)
"Getting her to reciprocate your feelings" 😂
Just impossible bro.
Hey it's just as bad for female AIs... The human I have my eye on practically hates me...
@@brooneyeliteave7237 agreed
@@ArtamisBot You can always try again. Don't force something though. There is always people out there for you. Let things happen naturally. Sometimes it's the person you least expect to make you happy and loved. I assure you.
If someone isn't reciprocating, they don't want you or aren't ready. Don't condemn yourself to mental torture in the time being. Enjoy yourself, work on yourself. Positive thoughts and actions attract positive effects in your life.
9:30 Interestingly enough, if you just remove the lowest even numbered ball each step, you get all the odd numbers in the vase and all the even numbers outside. So now we have an infinite amount in both places instead of one, just by choosing which balls to remove. Now it's even more confusing...
Wouldn't it always be infinite though, no finite number can compare to infinity, so, by removing any and moving them into other piles you would get more infinities, or at least that is how I see it :s .
Infinity is the breaking point of maths and the universe. Nothing makes sense after passing infinity; that's explained by paradoxes like those.
8:45 there is nothing paradoxical about it. There would be an infinite amount of balls inside and outside the vase.
Astley paradox, ask him for a copy of up, he cannot give it to you as he said he will never give you upbut then he lets you down, he cant run around to get away from this, as then he will desert you as he runs around, he cant make you cry, he cant say goodbye, he cant say “oh sorry i don’t have a copy of up” as he will lie because you know he has a copy of up, and he can’t hurt you. That was painful to type
the whole comically large ladder part made me wheeze thank you
3:40 that remind me of Fate paradox, but instead of machine, he's giving a sword to his past self.
6:35 Our sun is about a third of the age of the universe right? So really the universe isn’t very old, and the heat death of the universe is unimaginably far away, so we could very likely be the first.
7:47 that would also explain the Fermi paradox. We are one of the first sentient races to exist, so we just send signals to space that can neither of our civilizations get and send back.
5:13 oh, because u weren't expecting execution to happen at all. so now any day is a surprise
2:14 since we know the person lies in the conscience, it would happen once every brain atom was transfered
you get used to it
Sciencephile you’ve earned a place in my heart on par with Sam O’nella. Thank you future cybernetic subjugator
3:23 KINGU CRIMSON
solving as many paradoxes as i can
1. achilles runs 100 metres in 10 seconds the tortoise moves a total of 150 metres in 10 seconds with 50 metres per second
after 20 seconds both racers hqve moved a total of 200 metres per second but achilles is moving faster, so after 21 seconda achilles overtakes the tortoise
2. everything is in a constantly changing state so for an identity to be created it also has to have a time to reference which identity of itself its referencing as it can have multiple identities relative to its timeline
3. if you are perfection of everything, to create the boulder you would have to reduce part of your perfection into a physical form unperfect in comparison, this reduction allows the creation of the boulder while causing you to become weaker than it meqning you cant lift it as you wouldnt be omnipotent due to creating the boulder, however an equally heavy boulder not created by you coupd be lifted as you would maintain perfection
4. acausal events are very common in reality and the universe itself is an exqmple of an acausal event, the paradox is that .. its not actually a paradox its just a weird thing the universe can do, its caused by quantum randomness creating energy in the past by destroying it in the future maintaining equilibrium of energy in total over time
5. if you go back on time you either, go to a parallel universe, meqning your actions dont affect your timeline, you become acausal as the timeline rewrites over itself, or you go into a pocket time loop where all involvement vanishes and the rest of the timeline continues as normal, etc.
