5 Mind-Bending Paradoxes Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 окт 2023
- Video Sponsored by Ridge. Check them out here: ridge.com/sideprojects and use the code "SIDEPROJECTS" to get 10% OFF!
This video is #sponsored by Ridge.
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
Video Sponsored by Ridge. Check them out here: ridge.com/sideprojects and use the code "SIDEPROJECTS" to get 10% OFF!
Scary thought
thanks, now i understand loki.
hi knockoff vsauce!
Im hoping you talked about the Movie from the 80's "Time Rider". The loop that he created his own generation of family members, by accident.
@@latenighter1965 'predestination' is a good loop one too. 'Primer' seems to fit with the Novikov self consistency principle, if i remember correctly
The Astley paradox. You ask him for a copy of the movie Up. However, Rick cannot give you the movie because he’s never gonna give you Up. But by not giving you up he is letting you down.
I needed that laugh today. 🤣
Omg! Mind blown! He did say he's never gonna give you Up AND never gonna let you down!! Suck on that philosophers!!
an interesting thing is Up didnt exist in 1987 so either someone went back in time and gave him the movie or he came up with the idea and sat on it for 20 years
Never thought I’d be Rickrolled on Simon’s channel. Well done!
That's the definitional fallacy. But I applaud the effort.
Paradox is infinite numbers of Simons with infinite numbers of youtube channels.
infinitely going off-script in infinite tangents
One day will make a video about everything
Feels more like reality at this point
Welcome to the Simonverse😂
That’s not a paradox - it’s just reality.
The Ship of Theseus paradox appeared in Only Fools and Horses when Trigger explains he's had the same broom for 20 years despite it having 6 new heads and 7 new handles.
I was going to make this reference ffs 😂
Me too. A gem. @@kieranbromiley4053
In Futurama Hermes upgrades his body with robotic parts peice by peice, while Zoidburg scavanges the old Hermes parts and builds a different Hermes. Eventually Hermes replaces his brain (the last original part) for a better robot brain and Zoidburg uses the old brain to complete his "Hermes" lol
As a crossover,I would have loved it if Rodger Lloyd Pack's character had once,just once,said to Harry Potter."Take care of your broom!"
Am I the only one who does not think it's a paradox? I mean, if you have a ship, buy a new item for the ship, do you say "I removed the old part and put in a new", indicating that you know you trow out a part from the ship and replaced with an item that is not the ship and incorporate it as part of the old ship. If you keep doing it, do you know that you have replaced every part in the old ship, so this is no longer the old ship.
The ship of Theseus seems like it would be a very important topic in the preservation of historical artifacts. To me, renovating an old building too much can indeed strip it of any historical significance. Also, a lot of times, collectors will reject certain types of items if they have been restored, but not other types of items.
It's subjective. One person may say once you pass 50% it is no longer the original. Another may say once you replace a single piece with a new one, it is no longer the original. You cannot pinpoint an opinion unless everyone agrees unanimously.
Once the last original piece is replaced, I feel like it’s no longer original.
@@augustyntchorzewski7615in my opinion objects are original if they retain the configuration they had when they were made. Classic cars are a good example. Basically no classic car is "original" because they all had services and maintenance during their lives. A model T that's had 90% of its parts replaced is still a model T.
Whether it is a model T does not matter. It can be a model T without being original. Again, it is subjective, not a paradox.@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24
I like the idea of virtually recreating structures. As computer graphics improve, the experience won't be distinguishable from the real thing. Something along the lines of VR but leveled up.
The Ship of Theseus actually happened with the band Yes. All of the original members eventually left the band and then were replaced. The original members then re-formed a band. BOTH versions at one point toured as "Yes."
That's cool. Would be interesting how that would be solved legally. I would guess that the band with the new members would win. Maybe?
Grandfather's old axe. 3 new heads and 5 new handles.
@@Chris-hx3om Some people's PCs might also fit.
Molly Hatchet played down the road from my house a few years ago.
Or if you want to be more accurate, Molly Hatchet's 4th drummer and his band played right down the road from my house a few years ago.
HAPPENED WITH TRIIGERS BROOM TOO LOL
Simon being on *ALL* the channels in the Whistlerverse, simultaneously putting out new content is most certainly a *paradox...*
Makes the mind swirl.
He probably has infinite amount of writers. :D
nah mate, It's been stated many times that Simon has several clones (two for each channel afaik, but after Simon cut ties with BG/GG/TT six of them were... terminated (with a bullet. To their heads.), plus a substantial number of -slaves- blazement dwellers to pump out scripts for every single Simon.
4th dimensional being in my opinion..
Sideprojects makes a special about megaprojects while viceversa. I dont care if universe explodes. Id watch it.
That lottery paradox and throwing away the ticket is so stupid. You know there will be a winner, you've already paid for the ticket and every ticket has exactly the same odds of winning. It makes absolutely no logical sense to throw that ticket away.
Correct, it is not zero. However, in those mega 7 figure lotto's, I always say the odds of winning is only slightly larger if you buy a ticket. Which shows how limited the odds are for winning. There is a non-zero chance that you could find a ticket or win a ticket elsewhere, or are gifted a ticket: yeah the odds only a bit smaller but just about as small as buying and winning. So, it seems that as long as they exist, we are all playing the lotto.
The paradox comes in the decision to buy, not after.
@@Aleksandar6ix yeah so Simon (I think that's his name) explained it wrong IIRC (haven't rewatched the video). He said he threw the ticket away which implies he's already bought it. Once you've bought it it is absolute madness to throw it away
thesius' ship is like that futurama episode where hermes keeps replacing body parts with robot parts and zoidberg keeps and reassembles him
Not using Fry being his own grandfather is a missed opportunity.
Yess
There was a story written on this premise. They made it into a movie (1980) starring Peter Firth, 'The Flipside of Dominic Hide'. Well worth a watch.
Philip J. Fry made damn sure that he'd still be there
@@Chris-hx3om There's a movie from 2014 named "Predestination" that was loosely based on Robert Heinlein's1958 short story "All You Zombies." The short story is very entertaining and I recommend it. The movie was mediocre, but not a total waste of time. I recommend it if you've had a couple of Ouisghian Zodas on a Thursday evening and have nothing better to do or watch.
