As always, thank you for watching. Consider checking out this video's sponsor and get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here: bit.ly/PursuitofWonderDec23
This is one of, if not my favorite philosophy channel mostly because it doesn't focus on explanations. I respect the fact that it encourages you to think instead of telling you how to think
You like black and white? Universals as he called them, before defining words as an explanation you say he doesn't do. There's only one word that applies to the heap of snow: gradient.
In German, we actually have two different words for "the same", one for the particular and one for the universal. To me, the difference between these was very obvious before and I think it's very interesting how the language we speak affects the way we think about this.
@@yololinsken3045 "das Gleiche" means the universal same and "das Selbe" referes to the identical same. The later is part of the grammar called "reflexive pronouns" which referse to a specific thing/person. It has always confused me to which model is used correctly but german classes really pushed me to understand the difference :D
It never was the Ship of Theseus, really. The Ship of Theseus was never a 'thing'. The atoms that temporarily made up the ship are things. But the Ship of Theseus was always just an abstraction based on agreements and faith. And as an abstraction, it remains the Ship of Theseus as long as you believe it does.
@@J31 You are correct that gravity doesn't care if you believe or not, but if someone attributes all the effects of gravity on something else then are they not correct in their minds to disbelieve gravity. I mean those flat earthers have to explain it somehow.
@@donkeyDangerMouse Yes, that's possible. It's levels of faith all the way down. But the further down you go, the further from human experience you get, the less we are served for acting in such a way. In other words, atoms may not exist, gravity may not exist, but I've determined it's better for my life to act as if those things are hard facts of reality.
This is liberating, to know we are not what we identify as, as it is always changing. I can choose to be whatever identity i want without attachment, so why not be the best version of yourself?
I once read a book that described it as realizing everyone wears a hat. Some people really like their hats, and some people try to get others to wears hats like theirs... but it's all just hats you can take on/off. I always liked that analogy. Also feels a little psychopathic, but that doesn't make it resonate any less true. I think the important thing is recognizing yours and others' hats for what they are (just immaterial hats), feeling free to swap them at will, and taking care to ensure they're always a good fit.
Yes and no. What you think and what you believe are two separate things. You may think a million times over "I am smart," and you will not believe it. If you believe that you are ugly, you cannot change this belief by thinking "I am beautiful." The only thing that can change this belief is examining why it is that you believe it and to understand how it is that your belief is not objective. This is the basis for talk-therapy.
This is a thought that i entertain but have hard time implementing. My other thought is, we're in this universe only for a blink of time and yet we are slaves to our yesterdays. The familiar. Imagine having all the ingredients you can wish for and yet making the same dish over and over again
That was my first thought once he started talking about plucking snowflakes away 😂 _"Hey, Vsauce! Michael here. [camera pans to creepy duplicate Michael] And here! [scared Michael] What is here? ...What is there? [seriously] What... is there? What exists? Do _*_chairs_*_ exist?"_
Well done. I wish I could think and talk with the level of detail and clarity you've brought to me regarding this subject and the ideas within the subject and with the same ability to stir wonder in the listener like you've done for me.
The ship of Theseus is not just an object, but an object in relation to a specific moment in time. The same way that the reenactment, although, using the same ship, is separate from the actual battle, it requires us to understand that anything past the original event, is not the same. Even the ship.
Not just the content but even the background musical sounds are so marvellous ranging from all sorts of genre in a small video , cheers to that fellow back there too 🫡🫡
I've already asked myself these questions years ago but I like to hear it anyway. I used to have a delivery business and would put alot of miles on my trucks and would frequently replace parts . At one point I realized that there were more parts changed out than were original . That's when I started to disregard miles and age as determining factors of the trucks condition. It no longer was a truck with x amount of miles. It was a confederation of parts each with their own amount of wear
Beautifully spoken... and very humbling. Thank you for your work. Take one little grain of dust away, in an ‚absolute sense‘, and the whole universe collapses.
The paradox arises when we try to answer these questions using a series of premises that seem plausible, but lead to a contradictory or absurd conclusion. For example, one might argue as follows: - One grain of sand is not a heap. (Premise 1) - If n grains of sand are not a heap, then n + 1 grains of sand are not a heap. (Premise 2) - Therefore, no matter how many grains of sand are added, there is never a heap. (Conclusion) The conclusion contradicts our common sense intuition that heaps of sand exist and that adding grains of sand can eventually create a heap. But where is the mistake in the argument? Which premise should we reject or modify? There are many possible ways to try to solve the sorites paradox, but none of them are completely satisfactory or widely accepted. Some of the main approaches are: - Rejecting Premise 1: This approach denies that there is a clear-cut case where the predicate does not apply. For example, one might say that even one grain of sand is a heap, but a very small one. This avoids the paradox, but it also makes the predicate meaningless, since it applies to everything. - Rejecting Premise 2: This approach admits that there is a point where the predicate switches from not applying to applying, but it is impossible to specify it precisely. For example, one might say that there is a vague range of numbers of grains of sand where it is indeterminate whether they form a heap or not. This preserves the meaningfulness of the predicate, but it also introduces a degree of uncertainty and arbitrariness into our language. - Rejecting the validity of the argument: This approach challenges the logical rules that allow us to infer the conclusion from the premises. For example, one might say that the rules of classical logic, which assume that every statement is either true or false, do not apply to vague predicates. Instead, one might use a different logic, such as fuzzy logic, which allows for degrees of truth and falsity. This accommodates the vagueness of the predicate, but it also requires a radical revision of our reasoning methods. As you can see, the sorites paradox is not easy to solve, and it raises many interesting questions about the nature of language, logic, and knowledge. 😮
We reject premise 2, obviously. Language isn’t math, and it isn’t that specific or perfect. The Sorites paradox is kind of stupid though. You’re using too small of a fraction, the measurement of “heap” isn’t doesn’t have to convey very specific meaning, there would be a lesser point that is more of a pile. Piles can be big or small, whereas a heap seems to infer a large pile imo. “High school level thinking” describes many of this channel’s videos. They would’ve blown my mind as a teen trying to be deep, especially on pot. Now I’m 35 and don’t really see the topics as that deep or amazing. The ship thing is the same as a human body, it remains the same with new pieces. A boat made from the old pieces would be a new thing.