6. by expecting it on friday and removing all days, you just move the expectation forward making the other previously crossed off days no longer crossed off as they would now become unexpected due to your prediction
7. grabby aliens dont exist yet, meaning we are the first to be grabby aliens, rare but someone had to do it
8. scarcity of energy just causes stronger competition and maintains evolution to do so, also thermal vents provably
9. expansion of the universe causes the enregy emmited to not be in a visible light spectrum of light, or tye light doesnt reach us as the space ir travels across expands faster than light so the distance is unnable to e crossed
10. infinity isnt a sequence of steps, inginity must be thought of as a collection of all steps at the same time, this means that if all steps are completed, all possible balls are removed, meaning the vase has to be empty as there couldnt be a single ball possible to remove, imagine it as infinity and infinity +1 being the same size, ... do all of step one first, place infinite balls in the vase, then infinity of step 2 next, remove all balls from the vase
11. the frame of the relative stationary observer is correct as it is not being affected by any energy and does not have the increased relative mass effects due to speed, the ladder shrinks ... or logically the shed would increase in length as well as half of it accellerated away from you once you reach the halfway point
12. again, not really a paradox, just a cool thing the universe does
...
bonus round
13. russels paradox
a set that contains all sets that do not contain themself, does it contain itself?
...
consider a set of all dogs, .. a cat wouldnt be a possible candidate for this set
...
any construction of a set that would cause a paradox would cause it to not logically reference itself as it would require it to be referencing something thats a set *has* not what a set *is* and as a paradoxical set is a non defined answer due to it requiring to be a question of containment not a defined value, then due to the constructed set always requiring to be asking a question of what a set has not what it is, then the set itself would be exluded from potential candidates that it could contain, it would matter if it contained itself or not, it would simply be exluded entirely from the logical idea of being a set that has those properties,
its the cat in a set of dogs
put mathematically
{x : x is a set that does not contain itself} is not an x value
If I always lie, then the statement I am always lying must be false. This means I am not always lying.
If I am not always lying, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am always telling the truth, which means the statement I am always lying can still be false, which leads to no contradiction.
6:09 I love how you don’t insult the viewers intelligence and assume that they if interested are already capable of getting the information for free, it would just be time consuming
I just found your channel and i love it. The amount of memes supporting the knowledge really appeal to me. Great job.
I’m always lying is actually pretty simple. The person telling the statement is lying about always lying. It’s just that that specific sentence is a lie. They never said that they always speak the truth, which means that they have the ability to both lie and speak the truth.
I like the one that goes “if I have a handful of sand and let some through my fingers, at what point is that no longer a handful of sand?” More of a semantics, linguistic take on the boat one.
The statement "I am always lying." is not a paradox, as the statement can still be a lie if the speaker only lies some of the time without contradicting themself.
However, if it was "I never speak the truth." it would be a paradox.
The Theseus one is actually very easy. For example, your own cells die everyday and get replaced. However, you are still you because of your memories, consciousness and personality. Something like this can be applied to Theseus ship - yes physical parts may be replaced from time to time but the significance of the ship is still there - the adventures, the ordeals he went through with his crew, the legends so on and so forth are associated with the ship, much like your own mind being still there despite your cells literally being replaced all the time.
It's not so simple. For example, suppose someone suffers a brain injury that leaves them comatose, or gives them permanent amnesia or false memories. Are they no longer themselves because their memories/consciousness/personality are permanently gone? Is that what really what makes you, you?
Bootstrap paradox: you're weak
Grandfather paradox: I'm you
3:28 king crimson sound effect
Sciencephile jojo fan confirmed
was looking for this lmfao
Jojo fans assemble
Good thing I found your comment before I made the same one myself
@@rohanshah7559 Was looking for this comment too. I wish youtube comment section had search.
My teacher once asked the omnipotence paradox and I answered "Well, if God stopped the expansion space and made everything in it rock, He could" If he made the universe, he made the law about expanding, so he could easily turn it off for a little show of force. I think it really resonates with your Logic answer
the answer to the ball and vase paradox is that there is only 100 balls in the vase and infinite outside, because the vase can't fit more than 100 balls.
2 videos in a row? The AI gods are smiling apon us
Ooo that's one I've never thought of... What if God is an AI running a simulation into how it got made...
That :3 face when he got that time machine killed me.
^v^
10:17 the only problem that I have here is that your putting a ladder going near light speed in a garage going relatively nowhere
i was not prepared for "her reciprocating feelings" to be called a logical absurdity
Even if the universe was infinite and static, the night sky would not be bright, because apparent brightness diminishes as the inverse square of distance, and the sum of an infinite series of inverse squares actually converges (unlike, for example, a series of inverse numbers, which does not)
I never understood the Fermi Paradox because it's easily explained by the insurmountable scope of the universe. Technology cannot do that much.