First thing I thought of also futurama season 9 episode 7 6 million dollar man is another futurama episode explaining another one
I love how the writers make him talk about Lord of The Rings when he couldn't care less.
They aren't really writers. They are time travelers who are huge fans of the exhaustive LOTR series he hosts from 2025 all the way until his on-stream death in 2072.
@@burbanpoison2494 Coincidentally, when I am asked what I would do if I could go back in time is that I'd take my entire J.K. Rowling library, go back to about five years before she started writing 'Harry Potter', type them out and send them to her very own publisher or one much like it. J.K. would be none the wiser, and I'd be the one with more money than the queen. I guess I might anonymously send Ms. Rowling a million one day.
Good ole bootstraps paradox...
Frankly, Simon's disdain for all things Tolkien makes this video amazing
@@samgamgee7384I'd take back my Stephen King collection, write and publish them as my own then make sure the movie adaptations stuck more closely to them so they'd end up being actually good!
One of my favorite paradoxes, and one that I actually think about quite often, is Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox; the more famous one goes like this: suppose someone wished to walk from one end of a street to another; before they can get there, they must traverse half the distance, but before they can traverse that half, they must traverse halfway to half, or a quarter; but before that, still halfway (e.g., an eighth) and into infinity, leading to the conclusion that it is impossible to go anywhere at anytime ever because to go somewhere, one must traverse an infinite number of tasks (going halfway), which is impossible, and yet it clearly is possible since to overcome the paradox, one need only take a single step.
simple solution like all paradoxes: the definition of the problem is semantic bs. it compares apples to oranges. half a task is not a real definition of an action, so comparing that to a real step is the mistake.
This is not a paradox because you are shrinking time while shrinking distance. If you instead want to tiptoe ever smaller toward infinitely small steps, go ahead, but leave us out of it because you will never accomplish it.
@@sshreddderr9409 I'm not sure where the false equivalency comes in per se, since Zeno does not argue that one must take half a step to take a step, so he is not comparing a theoretical half take to a "real" action. One demonstrates the impracticality of the paradox by moving, which has become a theoretical impossibility, but that does not, in itself, overcome the very real mathematical issue proposed by Zeno.
@@CaribbeanMischief And that is precisely the paradox: because one must accomplish an infinite number of steps to complete any action, any action is theoretically impossible.
@@jackturner214its because a step is a real action, while "half a step" is a theoretical , abstract and recursive mathematical definition of a certain length. as soon as you define the step as a step with a real, meaning non recursive length no matter how small, meaning there is no recursive reference being used, the paradox goes away cause now you are comparing real actions cause you are talking about real steps.
its a semantic error to treat an abstract concept like a real thing. recursion is in itself an abstract concept, so as soon as you say "half of anything" you are talking about a concept, not the actual thing with half the length. if you were to replace the word half with the length of that half, the paradox would never be created, because then its not a concept, its a real step you are talking about. no matter how much you divide, the moment you mention a concrete length, there is a concrete answer of how many steps it takes to cross the street, because in order to talk about a real step and not a concept, you have to give it a finite length, no a conceptual one.
I loved the Ship of Theseus paradox, because in the classic car world, Standard-Triumph made 6 Le Mans Spitfire Race Cars, I was involved in tracking down survivors. After several years of work, involving travelling all over Europe to inspect cars & parts, we came to the conclusion that of the original 6 cars, at least 18 have survived to the present day! (Apart from total replicas, there are many cars which contain parts of the original cars, i.e. the roof, the wheels, the engine, the chassis etc, some being more, or less original than others)!
Can I have one?
That's fascinating and funny!
Now do the original Batmobile and the original Captain America chopper!!!
Car enthusiast here also, well said
Simon travels back in time and leaves his Ridge wallet with the creators of Ridge wallet who use his credit details to pay for producing the first Ridge wallet.
Triggers broom in only fools and horses is a bit like the ship of Theseus
When we are able to go back in time, I feel "a sound of thunder" is how this will work.
When I was a teenager, I wrote a short story about a depressed time traveler at a bar. The way time travel worked in this story had no paradoxes.
I figured out at a pretty young age that, in general, the universe doesn't give a damn what i tis we're doing. This was reflected in this story.
The time traveler was depressed because his time machine was locked to go forward and back in time a set amount of time, so as time moved forward for him, so to did is returning time. The time traveler had gone back in time in order to save the world, and he had succeeded, only when he went back to his own time, nothing had changed, his time was still in ruins. He didn't have the means to build another time machine.
The reason, in the story, that he didn't see a change is because his change moved forward in time, rippling out against all objects he affected, at a rate of one second per second, so he wasn't going to be able to see the effects of his going back in time to save the future because he wasn't going to live for two hundred years.
So, if this story had a person who invented a time machine to go back and kill his grandfather, this would happen exactly once. The other "paradox" of an author being inspired by their own work would only hold true for subsequent "loops" of time and the "first timeline" to have ever happened would have the author creating a true original piece of art.
I think a good analogy of the time travel grandfather paradox is like when you open a tab in Chrome and begin meandering all over the web. You are allowed to go back to your beginning but if for some reason, midway through your return to the start, you see something on one of those previous pages and decide to have a look.
You can still go back to the beginning but are unable to go to where you had originally got to and can only take the branch that you created when you got distracted by something interesting.
Something like that anyway. I didn't quite say it like I wanted because I got distracted.
I think there is something to that.
But going back in your browser history is actually still going forward because when you access any given page, that is the new present.
@@bsadewitz Exactly! You've started a 'new timeline'...
While the old timeline may still exist, you can't go there.
... at least not without a lot of gymnastics.
It's much more like you walked a way and then decided to walk back. You walk locations, not time. You can consider websites as virtual locations.
No, I gotcha. Well said, man.
