Do not touch the lever under any circumstances! No matter how many people you save. The family of the deceased will sue you! -Your lawyer

@Nelsathis

Жыл бұрын

So.. better have it on the lane with more people, cause the likelyhood of it hitting the whole family is more likely?

@Davidamp

Жыл бұрын

Just compulse the trolley back to the hand

@mr.cauliflower3536

Жыл бұрын

@@Nelsathis kek

@Tethloach1

Жыл бұрын

I wasn't planning on it, lol.

@glenecollins

Жыл бұрын

@@hareecionelson5875 Google translated this to “kill me”.

"professionals taking dumb questions extremely seriously" has got to be one of my favourite genres of youtube video

@c.jishnu378

8 ай бұрын

In problem n.o 2 if we bypass the paradox saying that you don't exist and your grandfather dies, i would not pull the lever as if i pulled it my grandfather dies but that makes it that i didn't exist so the five people also die while letting it go will save me, my siblings, my parents and their siblings and my grandfather in expense of 5 who will die if i pull the lever anyway.

@centerloper

6 ай бұрын

@@c.jishnu378 Only one of your parents would die. And what about if you are an only child? No the real reason why I wouldn't pull it is because of the butterfly effect. You could cause something extremely more catastrophic than simply your grandfather, your parent, and yourself dying. Imagine killing your grandfather would bring about a dictator far worse than Hitler. Sure maybe something bad could happen in the original timeline too, but you wouldn't know that. At the very least, you wouldn't be responsible.

@c.jishnu378

6 ай бұрын

@@centerloper Even if I were the only child, by time travel I wouldn't exist so the trolley will still kill the 5 people meaning 7 will die(atleast), and 5 will die if I did not let the intrusive thoughts win.

@lirich0

4 ай бұрын

They ain’t dumb questions!

@mustafatunahan2054

4 ай бұрын

it's dumb when it's just a thought experiment, but this has real life implications on artificial intelligence. Also it wouldn't really be fair to call it dumb otherwise either because it's afterall philosophy of ethics.

Hey Alex, I think the reason why your audience like this video format is because each individual meme whilst being a trolley problem in their own right, open up a doorway into other philosophical matters. You then go on to discuss those and give insight and, with me, expose me to other philosophical dialemma. Keep up the good work!

@Summer-uq1vr

Жыл бұрын

I love the way it's funny lil memes but with a jumble of different parts of philosophy and stuff

@danfroal8057

Жыл бұрын

captain obvious to the rescue

@RobMedellin

Жыл бұрын

@@danfroal8057 haha agree, I think 99.9% of viewers know that, rather than laughing at "memes", they ponder ethical dilemmas

@alia_babo

Жыл бұрын

I think it's a good way to introduce several different philosophical matters in one video. As someone who's going into philosophy in a very casual way (usually as a break from what I do in real life or as something to listen to while I'm doing other things especially chores), I like this kind of videos.

@theroyalcat7010

Жыл бұрын

@@alia_babo "Damn, engineering has so much math😮‍💨... let's ponder insanely specific hypotheticals that I hope & pray to never actually be involved in!"

Interestingly, in germany we got "Eltern haften für ihre Kinder", translating to "Parents are liable for their children", so if your child is 12 and you put it in front of the trolley problem, you _are_ liable for the consequences. It's only at a higher age (14 - 16 I think) where this stops applying

@jeronimoschujer8060

Жыл бұрын

But that's seems more as a legal perpective, which avoids the moral problem.

@Kirschi__

Жыл бұрын

​@@jeronimoschujer8060 Not necessarily. I wrote this comment in this context with a purpose. First point: Usually, the legal system builds upon the morality of the many. Therefore it isn't always correct to separate these two. Second point: I kinda agree with how we handle it here. Therefore I am not avoiding the moral problem but rather offering my perspective and my reasoning.

@nomercy4521

Жыл бұрын

@@jeronimoschujer8060 There's no moral problem making a small under developed child making a decision on who lives and who dies?

@jeronimoschujer8060

Жыл бұрын

@@nomercy4521 That's kind of my point. I think it does, so stating that your "liable by law" puts the weight on the legal system and avoids deeper (and personal) considerations.

@davidmeier2014

Жыл бұрын

Even in Germany, parent aren't liable for everything their children do, they only have a "duty of supervision" (Aufsichtspflicht) They are only liable for actions done or damages inflicted by their child in case they didn't fulfil this duty Even though there are signs with "parents are liable for their children" all over construction sites and more in Germany, there is no legal basis for that After all, not everything that's written on a sign automatically becomes true just because you put up a sign

8:32 It's not a trolley problem, but the best meme I ever saw was of one of those verification things that was a picture of the Ship of Theseus, asking you to select all images which included it lmao

@bilboswaggings

Жыл бұрын

My favorite is an AI asking humans to select all the places they would hide in This one: www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/0/01/machine_learning_captcha.png

@Spamster3212

Жыл бұрын

That's a good meme

@Rev_Erser

Жыл бұрын

Haha

@THEFRISKIESTDINGO

Жыл бұрын

*sweats nervously*

With enough finesse, you can pull the lever at just the right time to derail the trolley and save everyone. The AI will be particularly adept at this.