@@_..-.._..-.._ seeing as it’s a stupid paradox can we at least stop using the word ‘heap’? Heap has at least some concept of interaction baked into it. A heap is an annoyance where as a pile is detached from your concern.
"Ship of Theseus" this topic can be explained very well by this example: - Person A owns a mobile phone of Samsung all of it's parts got replaced to newer identical parts by time. Now, it will be called A's mobile phone only. So, The Ship of Theseus will be called of Theseus only no matter how many parts have got replaced. And Theseus ship will be the second and new one not the older one because he doesn't have the ownership of the older one, the person who's known as "someone" who took the old parts and made a ship out of it is the owner of the ship he made.
Yeah I must be misunderstanding how it's explained because I don't see a "paradox" here at all, just a taxonomy/word-meaning issue. If you define terms, there's no paradox, right?
@@psbaumanyeah also always thought the same thing about that 'paradox', it's just a slightly vague word, like 'big' or 'small' that rely on context to have meaning
Insta sub from me. I love that this breaks my cycle of scrolling through 3 videos and not watching any video completely. I watched the complete video and stayed to think about the concepts you discussed. Nice vid!
“This line of thinking follows from the ‘Theory of Forms’ developed by the classic Greek philosopher, Play-Doh...” Damn, I’m 46 years old and due, in part, to channels like this one, I really do legit learn something new every day.
Consider its use. A heap is a heap when it requires a shovel to move it, a chair is a chair when it can be sat upon, the ship of Theseus is the ship which Theseus sailed.
1. I can also sit on the floor,is it a chair ? 2. How does one decide when its required to move a heap?At which amount is the treshold?And why with shovel?Can I not define a heap as a collection of things moveable by paper? 3. So everything Theseus has sailed with ,can be called Theseus`s?Does it work for me? (Dont worry man,I just ask questions for fun,nothing serious.Language is survival.)
@@kristiandonchev2641 if Theseus was to say “Ready my ship” then that ship would be Theseus’ ship. If they remade it stick for stick while he was alive then it would still be Theseus’ ship! But since he died, and no longer has any original parts, I’d say it’s a model of his ship.
@kristiandonchev2641 You can sit on the floor, but it's not designed with that purpose in mind. However, something that is designed to be sat upon is what you can call a chair.
A thought on the ship of Theseus. Have you ever wondered the ships' name? Perhaps the story of the ship intentionally leaves it out. After all the ship is really just a ship. The thing that made it the ship of Theseus, was Theseus. After all, without his story, it's just another forgotten ship. In a sense, the captain "makes the ship." The thought experiment may in itself be teaching us that we are our own captains. You define yourself, you are what makes "you" at any given time. If that makes any sense.
It never really was the ship of Theseus in the first place. In my philosophy nothing in the universe has purpose, only properties. We attach labels to those properties when the combination of them gives us a perceived advantage, born only in the mind. Racehorses do not know they are racing, or if they do, they do not care. If they did, they would all line up on their own in a line and all take off together, running in a circle. Then they would stop, and the winner would trot over to the winner's circle and stand there. They do not do that.
It's fascinating how language shapes the mind. In English there is only one word: "same", other languages, such as German have different words depending on wether a thing looks the same as another or is the very same thing. While these get mixed up and misused often even by native Speakers, even those who know how to use them sometimes struggle when it comes to abstract concepts. For examle, do two people have "die gleiche" religion? (same properties) or "dieselbe"? (the very same that only exists once).
You could think of the ship of Theseus like a person. Over a number of years, all of the cells in our bodies are replaced, but almost nobody would say that you are not still the same person.
My first thought was - it just all semantics, the results of our language. But I can easily see how much confusion it causes - lots of arguments about spirituality are due to conflating "the Absolute" vs "the relative". (Clever connecting the product/service)
heap is enough to make a noticeable hill above the rest of the surface. a noticeable raised area. Remove enough where it is the same level with the ground its just a layering.
The answer to the paradox is that we speak in generalities because we can't have a separate word for each thing that exists. Things are heaps when we decide they are.
it all will be forgotten in 100 yrs or so no one will remember us, even if they do it doesn't matter. so enjoy while you are here don't over think. we all here for no reason.
Honestly, I have never heard any quantity of snow referred to as a heap. A pile, mound, flurry, bank, all kinds of adjectives but not heap. In fact, I've only ever heard of a heap of shit.
Whoever is reading this, I pray for you: a heart free of sorrow, a mind free of worries, a life filled with joy, an abundant source of financial wealth, a body free of disease disability and a day filled with God's blessings
This reminds me of the old joke “If it takes X amount of time to dig a hole, how long does it take to dig half a hole?” I always thought the answer was that you can’t dig half a hole but now I’m wondering if holes even really exist.
A heap is when enough particles are there for a few of them to be ontop of each other and make a little bump. If you look closely a few grains of sand in the same spot make a little teeny tiny heap.
About the so called ‘problem of universals’: everything is different when you zoom enough (different positioning of atoms etc.). Except of elementary particles that cannot be broken down. And here we don’t know if two electrons are different or if it is the same electron everywhere. Because they don’t differ in any way no more. And we have to consider both options.
Language and numbers as a concept is about precision. Its about separating things from each other in order to find a pattern which predicts certain outcomes. The problem is that this doesn't accurately portray reality, which is much more vague and uncertain by nature. This is why true concepts like infinity tend to break math. The more uncertainty becomes apparent, the more math and language breaks down. Then that desparity causes anxiety. You want to be happy? Try being more vague. Be more uncertain. wonder and ask. Don't presume, just observe and consider. Positive & Negative.