As to the lottery paradox, there is one factor that you didn't mention, which, in my opinion, is the reason for people playing the lottery or even gambling. That reason is hope. They HOPE for what they perceive as a better future by winning a bunch of money. Emotions can play a major factor in most of these paradoxes, such as where to draw the line of certainty and other things that involve human perception.
hope, on the lottery side. then there is the flip side, politics, voter turnout why is it so low, the feeling of unimportance. did you vote? no. why? i wouldnt make a difference in the outcome. is the same result my 1 ticket against a million my chances are nothing of winning my vote aginst a million others my chnces of making a difference are nothing. two sides of the coin lottery hope, politics hopelessness. both being affect by the one against millions. In the case of politics it is often found there are more non voters than voters and could actually make a difference. i wonder of one feeds the other, by that i mean after playing the lottery and continually losing you taught yourself to believe your input (buying a ticket or voting) does not count. curious if voters are lottery players because they have hope. and if non-voters dont play the lottery due to lack nof hope. interesting thought.
Your example is more a kin to those who do'n't play the lottery in the first place due to the low chances of winning.
A more appropriate voting analogy would be going to the polling place, filling out the ballot then throwing away the ballot instead of presenting the ballot.
In both cases in which one totally opts out of the process, is rational, so is logically valid.
In the cases in wich one initiates engagement but fails a very simple follow through, is irrational, and therefore is logically invalid in my honest opinion. I find this not to be a parodox, but rather, irrational reasoning.
However, I do also think that the many worlds interpretation resolves cases also. As there is a world time line for each outcome, including the ones where noone chooses to buy a lottery ticket and everybody who bought a ticket but threw it away with out checking it against the winning numbers. It even covers the case of the fundraiser planning committee deciding on a silent auction in stead of a lottery as a fundraiser.
However, my personal admendment to the many worlds theory is that, all the worlds exist as virtual world time lines until wave function collapses at the instant the obervation or decision is made. This too would resovle any attempt of backward time travle as once the wave function collapses, it cannot uncollapse.
When I play the lottery, it’s because I can comfortably afford to lose a couple of quid for the minimal chance that maybe I’ll win a life changing amount of cash.
If I don’t buy a ticket, my chances are zero; if I buy one it’s nonzero. It’s worth a punt 🤷🏻♂️
@@slashnburn9234If you buy a ticket the chance of winning is so close to zero, that it might as well be zero. You buy a nice fantasy though, and that can be worth a few quid, if it makes you feel better.
This is how I look at the lottery: 1) While I know the odds are incredibly low that I will win I also know that 2) Someone will eventually win and 3) The odds of that person winning and me winning are identical.
I can thank Vision for educating me on the subject of The Ship Of Theseus.
It’s not about cell replacement, since all our “new” cells are products of the division of our old cells; it’s about atomic/molecular replacement.
The loop paradox never added up for me the way it’s often portrayed. There still would have had to have been an original timeline that set off the events of the loop in motion. In the example of Tolkien, he still would have written the book in the original timeline and that time traveller would have inadvertently changed the origin by leaving the book with him. Had they left it with someone else, that person would have gained fame and there would be a branched timeline. That wouldn’t be a paradox…
That is true but only if traveling back in time will create new timelines. Then another question rises from me: how would these timelines be created? If me and my friend travel back in time to the same date, in separate machines, would we end up in different timelines? If you think about it, the act of traveling back in time should be enough to create a new timeline, because your mere presence is a deviant in that date. So your friend should end up somewhere else as well.
That's only works in multiverse. If there's only 1 timeline you have paradox
But what if Tolkien never wrote the book? Maybe he just copied it from the time traveler in the very first place. It is possible to imagine a scenario where Tolkien gets credit for something he never wrote, but simply was given by the time traveler.
The multiverse hypotheses is a reductio ad absurdum. The emittance of a photon through black body radiation is a random quantum effect, and each photon has a potential (i.e. non- zero propablity) to interact with every charged particle in it's light cone. To claim that the solution to the difference between potential and actuality is that all potential is actualiced in 'parallel universes' is the definition of absurd.
The book came from the real universe, but our simulated universe
My problem with the Hilbert's Hotel paradox is that, to me, it sounds like infinity is being used as a number... but infinity is not a number, but rather the idea of limitlessness. I'm not in opposition of the paradox itself, just the way it is presented.
That's why it isn't considered a paradox
There are actually two sizes of infinity, countable and uncountable. Countable infinite sets can be paired 1 for 1 wroth integers. Uncountable sets can't. Interestingly, rational numbers are countable. Real numbers are uncountable.
While sets are either countable (like finite sets and the integers) or uncountable (everything else) that is not to say there are two sizes of infinity. If two infinite sets have the same "size" then a bijection exists between them. Many uncountable sets have the same size but many don't: there are at least a countably infinite number of sets whose sizes differ. For instance, the power set of the reals, the power set of the power set of the reals, etc.
@ianstopher9111 Not "everything else". Rational numbers are countable. Real numbers are uncountable. Complex numbers are to real numbers as rationals are to integers. That is, not a higher order of infinity. To get higher orders of infinity you have to construct sets of sets. So for "numbers" there are two sizes of infinity. In sets there are an infinite number of sizes of infinity. It's past my area of study, but I have a feeling that the number of sizes of infinity is countable.
My problem with the paradox is…it’s incredibly uninteresting. Should’ve been cut from the video
For the infinite room paradox....the solution I think is that the number of ppl transfering to a new room (and therefore outside the room) so that although the infinite room are infinitely filled, it is at the same time infinitely empty due to ppl moving out of their room to go to a new room.
I believe it makes a difference which order people move in and out of rooms, and which rooms people move into and out of. The order in which you add and subtract terms makes a difference in an infinite series.
In any formula with finite terms, changing the order of the + and - operations will not change the end result. The same is not true for an infinite series.
In summary, If you change the order of + and - in some infinite series formulas, you get a different end result.
The paradox conflates finite and infinite to create the paradox..
It the hotel is fully occupied with an infinity amount of rooms , it will always be full infinitely
That’s not an answer because it can’t infinitely be full and empty at the same time those to completely contradict themselves your just saying what the paradox is but in my other comment I explained why this isn’t even a paradox and how it’s not even possible to move anyone to another room in the first place
According to the premise of the video explaining the paradox, if you move person 1 from room A to room B, and person 2 from room ab to C and so on, that movement would essentially be infinite. And when I mentioned that it will be infinitely filled and emptied at the same time, I take it to mean that either everyone will be in the room before moving out (this emptying the rooms) to move to the next room...this the infinite empty room.