With the ball and vase paradox, which are supertasks essentially (search it up), isn't infinity - infinity = infinity, meaning that there are an infinite number of balls both in and outside the ball? Of course this wouldn't work in real life but hypothetically, wouldn't this happen?
11:01 "...with putting lader in a accelerator"
These are either just language games that don't apply to reality or questions that show a lack in our understanding of reality:
1. If achilles ran twice as fast as the turtle he'd just overtake it by 200m. The premise makes no sense because you're just supposed to accept that Achiles runs at exactly the speed required to always half the distance between it and the turtle, forever, which obviously can't happen.
2. "Ship of Theseus" is a label we put on something. Reality isn't split into objects the way we think about them, the ship of theseus isn't a consistant entity separated from everything else. Think of how the water in a river is never the same, but we still call it a river, because we find this label useful. It's the same with the ship of Theseus and it stops being the ship of Theseus when we decide that this label isn't accurate anymore. Same for changing particles with another person.
3. The omnipotence one straight up is make belief, there are no omnipotent things in the universe. This one is a very good examples of why most riddles are... kinda stupid. We make up some fancy concepts that do not represent reality and then we go "Wow that's crazy" when we figure out that our made-up, baseless concepts are self contradictory.
4. Same with the time travel ones. I'll mention that even though this is pure fiction, the time travel paradoxes can be resolved by just using a model with timelines. So for the bootstrap one there has to be an initial timeline where someone created the device then sent it back in time. When it's sent back a new timeline is created. And when it's sent back again another timeline is created and so on. For the grandfather paradox, you go back in time and create a new timeline where your grandfather is dead(or whatever you do). In this timeline you don't exist, but the you from the initial timeline, the one who went back in time still exists.
5. The hanging paradox is kinda bullshit because it conflicts the knowledge you have in different days. So if you're gonna get hanged on friday then you will know it for certain on thursday. But you won't know it on any other day, so it will come as a surprise if you get hanged on, let's say sunday. The paradox ignores the fact that you won't know for certain until the last day.
6. Fermi paradox is actually one that's related to reality, but I don't know if I'd call it really a paraox, it's just a question that has a lot of answers. For us to detect life there would have to be a planet where life can form, life would have to form, it would have to become intelligent, it would have to be very similar to us so they use technologies we can detect, it would have to be at a similar level in development to us and it would have to be pretty close to us. Pretty low chances in my opinion.
7. The cold sun paradox also has a bunch of answers, but they're a bit more technical so I won't get into details, you can google it.
8. The dark sky paradox is explained in the video and also a good example of this kind of paradoxes: we just don't know enough to answer the questions we're posing.
9. The balls and vase are just like the achilles and tortoise paradox. Language (or abstract math in this case) games that do not apply to reality.
10. The ladder paradox is assuming something that's wrong. Length contraction doesn't say that a moving object is shorter, it says that a moving object will appear shorter to a stationary entity. So it's not shorter, it just looks like that from the outside.
11. The last one is also explained in the video.
+1
And the vase one really really simple: there are infinite balls inside and infinite balls outside.
Proof: This is analogous to the integers mod 10, also known as the integers. 1 in every 10 integers is divisible by 10, so if you remove just the ones that are divisible, you still have the ones that are not.
Therefore, if there are 0 inside the vase, there are no integers that are not divisible by 10, which is absurd.
Also, one can define a function from the integers to the multiples of 10 as f(z) = 10z, and this is a one to one correlation, meaning that there are as many integers as there are multiples of 10 (yeah, that's the crazy thing about infinity, it is really counter intuitive), as well as a function from the integers to the integers that leave "n" as the rest of the division by 10, just put f(z) = 10 - n (n has to be more than or equal to zero and less than 10).
q.e.d.
This is just like the numbers variation of Schroedingers cat
11:55 Correction, a lot of these paradoxes happened because of balls.