@bilboswaggings

Жыл бұрын

AI manages to derail the train and the train runs you over The Ai did this because you built it in this awful universe Did you commit suicide with extra steps?

@Someone-ll1rc

Жыл бұрын

@@bilboswaggings Suicide would be intentionally causing your own death. It’s very likely you wouldn’t have expected the train to kill you. So instead this might be a freak accident, or the ai might be charged with murder. Depends on if society views artificial intelligence as a sentient being deserving of consequences for their actions or not.

@Deathnotefan97

Жыл бұрын

If you pull the lever with the at the right time with the right finesse, you can also get multi-track drifting, the AI would be adept at this as well

@GameTimeWhy

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I've been bringing this up for years and keep being told "you can't do that".

@GameTimeWhy

Жыл бұрын

@Tech Priestess Micaela how big is this trolley and how many people are on it? What's the speed of the trolley?

You missed a crucial piece with the potential infinites: the track that starts with two people has a longer distance before it starts hitting people so at a certain length of "run up" track the first track will have always killed more people at any point in time.

@maxd5533

Жыл бұрын

That is absolutely correct Actually the number of people on the upper track is 1 smaller than on the bottom As long as you dont stop to count

@frag4007

Жыл бұрын

Yeah i was thinking the above track has less people to be exact one less person

@Silverizael

Жыл бұрын

@@frag4007 That's incorrect. Because the above track has +1 person at each comparative group between the top and bottom tracks. So it's an additional +1 to every group. Meaning you've basically added an additional infinity to the top track.

@ArdourXL

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverizael Depends on how you look at it. If you shift the spot where the people are on the top track one place over, then there are an equal number of people on both tracks, except the bottom track has an extra person at the start. Comparing these kind of series that both tend to infinity is almost always impossible because you can do tricks like these that suddenly make the other series look larger.

@bigbroiswatchingyou2137

Жыл бұрын

@@frag4007 They (will, eventually) have the same number of people overall as people above have already explained, but the point is that this is true only after an infinite amount of time - since the trolley moves at a certain speed instead of simply exterminating all of them simultaneously, so at any given point in time it will have killed a finite number of people. So you can actually compare the killcounts the trolley would make on both of the tracks at any time by looking at when they actually start killing, how much they kill at the beginning and in what manner their scores increase.

Established titles is a scam btw Alex, I'd sever ties with them immediately.

@SineN0mine3

5 ай бұрын

They're still around so I'm just commenting to agree that they're dodgy and advise anybody who's thinking about it to look deeper into it before parting with their money.

@kingacrisius

5 ай бұрын

Yep, seeing these old videos sponsored by them is always sad. Just shows how many people they scammed.

@antonaghful

5 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/oH2ezaN8cpW-oc4.htmlsi=JqMHOeICFa78OgJy No it was fucking not

@jeremypreston5009

5 ай бұрын

Anyone who thought they were anything but a gag gift is an idiot who deserves to get scammed. Like who in their right mind thought it was anything other than what it was

@kubin226

4 ай бұрын

It always sounded a but wierd to me, an old law i scotland that if somone own land hes automatically a lord? That would make every free paesant a lord which was not the case the highest % of nobility in european kingdoms was 10% and it was in Poland lithuania under uber specific circumstances, so even if they were actually planting thise trees like they said it still was false advertising

I don’t really care about wether I’m responsible for the ia’s actions, all I care about is that it doesn’t start making paper clips

@Sammy_82

Жыл бұрын

Just in case this comment becomes popular. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZaGfmbCPdt3FaJs.html

@xadielplasencia3674

Жыл бұрын

It already has

@tyruskarmesin5418

Жыл бұрын

It minimizes paper clips. Best to wipe out humans so they don’t make any.

@Sammy_82

Жыл бұрын

@@tyruskarmesin5418 *The Paperclip Minimizer*

@RustyWalker

Жыл бұрын

"Clip this!"

Next time you should review "you can stop the trolley at any time but doing so would be unfair to those that already died"

@j.kaimori3848

Жыл бұрын

Too real

@legendgames128

Жыл бұрын

My answer: The people who already died would like to see others not suffer from death, so actually, stopping the trolley as early as possible is justified.

@jfb-

Жыл бұрын

student loans irl

12:25 The Flying Dutchman resolves this by saying "part of the crew, part of the ship"

Santa shopping on Amazon and the screen just reads "Ass" is the funniest thing ever

this channel just feels like an interesting conversation with a friend

@mahone8540

Жыл бұрын

That one friend who doesn't talk much,doesnt have lots of friends,and somehow pulls out the most interesting topics on earth

@easytiger6570

Жыл бұрын

More like with an enemy

Wait this isn't a 2008 genre-defining Deathcore masterpiece, this is ethics!