How could you move anyone to different rooms if every single room is occupied. its like saying there's a 100 rooms and they're all full but you can just move everyone up one room. It's not physically possible because every room is already full in the first place. @@112313
Great episode! I’ve heard of one or two of these paradoxes before, but I didn’t fully understand them. Thank you for the simple explanations!
Timetravel gives rise to so many fun models, but the grandfather paradox is only a paradox if we assume a single stable timeline. Other options are a timeline flipping between states, or even just a two timeline stable loop.
I’ve seen models where at each decision, at every turn a new branch of time begins. Kind of like they did in that Rick and Morty episode, where they got stuck between timelines. It does solve a lot of these paradoxes.
Or, if we agree that freewill is am illusion. We could go back in time, buy whatever we do back there is already what happened in the past, meaning we can't make any changes
Nope. Even in a single stable timeline it's easy. There's no paradox because it can't happen. You don't go back to kill your grandfather because you didn't. Even if you try to you won't be able to. Easy.
Well, that's what a paradox is, i.e. SEEMINGLY impossible/self-contradictory.
@@BethgaelYeah, this is my problem with some of these paradoxes. If something like time travel is impossible why waste mental effort in trying to resolve resulting paradoxes? I do get that they can be fun or part of a fictional setting where time travel is possible, but it’s not like those should be a big scientific mystery.
Yes, I am fun at parties.
The Film 'Predestination' is a great example of the last one, it's based off the predestination paradox and, even though it isn't the highest quality film of all time, it's absolutely flawless for plot holes in the time travel paradox it is about. Definitely worth a watch.
Definately a movie worth watching.
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!! it's such a brain bender
Predestination is a good movie. I also like the movie called "Triangle" which has a time loop.
Thanks for the recommendation. Entering downloading mode...
The only real gripe I have with that movie is that half the run time is the dramatic backstory. They could've massively shaved that down and still touched on all the points and leaned heavier on the time travel part. But the time time travel part is amazing. Maybe one of the best time travel movies I've seen once those parts start.
i LOVE these types of video, although, they do make my head spin...
I've always thought that the concept of creating a parallel universe by farting or not farting is incredibly egocentric.
Bootstrap: Tolkien writes LoTR. You go back in time to a point where he hasn’t written it yet and he’s inspired by your praise and takes the book as his own work. Either way the end result is the book is written and published. Tolkien would have written it but having been handed it on a silver platter doesn’t need to. So the left behind book simply takes a different path to the same end. Like a fork in the timeline meeting back with itself and continuing
It's 2 separate timelines. There had to be one where he had to spend time writing that thing. But instead of hypothizing about such absurd stories rather think how they could be tested empirically.
But what if Tolkien never wrote the book at all? What if he just stole credit from the book the time traveler gave him?
@greywolf7577 Well, that is not logical. Such a loop has no beginning so where would it come from. At least once, in a now erased or abandoned timeline, everything must have occurred as we know it leading to the time travel that will erase or abandon the old timeline.
You just gave me the idea that the beginning of the universe is some kind of a paradox, which means it has no beginning or end
A friend of mine got in trouble bringing up Zeno’s paradox. Someone asked after it was explained ‘so…what’s the punchline?’
Time loop paradoxes are destined to be destroyed, duh furturama, explained it perfectly. RIP Lars.
The film Somewhere in time was a great reference to use. Love that film.
Love the Somewhere In Time reference, I hardly ever find people who have heard of it.
Simon throwing subtle shade on lord of the rings is amazing. OGBB
To be fair Tolkien came up with the stories as bedtime stories for his kids and later wrote them down. He would even send stories via letter to his son Christopher while he served with the South African airforce in WWII.
I thought he came up with it as a universe for his conlang.
@@ferretyluv well yea you're right. He created the languages but then made the stories based on the world they existed in from the bedtime stories he created for his children.
The bootstrap paradox only works with information (in a single timeline), an object such like a pocket watch would still suffer wear and tear and eventually stop working. Doctor who actually prevents this when shown why Amy arrived at a museum, she gives him a note in his handwriting, he throws the note away and immediately writes a new one, still a bootstrap paradox but prevents the note from deteriorating over many loops.
Very interesting. I want to follow your thinking, not question you, but how did you come to the idea of deterioration over multiple loops?
@@VictorRobotov00 my thinking is that you could tell yourself a password for example, that works forever, but if you were given a key which you then pass on, the key could potentially rust and break and couldn't be passed on to keep the paradox going.
Edit for clarification; the object would have to be the same one being passed timeline to timeline, if you made a copy and passed that on the paradox works fine.
Then along those same lines, won’t everybody continue to age then?
@@VictorRobotov00 the people in the paradox would be the same age every time it starts over, so if 30 year old me gave 20 year old me a key, when 20yo me reaches 30 and hands the key to the next 20yo me, the key has aged 10 years, do it again 20yo becomes 30, key given to 20yo is now 20 years older, if the loop continues 100 times, the key has aged 1000 years but the people involved only age 10 years (in this example).
It's not the most elegant explanation and I hope I'm making sense
@@richpdavies 🤔hmm…okay okay. I get ya. Thank you for your time. These kinda things are always some interesting stuff.
#1 & 5: Paradoxons 1 & 5 only arise when we assume time travel is possible. I like Terry Pratchett's take on the grandfather paradox: When a group of wizards are projected back to the very distant past in "The last Continent", one of them cautions the others not to tread on any worms. These might be distant ancestors so they could stomp themselves out of existence. The counterargument goes: we exist, and HAVE BEEN here in the past, so whichever worms we tread on were not our ancestors.
#2: seems like an issue that mathematicians need to worry about, but which appears absurd when applied to a real-world situation. What I find more baffling about infinity is this: I cannot imagine an infinite universe. However, when I imagine a finite one, the question what is outside of it immediately arises. So apparently I am also unable to imagine a universe that is not infinite. Maybe there is just something wrong with my imagination.