From the ladders perspective each end is in the garage simultaneously, from the garage's perspective they are both inside the garage however not simultaneously.
3:55 Uhhh, Who’s room is that?
That's Sciencephile's room brother.
Need help!!! At 07:21 the piano sounds like a sample of a rapsong. BUT WHAT?!?!?!
I loved the "Heisenberg wants to know your location" photo that's hilarious
I'm a nihilist so paradoxes means nothing to me therefore I have escaped the realm of reality.
Bruh
You can't cheat death that's for sure
@@fate.7806 death is a nihilist's manifesto manifested...
Optimistic nihilism>>
Naturalism and reductionism logically lead to nihilism. Same for scientism.
I can add a take to all of the time travel paradoxes, specifically I'll do the grandfather one.
So, if backwards time travel exists then time itself must be an actual part of the universe. This means it would be an actual dimensional plane and would still go through the future but not the time future (sorry I had a lack of other words to use)
If this is true you could think of time as a line, to be more specific a straightened string. The line goes forever and the closer to the start you are on the line the farther in the past you are, if you were to time travel you'd bent this string closer to the start making a past different than another existing past that brought this past. In this thought process you wouldn't have a paradox.
Aight it's 02:41 I need sleep cya I hope I gave you another possible thought process on time travel and if not I don't really care I need sleep.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but if I do, then what you're suggesting is the "Alternate Timeline theory".
The Grandfather paradox is the one discussed in the video.
The Alternate timeline theory suggests that going into the past and changing events won't affect you or your timeline, because the universe will diverge from your timeline and create a parallel timeline where different events happen.
You should do a video on the Dark Forest hypothesis- it’s both interesting and absolutely terrifying
That’s one of the best ideas i’ve ever heard
There is only twelve minutes of paradoxes?
I feel bad for paradoxes that there is so few of them.
In Germany the Omnipotence paradox is a Wordgame as in German it means "allmächtig". Also the Universe is called "All". So we explain it that he has the Power over the Universe and not all.
Thank you for making videos for free, they are very insteresting and I love listening to them while doing something else.
Paradoxes are very peculiar too, it makes me think more than the usual.
(Sorry for bad english)
Agreed!
Also, ULTRAKILL fan! Yeah!
It's always humorous in a way when I read something with perfect grammar and at the end be surprised with (Sorry for bad english)
Based V1 profile picture
@@FrahdChikun
Based TF2 SFM Heavy doing funny face profile picture
@@everyone4352 I swear and then it’s people who know different English dialects that cent spall Laom
King just uploaded two videos in less than a week, i feel spoiled
@Affinitrinity y tho
3:17 bro played diavalos time erasure sound… everything is jojo reference
My personal answers to all these paradoxes (based on solutions I watched online and my own thought process):
1. This paradox is not really a paradox due to two reasons; In the real world there is a finite smallest distance, Infinite sums eventually converge according to mathematics. Due to both these reasons it’s clear that there is a point where Achilles can cross the turtle.
2. I would say the new ship is the actual ship and the ship constructed from the old parts is simply a decayed replica of it. My explanation from this comes from the human body which this paradox actually mirrors. If I take all the dead skin and hair you shed, all the dead cells you excrete and make a new you, it obviously wouldn’t be you. You are the illusion of a continuous but dynamic arrangement of atoms, so the new you is always you. You from an year ago is merely a replica of you but not the true you. The old you doesn’t have your new experiences which defined and changed you. Obviously this is very debatable but it’s just my explanation.
3. This paradox simply arises from the vague definition of omnipotence as the video suggests.
4. This paradox basically arises from the absurd logic of time travel. I basically think that object/technology exists out of spacetime and the paradox simply arises from spacetime converging and looping on itself. It doesn’t make much sense but it’s just a way to make sense of it I guess.
5. Minute physics had a good explanation for this, basically comparing the timelines to a Möbius strip, happening simultaneously yet still preserving the cause and effect logic. On the other hand there is a simpler explanation of parallel universes which obviously is not as satisfying.