@HarryNicNicholas

Жыл бұрын

"dammit jim, i' not a philosopher, i'm artificial!"

@FireyDeath4

Жыл бұрын

You just got trolleyed TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

@-_leslielopez_-1619

6 ай бұрын

DAMN IT

16:25 Oh interesting. When I looked at this, I put the one that starts with 2 people as the lower option/less suffering. I looked at it as having 1 fewer person, as if it had skipped step 1.

AI is not really "it's own intelligence" in the sense that it has free will, it's a model trained to produce an output based on parameters, it's simply another technology, albeit an impressive one. It may be a black box but the box still has boundaries and consequences and we're responsible for how it's used.

@HopperDragon

5 ай бұрын

Current llm's are what you describe. But a hypothetical AGI would be just as much a moral agent as anyone.

@tobir693

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, People don't seem to realize that the AI produces exactly what it was trained on. If it hadn't been trained on space, and avocadoes, it wouldn't be able to create an image of an avocado in space. It's also not creative, the creativity comes from the prompt. It's all just math, very confusing math. But its just math.

@Dark_OFW

4 ай бұрын

@@tobir693but you could argue the human brain is just math as well, since it works in the same way a current computer works just on a different magnitude of complexity

@Jay_Jay_Guy

4 ай бұрын

​@@tobir693Expanding on what Dark_OFW said, the exact same thing could be said of humans. I couldn't ask you to imagine a color you haven't ever seen-- the limit is set by the cones depicting color in your eyes. Some have fewer than usual, and some have more. But your brain can only imagine what it's been trained on.

@tobir693

4 ай бұрын

@@Jay_Jay_Guy That's not true. We as humans are creative. We can imagine and create things we haven't seen before. Not seeing certain colors is a physical impossibility, not a conceptual one. AI is conceptually limited to what its been trained on, on top of physically. The only weird thing about AI, are emergent features, but I don't know enough about that, to say whether or not that would make AI creative or not. I would lean on no, since they seem to just be features we didn't know we trained the AI on.

"the track with two people is going to involve more suffering and death" But what if the trolley, while making the turn, slows down a little bit and is delayed just enough that while the diverted trolley flattens the two people, the non-diverted trolley would also have been flattening the two. Then you've 'saved' one person.

@waynelu8863

Жыл бұрын

You could also switch to the second track. As the first set of wheels on the trolley start to turn, you have to pull the lever to that the second set of wheels are locked onto the original path. This damages the trolley, but it also means it loses all energy and no one dies.

@fetterkeks2796

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I assumed that this was the actual dilemma in the problem!

@scottthewaterwarrior

Жыл бұрын

@@waynelu8863 That sounds like it would just make the trolley start multi-track drifting...

@waynelu8863

Жыл бұрын

@@scottthewaterwarrior It's not that wide. Also, the segments aren't rotatable to that degree

@Gamesaucer

Жыл бұрын

@@scottthewaterwarrior It doesn't really matter. Multi track drifting is not any more immoral than picking either track for the trolley. If we assume that you divert the first set of wheels but not the second, the trolley probably kills the people at the top a bit earlier. So it'd go something like 2 at the same time, 4, 6, 8, 10 and so on. That's just the even numbers, which is countably infinite, just as the number of people on either track is on its own. If we assume you divert only the second set of wheels, you'd kill 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and so on. That's also just the even numbers, except 2 got replaced by 1. Still countably infinite. If we assume that the victims on the different tracks are staggered so that the trolley alternately hits _n_ people on one track and then _n_ on the other, it'll go like 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, and so on. This is all the numbers twice, which is still countably infinite. So, I'd say it's worth the gamble. If the trolley stops or derails because of your creative use of the lever, you've saved a countably infinite number of people! And if you accidentally cause it to multi track drift... well, you won't have a countably infinite number of traumatised survivors to accommodate, which arguably is a good thing since overpopulation sucks and you won't need to spread a (presumably) finite amount of resources among them, which would result in no one getting anything, causing a countably infinite degree of suffering. Actually, death might even a mercy if you have finite resources. You won't have needlessly dragged out anyone's suffering, at least. In the end, it's still the same amount of suffering regardless of how long everyone suffered for, but if the trolley causes death quickly enough for there to not be _any_ suffering then you've probably secured the best outcome possible. Now that I've thought it through, I'm actually hoping for the multi-track drifting outcome (again, assuming finite resources to deal with the aftermath). This scenario has already been stretched far beyond what it was meant to make us think about anyway, so I'd say "the fewer survivors, the better" is a perfectly justified conclusion based on what we have to work with. If we _do_ have infinite resources to deal with the aftermath, I guess it might be better to have more survivors, though. In which case multi-track drifting would be the worst outcome, not because it kills the most people (it kills the same amount of people) but because it lets live the least amount of people (which counterintuitively is _not_ strictly tied to how many people are killed). So in that case... just don't touch the lever, I guess.