# 3: I work in restoration, mainly historic buildings. We keep rather meticulous records about which parts have been worked over or replaced. I also have owned a motorcycle for 25 years that is following the path of Theseus' ship. In my opinion, they are what they are, old things parts of which have been replaced over time. The paradox only arises when we are pressed for a definition whether the thing as a whole is the original. When we understand the history of the replacement, the fact that two "originals" exist is no longer paradoxical.
As to #2, it's not just mathematicians, but laypeople in general. Perhaps thinking about it like this would make more sense, there are an infinite amount of numbers between the numbers 0 and 1 (or 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and so on). This is because you can add an infinite amount of 0's after the decimal and still have an actuial number.
The lottery one isn’t really a paradox. It is both correct to assume that any individual ticket won’t win and know that a single ticket will win, which isn’t paradoxical in the slightest
The “replacement parts” paradox occurs at the Tramway Museum at Crich. Are the renovated trams the preserved tram, or a replacement?
I've always taken issue with some of these sorts of time-based "paradoxes". Specifically, the ones where person travels back in time and gives thing to person who then somehow gives thing back to person later isn't acutally a situation where there is no beginning. The beginning would start with an alternative version of the past in which person writes the book legitimately or gives the person the thing which only afterward is changed because the receiver took it upon themselves to go back in time and influence the formation of an alternative history which is THEN stuck in a causality loop, but it isn't really paradoxical because there was a firm beginning prior to the start of the cyclical alternative.
i agree, a bit like the chicken and the egg... the loops might look the same but they are just converging to a balance even though there might be variance
Almost a time paradox version of the tree falling in the woods. If there's no one around who "remembers" the alteration, did it still happen (my answer is yes, to both versions)
also, time travel to the past is impossible, so it’s a giant waste of time to even talk about it.
About that hotel paradox.
To confuse even more, it can fit an infinite number of busses and each one with an infinite number of guests.
But if there's only 1 bus with an infinite number of guests whose names are the combinations of 1 and 0 (so infinite combinations), suddenly it can't fit all the guests, because we can name 1 guest who won't get here.
If we write the guest on the list, even tho it's an infinite number of combinations, there's a combination that isn't on the list.
Just take the 1st digit from the 1st guest and change it (1 to 0 or 0 to 1), then take the 2nd digit from the 2nd guest and change it too.
And 3rd digit from 3rd guest, we can do this infinitely.
Doing that, we're writing a number which has at least 1 digit different from everyone from the list meaning that this number is different from every number from the list making.
And if it is different from any number from the list, then that does mean it's not on the list.
So the hotel can fit an infinite number and each number with an infinite number of guests, but cannot fit an infinite number of guests when their names are made of 1 and 0.
That's the best example for me of how much we don't understand the infinity, something that logically shouldn't be true is true
Interesting stuff.
I've always felt that 'the Ship Of Theseus' is more a philosophical question than anything else. Worth noting that, as I understand it, under maritime law, such a ship is in all respects, considered to be the SAME ship. Although I have no idea what status a ship made out of the discarded bits would have under maritime law..
Unseaworthy?
@@johnbishop5316 Possibly. Not necessarily though.
Throwing away a ticket is an invalid thought.
Do you keep tickets that didn’t win anything?
@@adameschete9165no, but THEY DIDNT EVEN BOTHER TO SEE IF THEY WON OR LOST. THEY JUST TOSSED IT. Stupid. Low odds, yes, but someone out there wins. Whose to say it won't be you next?
@@adameschete9165
You can throw it away after drawing, of course.
Also strange is, if you add an infinite amount of new guests to the infinite hotel, by moving the infinite amount of current guests to a room with an even number and putting the new guests in the rooms with the odd numbers, you still don't end up with more guests in your hotel than you had before. Double of infinite is infinite.
It isn't just adding though. There are an infinite number of integers. Between each consecutive pair of integers is an infinite number of rational numbers. So the total number of rational numbers is, infinity × infinity.
However, rational numbers can be paired 1 for 1 with the integers, so there are the same number of rational numbers as integers.
That is, there is 1 rational number for each integer, but also an infinite number of rational numbers for each integer.
Infinity paradoxes may be interesting from a mathematical perspective but to me they are really no different from time travel paradoxes or asking if Han Solo could beat up Indiana Jones. There can never be an infinite number of anything because the universe is not infinite.
Somewhere back in time, Christopher Reeve’s Victoria principal total blast from the past. Thanks, Simon.
The ship one reminds me of Only Fools and Horses with Triggers broom 😂😂😂
The paradox of "is it the same ship or not" had already been solved by Trigger and his broom😂
And...he got a medal!
I like the initial unintended paradox of buying one of the rings that you can exchange for resizing twice in a lifetime
??
Bravo. Please educate the modern society of Astronomy, enlighten them with your undeniable knowledge and this monumental insight.
An amazing example of the Bootstrap Paradox is the movie "Predestination" . highly recommended.
I prefer the idea that the universe would simply prevent paradoxes. It doesn't mean everything is predetermined, though. It could simply be that once something is in the past it becomes permanently solidified while the future is still like cement that hasn't dried and set yet.
Only the past is fixed. I can come back tomorrow and edit this reply but that just creates a new or modified reply. It won't change what you read yesterday and what you read yesterday doesn't prevent me from changing the reply tomorrow.
But if you can travel to the past, the future and the past are the same. Or, to put it more clearly, if someone came from the future, does that mean your future is now set, meaning you can't do anything other than what future guy knows you do?
@@QBCPerdition That would be another point where the universe would prevent such a paradox. Maybe by preventing you from even being able to do anything that would yield that result. Perhaps only big consequential things are set in stone and smaller individual things are governed by free will and can be changed so long as it doesn't create paradoxes/contradiction. Maybe a time traveler carries with them a pocket of their own time that also prevents them from even interacting with the past in any way that would cause issues. Maybe time travel is restrictive on an individual level and based on where and when you're trying to go.
As far as I'm aware, the arrow of time is defined by increasing entropy.
Time doesn't exist, like you I also don't understand itsproperties
Once 50 percent is replaced, it's less original then replaced.