"you're sitting in a small alleyway between your apartment building and the building next door getting some fresh air and enjoying a coffee" this scenario has never happened to anyone
Snow flake, a couple of snow flakes, a few snow flakes, a hand full of snow, two hand fulls of snow, a bunch of snow, a heap of snow. It's a paradox but Why do we make things so complicated 😂😂
This is the masterpiece video It made me laugh even though it probably wasn't supposed to because this is the sort of stuff that would make a robot's head explode
Sorite's Paradox is a fallacious use of the Fundamental Theorem of (arithmetic) Induction. The paradox hinges on the false premise that "heapness" is discrete, similar to how Zeno's achilles paradox hinges on the premise that "time" is infinitely continuous. A heap of snow is determined as a heap of snow when it is observed by an observer, based on an internal, continuous probability function, or something similar -- two people looking at the same scene might identify different elements, one of them might identify the snow as a heap while the other might not.
Another angle although not really related is the fact that human being will always find description for things. We may never run out of the language to describe things. It shows the human brain, the complexity of not only the information it can process, but how it can come up with concepts based on semantics it created for itself to describe things.
Some may say that the Ship of Theseus is only the one in his possession, Ship of Theseus can also describe the ship's complete design, the original with new parts can be considered the restarted/repaired Ship of Theseus, with complete new parts it can still be the Ship of Theseus in a traditional sense of its use, many ships that have a part from the original Ship of Theseus can still be individually called Ship of Theseus as long as its a ship. In all cases one label is usually not enough to describe something, depending on the interests of the conversation the context needs to be considered or even measured. For now, only one person can truly be considered the same person due to their personal history and experience. (the most foolish thing many unexperienced people do is to forget that nothing ever remains the same, to entertain the idea that something is the exact same ting day by day, year by year, its like taking "object permanence" to its extreme)
The inadequacy of language is not really a philosophical problem, just an annoying inadequacy of language. The dictionary defines "heap" as "a great many", but does not specify what constitutes "a great many". So it boils down really to personal opnion, with no formal, agreed upon definition. Languages grow largely unplanned, like a wild weed, and are not attempting to be as unambiguous as legal documents, although even legal documents leave enough room for courtrooms to stay busy. If you want exact syntax and semantics, look to a computer programming language compiler.
A heap is recognized by the amount of snow, a physical quantity, and a consensus would form. The idea of a heap differs in the physical amount, but as a probability can even be at the level of a scientific consensus at 5sigma. Assuming no current mind observing, a chair can be used as a chair if sat on by a mindless robot. So either it's properties are independent of mind, or a later mind might see a recording of the event. (I currently side with Realism, so the former). The ship of Theseus is still the same ship at least up until being under half replaced. At halfway replacement, it's reasonable to also accept the ship that has had the repairs as the same over another ship built with the other half. By what measures what is half is also a point of contention (volume, mass, importance to sailing, etc). A consensus of the idea of being the same ship could be reach though.
“We aren’t dating, we’re talking. We are sleeping together and see each other all the time, but we aren’t a couple. We live together and share a child, but…” one can never put a clear delineation on what is an individual experience and interpretation.
We're gonna need new philosophers. Not because their ideas are inadequate or wrong. But because the world is now changing so rapidly that old ideas will only make sense for the old world.
Nope.. the philosophies are as old as time, and they will continue until the end of time as we know it. If you think you understand the depth of the "ideas" presented, believe me , you don't. They arent merely "Ideas", they are trying to get a handle on the big picture.. trying to understand reality and existence itself..and no human brain has the capability to understand whats really happening.
The Ship of Theseus analogy is compared to humans because as you age, every cell in your body eventually replaces itself. From childhood until now, your entire body has been replaced multiple times. You have already undergone the Ship of Theseus process; a complete replacement of parts, but we don’t notice it because it’s gradual. So the question is, is the you of now, the same you as when you were a child?
I have changed drastically many times in my life. World views, opinions, beliefs, feelings, personality, likes and dislikes We are as fluid and changing s everything else in nature and space. Dynamic and moving
I think greeness and chairness are just attributes that are condensed into languages to make sense to us what we are describing. I think this can be called semantics description.
Humans love to do this. We adopt political ideology, sports teams, racial groups, geographic regions etc., and identify so closely with these things that we adopt them as our identities. So much so that most of us don’t really know who we really are.
These are solved rather easily to be honest. Its all about perspective. “Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple.”
A heap is a collection of objects placed on top of each other. So technically if most of the remaining snowflakes are on top of each other, is it a heap. If you took each snowflakes off the heap and placed them all together on the ground without stacking, then it would still be a group of snowflakes, but not a heap.
A group of objects forms a "heap" if you have objects resting on each other, rather than all on a surface. Such that removing one item could cause others to fall. So the snow is in a heap once one flake falls on another, rather than next to it. It's not a count, it's an arrangement. :) philosophy solved!
In order to determine whether something is a heap or not, it spunds like you must take an action that would destroy the heap. So one can never say "this is a heap", only ever "this was a heap" or "this was never a heap" Heap heap heap heap heap heap heap!
We shouldn't be surprised how unique we are. There are an infinite possible range of characters living through the human condition, et all species. Each individual should therefore expect to encounter a similar range of experiences throughout our lives. It is our observations and analysis of experiences, that make us unique.
This seems like a very average thought and thought experiments to me. This did not change how I think about anything cause it's already something I've always had thought about. Don't want to sound like a smart ass but the title name it sound so much more interesting than what I found...
Consider. Most of the cells in our own bodies are not the original cells we were born with. Does this make us a different person or are we the same person through out our entire lives.