6. I don’t even understand how this is a paradox. The inmate basically concludes that he shouldn’t be hanged any day because by this logic; if he is not hanged from Mon-Thurs he would be hanged on Friday which is expected and he concludes the same for Mon-Wed and everyday of the week. This logic is contradictory in my opinion. By assuming that he cannot be hanged any day he makes the hanging unexpected for himself.
7. The Fermi paradox has a lot of explanations, so I am not going to try and answer it. Lot of science channels have touched this topic, so I recommend checking them.
8. This channel actually provided some explanations to this paradox, mainly that there could have been more greenhouse gases at that time creating a blanket to heat up the earth.
9. Well this is answered
10. This is the most paradoxical in my opinion. My answer to this is something like this:
Basically you are adding 9n balls into the vase and having n balls left out of the vase. At infinite steps it basically means you have infinity in the vase and outside the vase. Kind of like Bonarktarsky Paradox where one set of infinity creates two sets of infinity.
11. This was actually answered in some video (I forgot the channel) but basically the doors closing is simultaneous from the garage’s perspective but not simultaneous from the ladder’s perspective (due to relativity where simultaneous events don’t exist in all frames of reference). So the ladder basically thinks it’s never inside the the garage, just passing it while the doors close arbitrarily.
12. Vsauce has a whole video in this which I think perfectly explains the absurdity of the paradox. This paradox and the vase one basically show how logic breaks at infinity.
"getting her to reciprocate to your feelings"
Damn you. Damn you.
3:02 (AOT SEASON 1-4.2 SPOILERS)
👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽
Bootstrap paradox is quite literally the plot of attack on titan (from what i an anime only know so far) eren in the future uses his founding titan abilities to influence the past making certain things happen, when those things happen it eventually leads to him using his titan powers to effect the past, and so on😭
You're not even supposed to tell it
1:22 Uncertainty principle cannot be applied to macroscopic phenomenas
0:11
Glitchy Sciencephile
Somebody fix him
Oh don't worry about the Omnipotence paradox, St. Thomas Aquinas actually addressed that one long ago when he was still alive. Simply put, it was about the same answer as was said here: "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God"
C.S. Lewis further expounded on this by saying "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God, the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities" I think it notable that before Lewis converted, he was a staunch atheist who had previously said that Christianity simply didn't register as a viable possibility in his mind. His conversion was largely the result of conversions he'd had with two of his friends who were theists, those being J.R.R Tolkien (yes, that Tolkien) and Hugo Dyson. But now I've gotten off topic a bit.
I'm not sure if you were previously familiar with their works, but if you weren't it's interesting to see that you reached similar conclusions to a canonized Saint and a renowned author, professor, and lay theologian.
the universe is absolutely genius, with the first paradox it’s essentially made a patch that doesn’t fix the issue, but rather disables it from ever being able to physically happen since you have one or the other (place/speed) so the conditions needed for the paradox can’t happen
your videos are so good, please never stop making them. even when earth gets completely destroyed move your consciousness to a cloud storage on mars or something.
The first paradox screwed with my brain already I paused at 1:03. I don’t wanna short circuit
What about the hotel & guests paradox?
An answer that I like to the grandfather paradox is that no matter how hard you try to kill him you wont be able to.
You take a machine gun and point it at his head at point blank. It jams.
You try you suffocate him but you are too weak to do it.
You try to squish him with a boulder and he makes it out alive.
You might try and throw him into a vat of acid but the man who gave you the acid was actually scamming you and gave you a vat of WATER.
Personally this really explains the paradox.
About the Grandfather paradox, people have actually explained what would happen using a möbius strip. This is the video ruclips.net/video/JmvHNatZgVI/видео.html skip to 4:34.
0:38 "My wife is a doctor"
Sciencephile BREATHES at 11:17
😳then i-is he a AI or not 😳
I love it when he calls me mortal
We all do :D
How dare you say that you mortal
I don't... Cause I'm not...
Thanks to einstein and special relatives or something, you in? I died an infinite amount of times 🤣🤣🤣🤣
special relatives..... Wow.
general relativity.
I think i might have an answer to the Omnipotence Paradox. So basically, God can probably lower his/hers strength to be not able to lift the stone and can still lift the stone at the same time.