As soon as a single piece is replaced it is no longer exactly the same ship.
Legally it is the keel
@@rogerturner6377 that isn't the question, and then when you put furniture in a house it wouldn't be the same house.
The hotel one supposedly has some complications around the difference between "countable" and "uncountable" infinities. The Ship of Theseus, when constrained to an actual ship instead of being metaphorical, depends on the model of ship: for some designs it is practically (if not actually) impossible to change the keel without effectively disassembling the entire ship; so some consider the keel the "soul" of the ship, and for them if you're changing the keel it's no longer the same ship, even if you decide to give it the same name after reassembling it.
"the ship" is an illusion. There are simply two ships in one place. One new copy ship being built while the other original is being disassembled
Mentally seperate them in space and there's no paradox. The paradox only appears because the two processes occupy one space and is referred to as "the ship".
The ship of theseus.... all the vehicles in my driveway as I keep replacing parts hahaha
Thanks for reminding me the time i enrolled to a seemingly uninteresting math course at uni and learnt about infinite and the many different type of infinites (i’d say there might be an infinite variations of infinites). Did you also know that in math when you run out of the cyrill alphabet, then you use up all capitals and lower cases in the greek alphabet, then you start using the hebrew?
for the ship of Thesius, once you replace one plank its now "the repaired ship of Thesius". Once all planks are replaced its now "the replica ship of Thesius". And the "ship" built with the decayed parts is now "the dust heap that once was the ship of Thesius"
It's a question of definitions. In this case 'the ship of Theseus' can be defined as an artefact capable of performing the functions we associate with the word 'ship' and which is owned by a person called Theseus. If at every stage of its repair the artefact continues to satisfy these criteria it can reasonably be called 'the ship of Theseus'. That its original components have all been replaced is neither here nor there.
@richardfurness7556 okay... and? My explanation still stands true to your caveat
My favorite time travel story mechanic is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. They traveled to the past and made changes, and then find out later that the older versions of themselves making the changes were already part of the timeline when their younger selves went through that period the first time.
It's a weird combination of being able to change things, but also not. They couldn't actually change the past, but it's because their changes were already part of the past they were trying to change, and their past happened the way it did because of their future time travel to make the changes they already lived through happen.
If you ever get turned away from a hotel, the problem is not that the hotel is full, but that it is full and FINITE
Give us more videos of Simon being forced to talk more about Lord of the Rings 😂
The “add to infinity” paradox is how ive always imagined infinity to work but its still shmeckldorfing
If you really want to learn about it, figure out the difference between "unbounded" and "infinite". For example, there's no number you can't count to, but you can't count over all the numbers.
In any finite range, there are an infinite number of rational numbers (fractions) for each integer. On infinite range, there is one rational number for each integer.
There are two sizes of infinity. Rational numbers are "countable". They can be paired 1 for 1 with integers. Real numbers are "uncountable". They can't be paired 1 for 1 with integers. Which is a larger infinity.
@@briant7265 Actually, it's *at least* two sizes of infinity. I'm pretty sure we've figured out how to make infinities bigger than the number of real numbers.
@darrennew8211 I think there are some constructions for sets that may be "larger". Maybe the size of the set of all sets of real numbers. (Like the set of real numbers 0
@@briant7265 I believe if you raise a power to an infinity, you get a bigger infinity. I.e., a powerset of all elements of a set is necessarily bigger than that original set. I might be misremembering though.
I think all the time machine paradoxes forget that time machines don't and can't exist
The ship: the first replacement part interacted and served its purpose alongside all the remaining original parts. Each part replaced shared its purpose with some of the original parts until the very last original part was replaced. Even then, the very first parts ever replaced were present during the majority of the ships integrity and by bridging that generational gap by being a part of the overlap between the past and the present is enough to consider the very last replacement part as original as the first generation of parts via shared experience.
Interesting perspective Matthew. Well thought out....
@@logotrikes Thank you. I would also like to point out that the ship only exists as an idea any way, in reality it is just wood assembled in a manner as to allow it to float. It is the intention that exists as a real tangible thing when we call it a ship. But, one rogue wave and it becomes just some pieces of wood. At that point, the ship itself shares the same inevitable fate as its replaced parts, no matter how it got there. In that sense, it is the same ship because the ship is only a concept based on our definition which is based off a loose understanding of what matter really is. A ship loose in the wind and subject to the forces of nature is not engaged in the act of sailing. It doesn’t matter to anything not even the ship, what the ship actually is intended for. But when a sailor recognizes the concept of the ship, they use it to sail. The ship doesn’t sail. The sailor sails using a representation of a concept to carry out an idea. It is the intent which makes things what they are. And if the intent of the replacement parts is to be that ship, than that is what it is. Until it is not. And even then at the end of it all, all it ever was to the universe was a pile of wood.
Free will is a great topic I love to think about. I lean to the 'no free will' camp and that every action, thought is the result of a definable process (even if we are unable to do so ourselves). I personally dont think its a depressing thing as some do, and doesnt mean you can just sit back and let fate take the wheel (unless that was your fate). For this atheist, its probably the closest I can come to some sort of 'peace' with the world, knowing that even in failure, I did my best and that was the best I could have possibly done. Its hard to say how i think about it properly but yeah, I just find it comforting that none of us really are in 'control', in the purest sense
How did you do your best, if you had no free will?
Did you then also do your worst?
@@johnarcher9480 not believing in free will is not the same as giving up
@@BasicStealthcamping
If there is no free will, how would you give up? Or, how would you choose not to give up?
Or is it determined that you won’t give up, knowing that it isn’t up to you to give up or not?
@@johnarcher9480 dunno
we are a bunch of chemicals. they determine our mental and physical state. we are basically just a lab tube
Veritasium's video on infinities had a really in depth explanation of Hilbert's Hotel with really helpful visuals. A great watch for anyone whose interest was piqued by Simon's summary.
It's a flawed Paradox though. They specifically state every room is occupied. So they can't just shift someone up, or even try the "double the rooms" because they will all already be occupied by the rules they set forth in the paradox, meaning you cannot ever wind up with an empty room in the first place
@@justinlast2lastharder749
Just get everyone to move out of their room into the hallway at once, and simultaneously move forward towards the next room.