In the case of choosing the intensity of pain experienced during one's infinite stay in Hell, there is an easier way to talk about this. Intensity and duration/time are independent variables. Only the duration is infinite. The intensity of pain is constant in either case. Since intensity is the only variable that changes between the two options, the choice depends on that variable.

@5eater551

Жыл бұрын

Ok but hear me out: the top track is the same as the bottom track, just without that first guy, and from that point forward has the same intensity. In this case, you could suffer in hell for all eternity, or suffer in hell for all eternity but you can wait a day before it starts. Like, if you were to put a guy at the beginning of the top track it would literally be the same track, so how could you argue that the sizes are vastly different? The intensity, in this case, is debatable, I think.

@Silverizael

Жыл бұрын

@@5eater551 That's incorrect. Because the above track has +1 person at each comparative group between the top and bottom tracks. So it's an additional +1 to every group. Meaning you've basically added an additional infinity to the top track.

@Buphido

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverizael is that the case though? From what we see drawn in the trolley problem, there are three sets of people on the top track before the "…" while there are four on the bottom. So there are two ways to conpare the groups. If we compare them based on their horizontal position then what you said is correct. But if we compare then based on what the "…" is leading us to believe (ie. based on updating both tracks next group of people at the same time) then there is one more person on the bottom track. The latter is also supported by the distance to the first top group being longer than to the first bottom group because of the swerve in the rail. So basically I disagree with his assessment of this problem, since there is no definitive way to interpret the situation. In fact, I also disagree with the analogy he used. Not because it only supports one side of the argument but because I think that the pain you experience over multiple days cannot be summed up for comparison which puts a heavy bias on the choice representing the rail he argues for. Let‘s take the hell analogy and change it up a bit, so that in one option you experience 100 units of pain every day, while in the other one you experience 210 units every other day. Clearly the latter sums up to more units of pain, but I‘m sure there are a lot of people who would still pick it because pain just doesn’t work like that. Also, the analogy left out the core aspect of the problem, which is the stepwise increase of people on the rails, making them very close together at all times. Basically the analogy is biased and not representative of the problem at hand.

@joaomaciel1661

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverizael Don't think that's so simple, but dont take my word for it. One thing I'm sure is that you can't simply compute the difference of divergent series without being careful. This is one of those cases where you can write out the sum in different ways and get different results: 1) consider the grouping that you propose: you get for example ( 2 + 3 + 4 + ... ) - ( 1 + 2 + 3 + ...), pairing them like (2-1) + (3-2)+... = 1 + 1 + 1 ... gives infinity, since it's just summing ones. Just like you said ! 2) if you pair the term like (0-1)+(2-2)+(3-3)+... = -1 + 0 + 0 ... = -1. There are infinite terms, so you can always just cancel out with the following, you never get a "leading" term alone if the series is trully infinite We can think of it as: Nº 1) is equivalent to laying down the people like: || ||| |||| | || ||| Nº 2) is equivalent to laying down the people like: || ||| |||| | || ||| |||| The total number of people on the top track didn't change, we just put them a little further away than on the first track. But this makes no sense, your result should not depend on the ordering ! I'm by no means an analysis expert (pretty far from it), so I can't give a sufficiently good answer about this, but there are problems that may arise when you try to compute an infinite sum (additivity and commutation are defined in a binary way, think this is where the issue comes from). If you're curious, googling series rearangments, riemann series theorem, unconditional convergence, and such, should be clarifying. If you're educated on the subject and I'm missing something, let me know !

@Gamesaucer

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverizael That's the same thing. When working with infinities, the counterintuitive fact is that whether you remove the first guy or add an infinite number of people to the track by adding 1 in each position... the total amount is still exactly the same. There's still an infinite number of them, and that infinity is still the same size. However strange we may find it, it changes nothing about the problem. That's just the nature of infinities.

I think the paradox in the fourth case (the one with infinities) is intended a bit different than elaborated here. You can argue that either track is better as follows: 1. the second track is just like the first one, but you miss the first person. After that you kill the same amount every time. So you should choose the second one. 2. the second track is like the first one, but each group of people is one larger than the corresponding group on the first track. So you should go with the first track. It comes down to how you create a correspondence between the people on the tracks (a bijection in math speak). Alex is saying: lets assign each group of people to the group on the other track that is killed at the same point in time. That is one way to do it, and I like the argument with the potential infinite. However, one could argue that this is not clear from the picture and it could as well be that the track lengths are so that you the group with n people is killed after n minutes, no matter the track. In that case Alex' argument should lead to preferring the second track. Also 1=2 only follows from Alex' computation if one is allowed to subtract infinity from both sides, which is not exactly for the reason that this would yield nonsense such as 1=2.