Do you have a couple, you have a few, you have a handful, a pile, a heap. They're just other words for measurements some and most we just cant or have no need to count one by one I don't think it's a paradox
Conceptualists IMO have it closest. To be a pragmatist, I'd say universals would best apply to mathematics. For everything else, we should think of them of as CONCEPTUALS, and then particulars from there. Universals can't really help you make predictions about phenomenon where "conscious agents" play a defining role (things like humans, animals... on a sliding scale of agency), but conceptuals would be good for this. And the reverse seems true as well. Obviously generalizing here within the realm of philosophy, but I would like to think people running in these circles of thought know this instinctively. This helps explains the emergence of psychology, imo.
To solve sorites paradox, think in terms of observation. Down to atoms and electrons, we know matter changes when observed(double slit experiment). Falling singularly, snow flakes can gather unnoticed. Once you observe the “heap” it becomes a heap. The snowflakes act as a heap henceforth until you dismantle it. When it ceases to be a heap is when you observe it and categorize it as something else(pile, chunk). Heaps exist when observed as one. One’s own definition of a heap may also differ from another’s. Heaps exist subjectively.
A 100 year old looking at the photos from every birthday is like the ship except after the first few decades the workmanship of replacements went downhill
I completely agree with the particular in particular 😂. What I mean is that, for convention, we conceptualize things and classify them. Even when there's only something, somehwere, at sometime and not anything else and that's made concrete with the progression of time. Things might share properties, yet, have different configurations, and eveything, even if grouped, will have different configurations. Look at it this way, the universe has galaxies, the galaxies have stars, the stars may or may not have planets, planets have properties and it could even be life. Using this method, we can just say that small things in aggregate, are the big things and the big things are composed of smaller things. One can even argue that since even small things are made of even smaller things, that there are things that are infinitely small (by human standards) that compose them. We can then say that we have universe 1, that has galaxy 1,2,3... So on and so forth that has stars galaxy1.star1..., 2.1...., 3.1..., and so forth which consists of what it consist and so on and so forth as well. To keep track of everything is to know everything and all of each configurations (i.e, positions, colors, shape, etc). And we all know that humans aren't capable of such a feat (yet.) In essence, we need to know what are the laws of the universe then the theory of everything (which will, take some time, but not for long). The advent of AI tells us that it's looming. We could either finish by being all knowing and all capable, or stagnate in progress and even die. The truth itself is what exist. The conceptualization of humans is just that, conceptualization. Things exist no matter if we name them or not. Names are not innate, it is given. So don't think that everything is described and it cannoy be changed. You can call a sheep a dog and vise versa. If everyone agrees then we've established an "objective truth".
If we apply this to human cells dying and being replaced, are we just abstractions? It could be the old verb "to be", the "is" of identity causing confusion. People are forever arguing, quite vociferously at times, about what something "is". In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "whatever you say it is, it isn't".
What defines a heap? In music, it's different. Does one musician make a heap? No. Do two musicians? No. Do three musicians? No. Do four musicians? No. Five musicians? Yes! Uriah Heep.
As always, thank you for watching.
Consider checking out this video's sponsor and get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here: bit.ly/PursuitofWonderDec23
This is one of, if not my favorite philosophy channel mostly because it doesn't focus on explanations. I respect the fact that it encourages you to think instead of telling you how to think
You like black and white? Universals as he called them, before defining words as an explanation you say he doesn't do.
There's only one word that applies to the heap of snow: gradient.
In German, we actually have two different words for "the same", one for the particular and one for the universal. To me, the difference between these was very obvious before and I think it's very interesting how the language we speak affects the way we think about this.
Oh that sounds interesting. Could you give an example this, want to do more research on that.
What are the two words? I can speak german but only "das gleiche" comes to mind right now.
There is also "Das Selbe"
@@yololinsken3045 "das Gleiche" means the universal same and "das Selbe" referes to the identical same. The later is part of the grammar called "reflexive pronouns" which referse to a specific thing/person. It has always confused me to which model is used correctly but german classes really pushed me to understand the difference :D
@@jonoinvielleicht4803 "Selbe" sounds to me like "self"
In spanish we use the same word for "self" and "same"
Kinda goes full circle.
I'm wildly entertained by the fact that you said 'heap' so many times it started to do that thing where it feels like some sort of fake word.
We all ask what is a _heap_? but not how is the _heap_
@@agmhelena7266...or WHY is heap?
That happens if you say your name about fifty times as well.
Semantic satiation is a very weird thing
I don’t get it
It never was the Ship of Theseus, really. The Ship of Theseus was never a 'thing'. The atoms that temporarily made up the ship are things. But the Ship of Theseus was always just an abstraction based on agreements and faith. And as an abstraction, it remains the Ship of Theseus as long as you believe it does.
That's what I believe. If someone believes something it is true, but it's also false based on all the non-believers.
@@TheErinbish But not everything. Abstractions, yes. But if I don't believe in gravity, this obviously has zero effect on gravity
@@J31 You are correct that gravity doesn't care if you believe or not, but if someone attributes all the effects of gravity on something else then are they not correct in their minds to disbelieve gravity. I mean those flat earthers have to explain it somehow.
The atoms are not even necessarily things as atoms could be the resultant vortex of waves of energy reacting off one another
@@donkeyDangerMouse Yes, that's possible. It's levels of faith all the way down. But the further down you go, the further from human experience you get, the less we are served for acting in such a way. In other words, atoms may not exist, gravity may not exist, but I've determined it's better for my life to act as if those things are hard facts of reality.
This is liberating, to know we are not what we identify as, as it is always changing. I can choose to be whatever identity i want without attachment, so why not be the best version of yourself?
I once read a book that described it as realizing everyone wears a hat. Some people really like their hats, and some people try to get others to wears hats like theirs... but it's all just hats you can take on/off. I always liked that analogy. Also feels a little psychopathic, but that doesn't make it resonate any less true. I think the important thing is recognizing yours and others' hats for what they are (just immaterial hats), feeling free to swap them at will, and taking care to ensure they're always a good fit.