@@justinlast2lastharder749this video's thumbnail was made for you.
@@justinlast2lastharder749was looking for this thread. You are correct, but you be even more correct to say it's not even a paradox at all.
If you say you have infinite number of rooms, then it can never be full. Simple as that. By saying it's full, then it's not infinite.
The Ship of Theseus is kind of like the Star Trek transporter. The transporter diassembles all of you particles (and I'm guessing knows all their energy states) and reassembles them. So in actuallity you are killed and then a new you is reassembled identical to the original.
There was an episode called 'Think like a dinosaur' on the tv series _The outer limits_ where people are teleported and the original person is supposed to be destroyed. There was an accident on the teleportation machine where the original person continues to live causing an ethical dilemma on which person is the real one.
The first paradox is beautifully illustrated by Douglas Adams. A poet writes the most wonderful cycle of poems, called The Songs of the Long Land. Much later a correcting-fluid manufacturer sends a representative back in time to meet the poet and convince him to make a few mistakes - correcting them appropriately. The manufacturer then brings the poet forward in time so that they can put him on chat shows and tell everyone how brilliant the correcting-fluid is BUT he is so busy that he never gets round to writing the poems. No problem, they just send him back again with a copy of his poems (and some correcting fluid) and get him to copy his poems onto some leaves so that they can exist.
I would think that the only actions that are predetermined are that of the choices that have already been made. Meaning that all other actions will lead you back to the point where you haven't yet made a decision on a course of action. That allows for future choices to be made while not effecting the one that have been made already! Leaving the past linear, while allowing the future to stay fluid.
I love these sorts of videos where we go round and round in circles, it just messes with your brain 😄
So the ship of Theseus is the eloquent version of Trigger’s broom
Excellent video, I enjoy mathematical problems and Paradox is one that truly Bends the Mind.
Somewhere in time, such a great and terribly sad, poignant movie.
I saw it as a hard little 14 year old and was blinking tears away.
Haha.
Poor Chris Reeves.
So, the answer to Bootstrap Paradoxes is that there WAS an original timeline, you correct everything with multiverse theory. In the case of Tolkien obtaining his own book to publish it, it would've been that in the original timeline, Tolkien did write Lord of The Rings. But, the creation of the time machine creates two divergent timelines, one where you do travel in time and another where you don't. In the timeline where you do travel, the paradox is solved by creating a Bootstrap Paradox, where the cause is the effect and vice versa. This maintains causality and time does not collapse on itself trying to figure out the chicken or the egg. But in the timeline where you don't travel back in time, you don't cause the paradox, but causation remains the same, because it is the original timeline where the original cause exists. This works for both of the other Bootstrap Paradoxes. Just because the time traveler did not find the original Beethoven, does not mean they did not exist in the original timeline. It could be that it was a "pen" name in the original timeline, and now in the Bootstrap Paradox, all you've done is taken place of that person. Cause to effect remains. And finally the pocket watch. There is most likely an original timeline, where Christopher Reeve's character obtains the watch through a different means before time travelling. The only problem here is that it is the same pocket watch. Meaning that if it is travelling through time, the pocket watch retains its age, wear, and tear. However, there is nothing to say that a little Ship of Theseus paradox doesn't happen here either. Who is to say that until Christopher Reeve's character gets the watch, that it doesn't get repaired and parts replaced? Christopher doesn't need to know that the contents of the watch has been repaired and replaced, all he has to do is transfer the watch through time. Cause to effect again remains.
But saying "there's multiple timelines" is a paradox, and it leads to a bunch of paradoxes. There's only one universe: that's what the word means. Explain how "multiple timelines" can work, and then you don't have a paradox. It's the handwaving version where you could equally say "God sorts it out, problem solved."
@@darrennew8211If there is only one timeline and it contains time travel then casualty is bidirectional. Just like how a keystone supports the arch that supports it.
@@goldenalt3166 Nope. You could end up with a self-consistent time loop only sort of thing, which would fall out of "if you change the past it changes the future" because that might keep "going around in a circle" until it finds a stable point. We already have science-math implying that it's always possible to find a stable outcome for CTCs.
@@darrennew8211 That sounds like what I said.
@@goldenalt3166 It's not like what you said. The future isn't affecting the past, except in a very subjective kind of way.
Personally, my Ship of Theseus grants any new parts a title of being part of the Ship and so the Ship is always the Ship, no matter how many parts are eventually replaced, they are greeted into the Ship parts family 😊
Perfect example of the Bootstrap Paradox is the 1980 movie Somewhere in Time.
Shortly after I wrote that comment Somewhere in Time is mentioned in the video :)
Best way to describe Somewhere in Time is The Terminator without the killer robot :)
I'm sorry but, is the idea that you can always add something to infinity really blowing people's minds???
Infinite infinity
What's perplexing is that it could've been infinity before you added to it.
It's the entire branch of "mathematics" which doesn't make any actual sense. There is no larger infinity, those supposed proofs are all bullshit too, because you can't have a set of anything that isn't already included in infinity.
It's like having a zero that's more zero than regular zero... 🤦 it's not profoundly intelligent, it's a sign that someone needs to stop smoking crack.
Infinity plus one!
😂 It's like America's debt.. it never stops growing 😮
Hilbert’s hotel was defined as having a countable infinite number of rooms. Which means that you can list all of its elements and number them with the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc). The strategies listed are also those made by taking into account this type of infinity. This means that you cannot fit any infinite set of guests in the hotel, just the countable ones. Any larger infinity of guests cannot fit in the original hotel, because some infinites are larger than others.
I also noticed it didn't talk about countable vs. uncountable infinities. Forgot the video I watched on infinities that explained all that, and even used the hotel thought experiment as an example.
@@EddyA1337 Yeah. It is also interesting to see that, after talking about what it can do, and all the strategies to fit different infinite sets, to talk about what it cannot do. And how things are easier in the Real Hilbert's hotel, where if its full you can just reallocate all the guests in the full hotel between rooms 0 and 1 without using the rooms 0 and 1 (just the numbers in between).