@romano-britishmedli7407

Жыл бұрын

Honestly, this was more of a math-problem than a philosophical one. The answer for me is that it doesn't matter which track you choose, basically the same amount of people are going to die, because stuff gets weird at infinity. lim x -> ∞ = ∞ for both f(x) = x and g(x) = x+1. Every finite number c approaches 0 when compared to infinity. (Example: lim x -> ∞ = 1 for h(x) = (x+c)/x for any real constant c - if I remember my university-math correctly.)

@TheOneMaddin

Жыл бұрын

@@romano-britishmedli7407 While I admit that this was my worldview too before I watched the video, I must say now that I found this part addressed very well by Alex. Once you take a limit, you are talking about an actual infinite rather than the potential infinite. Yeah, this is weird philosophy-speak, but I agree that at no point in time infinitely many people are dead, and so it might make sense to compare every point in FINITE time rather than in the limit.

@romano-britishmedli7407

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOneMaddin While I'm a lot into philosophy myself, to be honest I didn't think much about the difference between actual and potential infinity. I just (from a mathematical perspective) found it very unintuitive to stop at a certain point in time, because this would make things finite again (then of course choosing track 2 would be the less bad option, saving one live), and this isn't what the argument is about - for me at least. I'm sorry, but if we were to stop at any point in time (therefore making the whole process finite), why even bring the word "infinity" into the problem? I'm not convinced philosophical definitions are leading to a different conclusion than the mathy one: "It doesn't matter." It sounds to me like "infinity" is a core part of the situaion Alex is presenting (which he can't just remove): "The trolley goes on forever on one of the two tracks, both having infinite people on them." So it's simply nonsensical to "measure" at a certain point in time t-0, because - by definition - it is guaranteed that there will be a next point in time t-1, and then another t-2, and then another t-3..., making thinking about at which point t-x to "stop" the scenario impossible, according to the very description presented. But maybe I understood the problem wrong? Edit: I hope this makes my argument clearer: I guess it depends if the trolley really goes on forever. Because if it does, I can always point to point in time where the second track has caught up with the number of casualties of the first track: Argument: At point t0, there is 1 casualty on track 1 - more than on track 2! Me: "But at point t1, there is also 1 casualty on track 2, *because according to the scenario, the trolley-ride is infinite* ." Argument: But at point tx, there are 300 casualties on track 1 - more than on track 2! Me: "But at point tx+1 there are also 300 casualties on track 2, *because according to the scenario, the trolley-ride is infinite* ." Argument: But at point t?, there are googolplex to the power of googolplex casualties on track 1 - more than on track 2! Me: "But at point t?+1, there are also googolplex to the power of googolplex casualties on track 2, *because according to the scenario, the trolley-ride is infinite* ."

@TheOneMaddin

Жыл бұрын

@@romano-britishmedli7407 How about this: the sequence a_n := n is strictly dominated by the sequence b_n := n+1. One can define a partial order on the set of all sequences in this manner. So there is a finer way to compare sequences than to only look at their sum (both sums are infinite). But when you ask whether this matters for this particular problem, then we are of course leaving math behind ...

@romano-britishmedli7407

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOneMaddin Can you explain a little bit more what you mean? It's been some years since I was into university-math. What do you mean by "a finer way to compare sequences"? Honestly, math is the first thing I'd turn towards when someone starts talking about "infinity", since it's such an abstract concept.

So while I DO enjoy the trolley problem videos, for me it was nice to see you dive into philosophical ideas in a low stakes and fun setting. I guess what I’m saying is you don’t have to do meme content for me to enjoy, just fun philosophy where I get to learn something, think, and have fun. Like when you talked about “oh, this problem is a critique of this philosophy and here’s why.” I had fun.

@allisthemoist2244

Жыл бұрын

The issue is that if he did a deep enough dive into philosophy he would quickly realize that skepticism isn't a viewpoint that contends with Christianity. The two views don't even interact (and yes I'll call skepticism a view because it is clearly a certain set of characteristics used as a response to various facts).

@Santisima_Trinidad

Жыл бұрын

@@allisthemoist2244 it does though? Christianity, insofar as it is a religion and not just a set of moral guidelines, directly contends with skepticism, as religions are founded on faith, also know as unquestioning belief (unquestioning in regards to the diety existing and being worthy of worship, not in the practices of those governing the faith), whilst skepticism is defined by constant questioning of everything, refusing to accept something based on faith.

@allisthemoist2244

Жыл бұрын

@@Santisima_Trinidad you would need to reframe skepticism slightly. The correct definition of it would be "someone who only accepts their cognition as true without evidence" Now, with that said, you would accept justice as real I imagine despite the fact that you don't see it. The reason for this is that you understand justice to be a pattern and you can't see patterns you can only see things that follow them and infer the pattern. In Christianity, we refer to patterns with the word "spirit" which has led to much unfortunate confusion as people wonder why spirits don't just show themselves. Knowing this, we can say that the soul is whatever pattern is unique to you and gives you an identity (the easiest example is a triangle which has three sides as it's soul). That's a brief overview of the concepts of Christianity in a very basic form, but the key thing to notice is that they are only claiming things about the world that everyone already accepts and framing them in a unique way.