Yes and no. What you think and what you believe are two separate things. You may think a million times over "I am smart," and you will not believe it. If you believe that you are ugly, you cannot change this belief by thinking "I am beautiful." The only thing that can change this belief is examining why it is that you believe it and to understand how it is that your belief is not objective. This is the basis for talk-therapy.
@@kubixis4786 yes i agree, asking questions getting deeper to the root until you realise the belief dosent make sense
This is a thought that i entertain but have hard time implementing. My other thought is, we're in this universe only for a blink of time and yet we are slaves to our yesterdays. The familiar. Imagine having all the ingredients you can wish for and yet making the same dish over and over again
Oh for goodness sake 😑, here we go with this"I identify as a woman" nonsense.
That shit is beyond nauseating.
Vsauce, Exurb1a and pursuit of wonder. they just speak my lonely mind man. so grateful for them
I grew up on vsauce when I was like 10, and found exurb1a and this channel some 8 years later. I know good content when I see it :)
That was my first thought once he started talking about plucking snowflakes away 😂 _"Hey, Vsauce! Michael here. [camera pans to creepy duplicate Michael] And here! [scared Michael] What is here? ...What is there? [seriously] What... is there? What exists? Do _*_chairs_*_ exist?"_
How about Solar Sands?
Sisyphus 55?
let's not forget that exurb1a is an abuser amd r*pist.
Well done. I wish I could think and talk with the level of detail and clarity you've brought to me regarding this subject and the ideas within the subject and with the same ability to stir wonder in the listener like you've done for me.
Maybe you'll get that for Christmas, some IQ points so you can think deep
The ship of Theseus is not just an object, but an object in relation to a specific moment in time. The same way that the reenactment, although, using the same ship, is separate from the actual battle, it requires us to understand that anything past the original event, is not the same. Even the ship.
Not just the content but even the background musical sounds are so marvellous ranging from all sorts of genre in a small video , cheers to that fellow back there too 🫡🫡
I've already asked myself these questions years ago but I like to hear it anyway. I used to have a delivery business and would put alot of miles on my trucks and would frequently replace parts . At one point I realized that there were more parts changed out than were original . That's when I started to disregard miles and age as determining factors of the trucks condition. It no longer was a truck with x amount of miles. It was a confederation of parts each with their own amount of wear
Beautifully spoken... and very humbling. Thank you for your work.
Take one little grain of dust away, in an ‚absolute sense‘, and the whole universe collapses.
The paradox arises when we try to answer these questions using a series of premises that seem plausible, but lead to a contradictory or absurd conclusion. For example, one might argue as follows:
- One grain of sand is not a heap. (Premise 1)
- If n grains of sand are not a heap, then n + 1 grains of sand are not a heap.
(Premise 2)
- Therefore, no matter how many grains of sand are added, there is never a heap. (Conclusion)
The conclusion contradicts our common sense intuition that heaps of sand exist and that adding grains of sand can eventually create a heap. But where is the mistake in the argument? Which premise should we reject or modify?
There are many possible ways to try to solve the sorites paradox, but none of them are completely satisfactory or widely accepted. Some of the main approaches are:
- Rejecting Premise 1: This approach denies that there is a clear-cut case where the predicate does not apply. For example, one might say that even one grain of sand is a heap, but a very small one. This avoids the paradox, but it also makes the predicate meaningless, since it applies to everything.
- Rejecting Premise 2: This approach admits that there is a point where the predicate switches from not applying to applying, but it is impossible to specify it precisely. For example, one might say that there is a vague range of numbers of grains of sand where it is indeterminate whether they form a heap or not. This preserves the meaningfulness of the predicate, but it also introduces a degree of uncertainty and arbitrariness into our language.
- Rejecting the validity of the argument: This approach challenges the logical rules that allow us to infer the conclusion from the premises. For example, one might say that the rules of classical logic, which assume that every statement is either true or false, do not apply to vague predicates. Instead, one might use a different logic, such as fuzzy logic, which allows for degrees of truth and falsity. This accommodates the vagueness of the predicate, but it also requires a radical revision of our reasoning methods.
As you can see, the sorites paradox is not easy to solve, and it raises many interesting questions about the nature of language, logic, and knowledge. 😮
We reject premise 2, obviously. Language isn’t math, and it isn’t that specific or perfect.
The Sorites paradox is kind of stupid though. You’re using too small of a fraction, the measurement of “heap” isn’t doesn’t have to convey very specific meaning, there would be a lesser point that is more of a pile. Piles can be big or small, whereas a heap seems to infer a large pile imo.
“High school level thinking” describes many of this channel’s videos. They would’ve blown my mind as a teen trying to be deep, especially on pot.
Now I’m 35 and don’t really see the topics as that deep or amazing.
The ship thing is the same as a human body, it remains the same with new pieces. A boat made from the old pieces would be a new thing.
@@_..-.._..-.._ seeing as it’s a stupid paradox can we at least stop using the word ‘heap’? Heap has at least some concept of interaction baked into it. A heap is an annoyance where as a pile is detached from your concern.
I reject the argument because it's much like zenos paradox and that paradox relies on a misrepresentation of the reality it tries to represent.
"Ship of Theseus" this topic can be explained very well by this example: - Person A owns a mobile phone of Samsung all of it's parts got replaced to newer identical parts by time. Now, it will be called A's mobile phone only. So, The Ship of Theseus will be called of Theseus only no matter how many parts have got replaced.
And Theseus ship will be the second and new one not the older one because he doesn't have the ownership of the older one, the person who's known as "someone" who took the old parts and made a ship out of it is the owner of the ship he made.
It is so easy to just consider a heap to 2 or more items in close proximity. I love the material and video overall.
Yeah I must be misunderstanding how it's explained because I don't see a "paradox" here at all, just a taxonomy/word-meaning issue. If you define terms, there's no paradox, right?