My favorite version of "The ship of theseus" comes from John Dies in the End. The main character chops a dudes head off with an axe, breaking the handle in the process. He replaces the handle and, a few months later, breaks the head of the axe and then replaces it. In the meantime, the decapitated dude gets ressurected and seeks revenge. When he burst into the house, the main character is holding his axe. Decapitated dude says "Thats the axe that cut off my head." Was he right?
A question! Aren't most of these paradoxes primarily word games? Or to put that in a more precise way, play with the conceptual forms that words create, and the contradictions that can develop when one conceptual form comes into conflict with another. Example: every one of the infinite rooms is occupied is a concept, and double the room numbers, and all of the odd numbered rooms will therefore be open is another concept--but in reality, a concept that obviously CONFLICTS with the first principle, that all of the infinite rooms are occupied. If we return to the first principle, doubling the room numbers or shifting occupants WON'T solve the problem, as that principle states that all of the infinite rooms are occupied. So all that we're really doing in this "paradox" is creating two conflicting conceptual entities, which each seems plausible, but can't cooexist. Or to put that another way, part of our mind assumes that doubling infinity must make it MORE than just infinity (the concept that doubling must increase a number twofold), conflicting with the concept that infinity can never be more than infinity. That's the essence of the paradox. In other words, ithe paradox is purely conceptual, not in the world itself. The ship of Theseus is similar: a conflict between two coexisting concepts of identity, one that says that identity means that something is always the same thing, regardless of changes to it, while the other that says that something must be unchanged to retain its identity. This is the paradox of aging. Am I still the same "UTGFY" at 50 that I was at 20? My name says that I still telling UT to GFY, but I'm obviously not the same UTGFY that signed up for an account under that name. There are even different religious traditions based around these two concepts of identity: the Christian, which says that you are you regardless of age etc. and will be judged as a unity after death, and the Buddhist (especially Zen) which says that there is no you except that fleeting you of the moment, which will is always passing on. But these are paradoxes of coneptual forms, not of the world (where things don't have names and identities--it's us that supply them.)
I’ve got a paradox I’ve thought about. 360* vision. Not like on Google maps, but TRUE 360* vision. Being able to see in all directions around you at the same time. I think that’s something no human can truly wrap their head around.
The first paradox is basically the premise for the Black Sabbath song Iron Man. Man goes back in time to save humanity from the calamity of the iron man, the time travel process turns him to steal, abandoned he sours on the humanity that turned their backs on him, he then ultimately has his revenge and “Iron Man lives again”
Speaking on the Gambler's Paradox, Lotto tends to skirt the line constantly. You can't make it PERFECT because people aren't perfect, but they do keep the odds close enough to keep people buying.
Scratcher tickets (run by lotto) keep that rate around 40% winrate, enough to turn a profit for Lotto but still make you feel like you got a chance when you win that $200 on a $5 ticket; in reality you lose 40% of every dollar you put in, win or lose. (If you keep buying... win big on your first ticket and never buy again, congrats... you just beat the system)
Infinities can be different sizes. The infinity of real numbers is larger than the infinity of whole numbers.
Bootstrap's simple if you allow for many worlds interpretation, object would originate in the normal way from your own timeline, whereas the paradox only occurs in a branch that you create.
Time travel to the past is impossible because time is just relative states of existence between things. To travel into the past, all things relative to the traveler would need their actions and physical forces to exactly reverse. That means all things relative - even down to the spin and wobble of sub-atomic particles.
Travel to the future, however, happens all the, uh, time. Whatever you move relatively to at a faster velocity, you move forward more slowly in time. We just don’t notice it because we all move relatively at about the same velocities to each other. If you hopped in a near-light-speed starship, you’d return to everyone on earth being much older.
The ship doesn’t seem like a paradox. Ask a ship builder. Old and new parts. They both identify as a ship with a name we give them
Another good one is, how many band members can you replace before it’s a different band.
Theseus's ship is kind of oddly satisfying rather than mind bogglingly weird 😂😂
The ship of Theseus: when a new part was added it became a part of the ship. The pieces are no longer NOT the ship of Theseus. Even when the last original piece is replaced it will be the same ship. Because we, as living organisms, ARE always who we are no matter how many new cells replace the old ones.
Ship of Theseus. this is the same when a cleaner says he is still using the same brush to sweep the floor after 13 years. Its the same brush, but its had 5 new heads and 3 handles, but its still the same brush.
Choosing Tolkein was absolutely the writer trolling Simon.
For the hotel, why not just pitch a tent in the hallway?
"You built your time machine because of Emma's death. Had she lived, it never would have existed. So how could you use your Time Machine to save her? You are the inescapable result of your own tragedy, just as I am the inescapable result... of you." - Uber Morlock, "The Time Machine" (2002)
The bootstrap paradox comes up in the Terminator films. Nobody actually invents the tech they use. After the first Terminator is crushed at the end of the first film, the bits are given to Miles Dyson who basically reverse engineers the chips that came back in time to invent the chips that would eventually come back in time. Nobody ever builds one from scratch for the first time.
My example of the Bootstrap paradox is the first 3 Terminator films. Terminator 3 tried to remove the paradox created in the first Terminator film. In T2, the Terminators/Skynet were being created by Cyberdyne based on the remains of the Terminator in the first film. In Terminator 3, the natural creation of Skynet happened based on a military program. Thus restoring the original creation of Skynet. (At least that's how I see it.)
Another solution to the Grandfather Paradox is, the you that unalived him is no more, but a different you is born. But we then bump into a Ship of Theseus.
In the Infinity Hotel Paradox, if every hotel room is taken, how would occupants be able to move “to the next room”? Wouldn’t that be a paradox in and of itself?
Don't ever be certain about anything. Question everything including the former statement
I was screaming Novikov self consistency principle through the video, thanks for mentioning it at the end. It's the most plausible way to view theoretical time travel as it's true time travel and doesn't branch into multiverse theory.
Assuming there's only one timeline, the first paradox is a good example of why time travel to the past is impossible. Your present self didn't exist in the past, therefore you can't be in the past because you can't be somewhere where you don't exist.