@Santisima_Trinidad

Жыл бұрын

@@allisthemoist2244 i can see justice though? Or at the very least, i can see the rules and if they are applied fairly. If they are applied fairly, then that isn't justice. Likewise, if i cannot see the rules, then regardless of concistentcy in judgment then it isn't justice. As for spirit being patterns, you can assign any pattern to being a spirit, but simply because of that we cannot assign a unique spirit to patterns, with any god needing to be a unique spirit for it to be worth believing in as opposed to any other hypothetical spirit. There is no evidence to accept Christianity as truth over anything else, hence it being in opposition to skepticism.

@allisthemoist2244

Жыл бұрын

@@Santisima_Trinidad I didn't say we assign a spirit to a pattern. I said we use the word spirit to mean the same thing as the word pattern. And the better way of talking about justice is to say "we can see it in so far as things embody it". or imagine you see tiles layed out red blue green red blue green. In this example, you don't see the pattern but you see things that are the body of the pattern and can tell what it is through them. From those examples, you should see why Catholics talk about spirits like we do, but that it's not contentious claims of the supernatural.

I think "AI" is not at the level many people may assume. We may get there. But, at the moment, I'd hold the creator of any computer system responsible for what it does.

@cubonefan3

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think so too. I totally disagree with what Alex said and I’m surprised he used “Dali” as an example of how advanced AI is…. Dali is a VERY different form of AI than self driving cars or robots able to make their own moral decisions. Robots are much more programmable than children

@julianb4333

Жыл бұрын

@@cubonefan3 Didn’t dig too deep into the topic yet but from what I’ve heard DALL-E is using a classifier to guide the image generation which has been trained on an insane amount of images. I’m hesitant to consider the AI creating entirely new images as he does, if it needs other images to check whether generated noise looks like it’s supposed to. The question is if that’s any different from what humans are doing

@BombaJead

Жыл бұрын

@@julianb4333 very different, humans can't interpret exact pixel information the way programs such as dal-e can. These programs are a copyright nightmare because they can be trained using images/photos from artists/photographers without their consent. That is different for the music version of these programs where the developers stated that they won't be using copyrighted music to train them which begs the question why extend that generosity to musicians but not visual artists? Well it may be cause music labels are much quicker with their lawsuit game.

@lucyandecember2843

4 ай бұрын

​@@BombaJeado.o

Looking forward to the potentially infinite series of trolly problem memes videos

@JorgetePanete

9 ай бұрын

trolley*

11:51 The reason we can say the legs and the tabletop are one thing is because the combination of matter serves a definitive purpose. Same with a chair. You could take two saw horses and a door and make a table out of them, and they'd be a table because it serves the purpose of a table.

@roihemed5632

4 ай бұрын

So if I use my chair as a table, would you consider that chair a table. There are some problems with your answer.

2:35 Wait… that’s not Amazon

Q: _"Do you believe in the Lord Alex?"_ A: _"I believe in myself."_ *nuff said*

@HarryNicNicholas

Жыл бұрын

"do you beleive in" has always struck me as a silly bit of phraseology, i can only "believe in" myself, the question is, do you believe a god exists, or do you believe that aliens walk among us. and christianity and islam SHOULD be referred to as "the christian mythology" and "the islamic mythology" cos people seem to think all this bullcrap is real.

@cjdennis149

Жыл бұрын

@@HarryNicNicholas "Believe in X" can mean either "think X exists" or "trust X". I believe in reality (I think reality exists). I believe in my colleagues (I trust my colleagues).

@evannibbe9375

Жыл бұрын

@@cjdennis149 There is an extension to the idea of “trust”, if you are considering early Christianity, where it’s the mutually exclusive choice of “do you believe in Caesar, or do you believe in Jesus”. Both Caesar and Jesus say they are “the son of God, the high priest, the ruler of Earth” (Caesar Augustus had his adopted father Julius Caesar declared a god by the Roman Senate). Belief one way or another necessarily reshapes how you act in that society, as you are choosing whose rules you are going to follow (thus believing that one of them is actually the government of Earth and not the other). To rebel against both of their rules would mean that you believe neither of them is the rightful government of Earth. (Note: for reference, this would be from the standpoint of people who have never stepped outside of the Roman Empire.)

I honestly just enjoy listening to Alex talk, whether trolley problems are involved or not. What ever the topic has been, he always seem to have some thoughts on it, that I feel are worth listening to.

@HarryNicNicholas

Жыл бұрын

i like to try counting the hairs on his face.

Thank you for talking about how you only cover a handful of trolley problems. I and others likely would love to see more in a video, but I also bet that I and others like how you open each one up to a discussion or a thought process for philosophical pondering. I like the way you are doing things. I'm excited for a third trolley video!