@@psbaumanyeah also always thought the same thing about that 'paradox', it's just a slightly vague word, like 'big' or 'small' that rely on context to have meaning
Insta sub from me. I love that this breaks my cycle of scrolling through 3 videos and not watching any video completely. I watched the complete video and stayed to think about the concepts you discussed. Nice vid!
“This line of thinking follows from the ‘Theory of Forms’ developed by the classic Greek philosopher, Play-Doh...”
Damn, I’m 46 years old and due, in part, to channels like this one, I really do legit learn something new every day.
we are all unique in some capacity or the other. Everyday lived is a unique expression of our humanity
Which is why competition is necessary and socialism will never work.
@@7fallare you sure
Consider its use. A heap is a heap when it requires a shovel to move it, a chair is a chair when it can be sat upon, the ship of Theseus is the ship which Theseus sailed.
1. I can also sit on the floor,is it a chair ?
2. How does one decide when its required to move a heap?At which amount is the treshold?And why with shovel?Can I not define a heap as a collection of things moveable by paper?
3. So everything Theseus has sailed with ,can be called Theseus`s?Does it work for me?
(Dont worry man,I just ask questions for fun,nothing serious.Language is survival.)
@@kristiandonchev2641 if Theseus was to say “Ready my ship” then that ship would be Theseus’ ship. If they remade it stick for stick while he was alive then it would still be Theseus’ ship! But since he died, and no longer has any original parts, I’d say it’s a model of his ship.
@kristiandonchev2641 You can sit on the floor, but it's not designed with that purpose in mind. However, something that is designed to be sat upon is what you can call a chair.
@@jaceydurland9098 Then a bench is a chair also. Plus a purpose is just a concept ,it doesnt make its universally true for every object .
@@kristiandonchev2641 A chair is designed for one person to sit on it, while a bench is designed for more than one.
A thought on the ship of Theseus. Have you ever wondered the ships' name? Perhaps the story of the ship intentionally leaves it out. After all the ship is really just a ship. The thing that made it the ship of Theseus, was Theseus. After all, without his story, it's just another forgotten ship. In a sense, the captain "makes the ship." The thought experiment may in itself be teaching us that we are our own captains. You define yourself, you are what makes "you" at any given time. If that makes any sense.
It never really was the ship of Theseus in the first place. In my philosophy nothing in the universe has purpose, only properties. We attach labels to those properties when the combination of them gives us a perceived advantage, born only in the mind. Racehorses do not know they are racing, or if they do, they do not care. If they did, they would all line up on their own in a line and all take off together, running in a circle. Then they would stop, and the winner would trot over to the winner's circle and stand there. They do not do that.
The art of overthinking, my favorite pastime 😂
Same as computer overclocking. Step your processes and cool the cpu, all is well.
Sometimes my thinking hurt then I tell it to chill. 😅
It's fascinating how language shapes the mind. In English there is only one word: "same", other languages, such as German have different words depending on wether a thing looks the same as another or is the very same thing. While these get mixed up and misused often even by native Speakers, even those who know how to use them sometimes struggle when it comes to abstract concepts. For examle, do two people have "die gleiche" religion? (same properties) or "dieselbe"? (the very same that only exists once).
Although it means that the word "alles ist möglich" dieses Video am besten beschreibt? 🥲😂 alles ist möglich, irgendwie
English has the word alike
I love the way you did your sponsor, that sir, was pure genius. It was actually enjoyable to watch the sponsorship all the way through. Great job man.
You could think of the ship of Theseus like a person. Over a number of years, all of the cells in our bodies are replaced, but almost nobody would say that you are not still the same person.
My first thought was - it just all semantics, the results of our language. But I can easily see how much confusion it causes - lots of arguments about spirituality are due to conflating "the Absolute" vs "the relative". (Clever connecting the product/service)
Yes dear you're right we're you commenting from?
heap is enough to make a noticeable hill above the rest of the surface. a noticeable raised area. Remove enough where it is the same level with the ground its just a layering.
Well now. Someone who might understand why I refer to everyone as people, person, human, and to I, I do not.
The answer to the paradox is that we speak in generalities because we can't have a separate word for each thing that exists. Things are heaps when we decide they are.
Very deep philosophical question: what is what?
It depends on how you stack the snowflakes and if they are bacon flavored
it all will be forgotten in 100 yrs or so no one will remember us, even if they do it doesn't matter. so enjoy while you are here don't over think. we all here for no reason.
_No man walks into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and he is not the same man._
How brilliant
Honestly, I have never heard any quantity of snow referred to as a heap. A pile, mound, flurry, bank, all kinds of adjectives but not heap. In fact, I've only ever heard of a heap of shit.
This is the epitome of “When one thinks too much…he has nothing to think about but thought itself.”
Whoever is reading this, I pray for you: a heart free of sorrow, a mind free of worries, a life filled with joy, an abundant source of financial wealth, a body free of disease disability and a day filled with God's blessings
This reminds me of the old joke “If it takes X amount of time to dig a hole, how long does it take to dig half a hole?” I always thought the answer was that you can’t dig half a hole but now I’m wondering if holes even really exist.
Something starts to be a heap at the time you cant/(don't want to) exactly count\measure it
The Ship of Theseus stopped being the Ship of Theseus when Theseus stopped using it.
A heap is when enough particles are there for a few of them to be ontop of each other and make a little bump. If you look closely a few grains of sand in the same spot make a little teeny tiny heap.
About the so called ‘problem of universals’: everything is different when you zoom enough (different positioning of atoms etc.). Except of elementary particles that cannot be broken down. And here we don’t know if two electrons are different or if it is the same electron everywhere. Because they don’t differ in any way no more. And we have to consider both options.
Language and numbers as a concept is about precision. Its about separating things from each other in order to find a pattern which predicts certain outcomes. The problem is that this doesn't accurately portray reality, which is much more vague and uncertain by nature. This is why true concepts like infinity tend to break math. The more uncertainty becomes apparent, the more math and language breaks down. Then that desparity causes anxiety.