These trolley problem memes are quite interesting and even fun. I appreciate the exposure to philosophical problems and concepts; your explanations make these issues understandable. Thank you!

The only reason why you measure a higher number of suffering from the diverted track is because it gets a head start relative to the straight track. If you were to remove the first person on the straight track, then both tracks are equivalent except that the diverted track is shorter before the trollet reaches the victims. If you don't pull the lever, then you have effectively routed the trolley over one extra victim

@hughcaldwell1034

Жыл бұрын

But it isn't one extra victim, that's the point. For example, imagine you divert the train onto the track that starts with two people. However, before the train gets there, one person from each group manages to escape and run away. Now the diverted track starts with one person instead of two, then two people instead of three, and so on. In other words, it is now identical to the first track. So you started with (supposedly) one less person on the diverted track, then took away an infinite number of people, and ended up with seemingly more than you started with.

@Silverizael

Жыл бұрын

That's incorrect. Because the above track has +1 person at each comparative group between the top and bottom tracks. So it's an additional +1 to every group. Meaning you've basically added an additional infinity to the top track.

@hughcaldwell1034

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverizael Yep. Which is why you can't do ordinary arithmetic with infinities. Each track has the same amount of people, but you can't deduce the amount arithmetically because infinity is not a number, it's a property. Hence why you get stuff like ∞ - 1 = ∞ + ∞.

12:00 counterpoint, the mug is not fixed to the rest of the table, but the legs and top are fixed to each other. The mug can be removed simply by lifting it off, but it is not so simple for removing the legs from the top.

@Dark_OFW

4 ай бұрын

Counterpoint, the roof of a convertible car is not fixed to the car, but is a part of the car

My thought on the ship of Theseus is that as long as there is a planck-time that has one version of you, each version is related to the other and that all these sequential persons have an agreement to take care of each other. If then a past you was reintegrated so that two versions exist at the same time, they will be a new "personality sequence" that is just very similar to you.

Please do more trolley problems. It's refreshing to see different versions of this problem, especially when they are combined with other interesting philosophical problems and combined into a very interesting thought experiment!

Something that helps me understand that last point better is Riemann's rearrangement theorem. It's a nice exercise to understand it that I would encourage people to try, and once you do then it really helps understand sequences that tend to infinity better, and also about the rate of divergence. There's a great video by Morphocular on it as well

I love listening to you ramble about philosophy. And then you combine it with memes - just perfect :D keep it coming 🥳

Appreciate that the sponsorship segment in this video is more cleanly compartmentalized than that of the previous video. It really helps absorb the media and the advertisement better.

"All infinities are infinite, but some are more infinite than others"

@romanpreuss3489

7 ай бұрын

This has to be one of the dumbest quotes ever😂

love the trolley problem memes :D hopefully looking forward to a continuation of this series.

If time travel to the past was real, I can't imagine the grandfather paradox being an issue. The concept of diverging timelines is way more logically consistent in my eyes. Doesn't even need to diverge, traveling to the past could just "erase" the future and it's now just as if you poofed out of thin air into this world. If you were to kill your grandfather and travel to the future, you'd just exist even though your parents don't

@jimijenkins2548

6 ай бұрын

Alternatively, bootstrap paradoxes are an appealing resolution. If you travel to the past, it will be because you already had materialized in the past, creating the conditions necessary for you to travel back. If you've already travelled back, then no possible action could prevent you from traveling, as you are participating in events already set in stone.

@bobthebox2993

6 ай бұрын

@@jimijenkins2548 while I think the bootstrap paradox makes way more sense than the grandfather paradox, it too poses an issue. All it takes is 1 person to know something they will or won't do when traveling to the past, and change that detail. "Like, yesterday I met with my future self of today. I'll just go back in time 1 day and during our meeting do something different" And bam there is an issue again.

@jimijenkins2548

6 ай бұрын

@@bobthebox2993 But for them to know that detail, it has happened. And any attempt to tamper with that happening will inevitably result in its fulfillment.

@bobthebox2993

6 ай бұрын

@@jimijenkins2548 I am aware of the hypothetical, I just don't see it being practically possible. It's way too easy to force a situation that can't realistically be immune to alterations.

These are super informative. I’ve taught my friends philosophy with these, please keep making them!

Yes please do more. My god something about trolley problems just tickle my brain in just the right ways.

The ship of Theseus paradox could also be witnessed with the sugababes 😂

Yes, more! Would definitely love to see you check out the "Prisoner's Trolley Problemma"

These trolley problem videos are what introduced me to your channel and led me to subscribe, I’d definitely love to see more!!

Good job and interesting the way the memes open up these philosophical topics.

It's both entertaining and informative, so yeah, keep them coming ! :D

This is my favorite series by far

Love this videos, already waiting for part 3

Continue this series! Love the analysis

You’re blowing my mind… again!