You want to be happy? Try being more vague. Be more uncertain. wonder and ask. Don't presume, just observe and consider. Positive & Negative.
i swear to god i once emailed steven pinker about a debate i was having with someone i know and he responded in my favor. was pretty cool to me
"you're sitting in a small alleyway between your apartment building and the building next door getting some fresh air and enjoying a coffee"
this scenario has never happened to anyone
Well it's one way of cutting down on your electricity bill , bloody cold though .
Top teir advertisement tie in.
Now all I can think about is Plato stopping midspeech to talk about Skillshare
I have been asking the heap of snow question for years. Only I asked it as when does sand become a pile of sand?
Snow flake, a couple of snow flakes, a few snow flakes, a hand full of snow, two hand fulls of snow, a bunch of snow, a heap of snow. It's a paradox but Why do we make things so complicated 😂😂
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
-Sigmund Freud
Accept it and move on.
This is the masterpiece video It made me laugh even though it probably wasn't supposed to because this is the sort of stuff that would make a robot's head explode
Sorite's Paradox is a fallacious use of the Fundamental Theorem of (arithmetic) Induction. The paradox hinges on the false premise that "heapness" is discrete, similar to how Zeno's achilles paradox hinges on the premise that "time" is infinitely continuous.
A heap of snow is determined as a heap of snow when it is observed by an observer, based on an internal, continuous probability function, or something similar -- two people looking at the same scene might identify different elements, one of them might identify the snow as a heap while the other might not.
Another angle although not really related is the fact that human being will always find description for things. We may never run out of the language to describe things. It shows the human brain, the complexity of not only the information it can process, but how it can come up with concepts based on semantics it created for itself to describe things.
Some may say that the Ship of Theseus is only the one in his possession, Ship of Theseus can also describe the ship's complete design, the original with new parts can be considered the restarted/repaired Ship of Theseus, with complete new parts it can still be the Ship of Theseus in a traditional sense of its use, many ships that have a part from the original Ship of Theseus can still be individually called Ship of Theseus as long as its a ship.
In all cases one label is usually not enough to describe something, depending on the interests of the conversation the context needs to be considered or even measured.
For now, only one person can truly be considered the same person due to their personal history and experience. (the most foolish thing many unexperienced people do is to forget that nothing ever remains the same, to entertain the idea that something is the exact same ting day by day, year by year, its like taking "object permanence" to its extreme)
Uniqueness is an intrinsic value, not neccessarily what makes you or anything else different. Different from what? Anything.
Paradox will keep one stuck! Forever! Lol
The inadequacy of language is not really a philosophical problem, just an annoying inadequacy of language. The dictionary defines "heap" as "a great many", but does not specify what constitutes "a great many". So it boils down really to personal opnion, with no formal, agreed upon definition.
Languages grow largely unplanned, like a wild weed, and are not attempting to be as unambiguous as legal documents, although even legal documents leave enough room for courtrooms to stay busy. If you want exact syntax and semantics, look to a computer programming language compiler.
Thank you for everything you do
A heap is recognized by the amount of snow, a physical quantity, and a consensus would form. The idea of a heap differs in the physical amount, but as a probability can even be at the level of a scientific consensus at 5sigma.
Assuming no current mind observing, a chair can be used as a chair if sat on by a mindless robot. So either it's properties are independent of mind, or a later mind might see a recording of the event. (I currently side with Realism, so the former).
The ship of Theseus is still the same ship at least up until being under half replaced. At halfway replacement, it's reasonable to also accept the ship that has had the repairs as the same over another ship built with the other half. By what measures what is half is also a point of contention (volume, mass, importance to sailing, etc). A consensus of the idea of being the same ship could be reach though.
“We aren’t dating, we’re talking. We are sleeping together and see each other all the time, but we aren’t a couple. We live together and share a child, but…” one can never put a clear delineation on what is an individual experience and interpretation.
We're gonna need new philosophers. Not because their ideas are inadequate or wrong. But because the world is now changing so rapidly that old ideas will only make sense for the old world.
Nope.. the philosophies are as old as time, and they will continue until the end of time as we know it. If you think you understand the depth of the "ideas" presented, believe me , you don't. They arent merely "Ideas", they are trying to get a handle on the big picture.. trying to understand reality and existence itself..and no human brain has the capability to understand whats really happening.
The Ship of Theseus analogy is compared to humans because as you age, every cell in your body eventually replaces itself. From childhood until now, your entire body has been replaced multiple times. You have already undergone the Ship of Theseus process; a complete replacement of parts, but we don’t notice it because it’s gradual. So the question is, is the you of now, the same you as when you were a child?
Or building a computer, if you change the case, the gpu, CPU, RAM, etc. is it the same computer?
No. The me now is me as an adult. I am no longer that child, physically or mentally.
I have changed drastically many times in my life. World views, opinions, beliefs, feelings, personality, likes and dislikes
We are as fluid and changing s everything else in nature and space. Dynamic and moving
I wish my car did this
I think greeness and chairness are just attributes that are condensed into languages to make sense to us what we are describing. I think this can be called semantics description.
Humans love to do this. We adopt political ideology, sports teams, racial groups, geographic regions etc., and identify so closely with these things that we adopt them as our identities. So much so that most of us don’t really know who we really are.
These are solved rather easily to be honest. Its all about perspective.
“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple.”
Different things can have identical properties because they look close enough,
Solved that one
A heap is a collection of objects placed on top of each other.
So technically if most of the remaining snowflakes are on top of each other, is it a heap.
If you took each snowflakes off the heap and placed them all together on the ground without stacking, then it would still be a group of snowflakes, but not a heap.
This made me think of Kants theory about phenomenal and noumenal realities
A group of objects forms a "heap" if you have objects resting on each other, rather than all on a surface. Such that removing one item could cause others to fall. So the snow is in a heap once one flake falls on another, rather than next to it. It's not a count, it's an arrangement. :) philosophy solved!
I came into the comments to say the same thing :)
Nice way of putting it But what if there are three snow flakes one resting on two other would that be considered a heap? 🧐🧐
@@esportcraze3090 yes it's still a heap, because removing either lower snowflake changes the position of the top snowflake.
In order to determine whether something is a heap or not, it spunds like you must take an action that would destroy the heap. So one can never say "this is a heap", only ever "this was a heap" or "this was never a heap"
Heap heap heap heap heap heap heap!
Heap = >3
Everytime the word heap is said I instantly picture the Trash Heap from Fraggle Rock.
“The Trash Heap has spoken, myeeeeeeehhh”
Sorites paradox is simply the limits of succinctly communicating pattern recognition. The Müller-Lyer illusion hits on the same issue, perception.
Maybe the ship of Theseus was the friends we made along the way
We shouldn't be surprised how unique we are. There are an infinite possible range of characters living through the human condition, et all species. Each individual should therefore expect to encounter a similar range of experiences throughout our lives. It is our observations and analysis of experiences, that make us unique.
Loving the Greek background music
By expanding our understanding about the vagueness of objects and it's uniqueness, perhaps we will be able to come out of our prejudices.
the buddhist 5 aggregates shows there is no "self" aka annatta
Philosophical videos aren’t usually this good. This is real
sprinkling -> bunch -> pile -> heap -> mound -> hill
It’s interesting how many of these paradoxes aren’t a problem to describe using fuzzy logic.
This seems like a very average thought and thought experiments to me. This did not change how I think about anything cause it's already something I've always had thought about.
Don't want to sound like a smart ass but the title name it sound so much more interesting than what I found...
Consider. Most of the cells in our own bodies are not the original cells we were born with. Does this make us a different person or are we the same person through out our entire lives.
Whoever made this video LOVES being high while making these 🤨
Thank you for the wonderful video 😊
I'm 14 and this is deeeeeep
Do you have a couple, you have a few, you have a handful, a pile, a heap.
They're just other words for measurements some and most we just cant or have no need to count one by one I don't think it's a paradox
the ship thing, just go by the majority of parts like 50/50 style
As soon as you put a new part on its absorbs the identity from the original parts and then become original it self
@holdupits420 fair point, noted ✅️
Conceptualists IMO have it closest. To be a pragmatist, I'd say universals would best apply to mathematics. For everything else, we should think of them of as CONCEPTUALS, and then particulars from there. Universals can't really help you make predictions about phenomenon where "conscious agents" play a defining role (things like humans, animals... on a sliding scale of agency), but conceptuals would be good for this. And the reverse seems true as well. Obviously generalizing here within the realm of philosophy, but I would like to think people running in these circles of thought know this instinctively. This helps explains the emergence of psychology, imo.
Well done. The best ad for sponsor
2 snowflakes are a heap. Any additional snowflakes just increase the size of the heap 😊
To solve sorites paradox, think in terms of observation. Down to atoms and electrons, we know matter changes when observed(double slit experiment). Falling singularly, snow flakes can gather unnoticed. Once you observe the “heap” it becomes a heap. The snowflakes act as a heap henceforth until you dismantle it. When it ceases to be a heap is when you observe it and categorize it as something else(pile, chunk). Heaps exist when observed as one. One’s own definition of a heap may also differ from another’s. Heaps exist subjectively.
Nothing exists as something because it's always changing and it's individual perspective that defines it.
A 100 year old looking at the photos from every birthday is like the ship except after the first few decades the workmanship of replacements went downhill
I completely agree with the particular in particular 😂.
What I mean is that, for convention, we conceptualize things and classify them. Even when there's only something, somehwere, at sometime and not anything else and that's made concrete with the progression of time. Things might share properties, yet, have different configurations, and eveything, even if grouped, will have different configurations.
Look at it this way, the universe has galaxies, the galaxies have stars, the stars may or may not have planets, planets have properties and it could even be life.
Using this method, we can just say that small things in aggregate, are the big things and the big things are composed of smaller things. One can even argue that since even small things are made of even smaller things, that there are things that are infinitely small (by human standards) that compose them.
We can then say that we have universe 1, that has galaxy 1,2,3... So on and so forth that has stars galaxy1.star1..., 2.1...., 3.1..., and so forth which consists of what it consist and so on and so forth as well.
To keep track of everything is to know everything and all of each configurations (i.e, positions, colors, shape, etc).
And we all know that humans aren't capable of such a feat (yet.)
In essence, we need to know what are the laws of the universe then the theory of everything (which will, take some time, but not for long).
The advent of AI tells us that it's looming. We could either finish by being all knowing and all capable, or stagnate in progress and even die.
The truth itself is what exist. The conceptualization of humans is just that, conceptualization. Things exist no matter if we name them or not. Names are not innate, it is given. So don't think that everything is described and it cannoy be changed. You can call a sheep a dog and vise versa. If everyone agrees then we've established an "objective truth".
A "heap" is used to describe a pile too great to be described by lesser adjectives.
‘Universal’ seems to be a universal
I'm so shocked stumbling on this...I've been mulling over these same themes / ideas of the past few weeks.
There is a great Vsauce video about the philosophy of existence, I highly recommend that one too !
You sold me on the blinkest ad that was very well done aha
If we apply this to human cells dying and being replaced, are we just abstractions? It could be the old verb "to be", the "is" of identity causing confusion. People are forever arguing, quite vociferously at times, about what something "is". In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "whatever you say it is, it isn't".
It's like Patrick when he denied it was his wallet.
Love this editing stylr
This was a proper yap-session
What defines a heap? In music, it's different. Does one musician make a heap? No. Do two musicians? No. Do three musicians? No. Do four musicians? No. Five musicians? Yes!
Uriah Heep.