Some thoughts on problem 3. 1. Isn't the difference between a mug and a table their functionalities? A table consist of legs and top-part because it needs them to exist, they are necessary for a table. A mug on a table can be removed and not dependant on each other to exist, and therefore, is not part of the table. Rather it can be seen as an accessory of the table. Now, one might say, functionality is made from human mind. While it is true, that is not the point. It's not just "lingualistic boundary". A thing can exist not by looking at it from "material" side (atom side) but its functionality side. 2. I'd like to use modern terms like upgrade: "Ship of Theseus 1.1", meaning the second any part of the ship is changed, it is no longer original, rather a new entity. So, technically, it's not the trolley we diverted. 3. Notice how the moral problem on no.3 is just the same as questioning whether person A or B should get run over. However, by adding new factor, which is the crew replacing parts of the trolley, one can say that we have done our best to prevent casuality. The burden now is on the crew: Why aren't they dismantling it rather than making such paradoxical problem? Idk, this is just some random thought in the morning (it's 2am lol), nice video btw, memes turned to moral study :)

@chandir7752

Жыл бұрын

yep. Our labels and boundaries are technically subjective but they're not arbitrary. They are reasonable and very useful.

@jakistam1000

Жыл бұрын

@@chandir7752 Yes they are useful, but there's also an unfounded permanence to them. If I remove a leg from my table, and hit you with that, did I hit you with a mace or with a table leg? I think most people would, as a first intuition, say "table leg" (I asked my roommate, without providing context beforehand, and he did say "table leg".). Yet my table leg is a long, top-heavy piece of wood, and in this hypothetical I'm using it to strike as a person. Why is it still a table leg, and not a mace?

@BombaJead

Жыл бұрын

@@jakistam1000 because you stated it was a table leg XD. Why do you say the permanence is unfounded? To me it makes sense since we live In a constantly changing world our worldview reflects that: the table may have been a tree at some point but since someone chopped it and then someone else used the planks to make a table you now call it a "wooden table".

@jakistam1000

Жыл бұрын

@@BombaJead Okay, I'll admit that the question was a bit leading, but what else was I going to do? Actually unscrew the leg, hit him, and then ask to describe what just happened? I still feel that if I did it, then a person watching the whole thing would say that I hit my roommate with a table leg. But I don't have a solid justification. The fact that we live in a changing world is reflected by language being adapted. So the tree->table example demonstrates sacrificing permanence in order to achieve accuracy, and I applaud that. But the table leg->mace example demonstrates permanence which is, in my opinion, unnecessary in this situation. The function of an object was changed from table leg to mace, and yet it's still referred to as a table leg. (More obvious example would be a baseball bat - people evidently refer to them as baseball bats, even if they become weapons). As I'm writing this, I realize that some permanence is required for practicality. It would be inconvenient to change the description of the table from "chess table" to "monitor table" to "dining table" every time I use it for something else. I guess the language needs to strike a balance between general and specific descriptions, and my personal balance is slightly more towards specific, situation-based descriptions. In general, lack of precision is something that I really dislike in natural language. I accept it as a necessary fact of language, but I still don't like it.

@drdoomer8553

Жыл бұрын

The main reason I’m not sure if I buy the whole functionality argument is 1. There are tables which serve more of a function or even functions that old tables don’t serve yet people still refer to old and new tables as tables 2. If in the future someone says “well a table is something which must be able to hold things on top of itself with a base and legs AS WELL AS GIVE BACK MASSAGES” then a lot of people proceeded to agree with him (let’s say a million or even a billion or half the world) what then? Do we just refer to the old label as being true because we called it as such and appeal to it being the original or do we simply see the use for the new label and go along with it? “A table consists of legs and a top part because it needs them to exist” yeah but according to what and why? If there’s more functionality in adding more rules to the label or changing the label entirely and that’s the basis of labels then did the concept itself exist at all irl or would you stick you foot down to say no any of those changes? What if the mug served a large functionality to a table that we then say it couldn’t possibly be a table without? Lmfao it’s 6am and I’m writing novels rip

Yes, please do a series on these. Thank you for your time.

Please keep these coming! Your explanations of different infinites is spot on, but I feel like logically not pulling the lever in this situation is the more ethical thing to do, as either way infinite people will die, so I’d rather not be the one to make this happen (even if it’s gonna happen anyway) At least the surviving infinity will have a nice hotel to go back to!

That sponsor did not age well

@alexkennedy7933

11 ай бұрын

Why?

@xavierhamilton3540

7 ай бұрын

It turned out to be a scam

@GingerNinja-os7lj

7 ай бұрын

@@alexkennedy7933 sorry I missed your comment but the company was a scam they didn’t give away any land and that’s also not how lord/lairdship law exactly works also there was no evidence they were actually planting/protecting plants

you shld definitely make this a series 😂

@JorgetePanete

9 ай бұрын

should*

@buzzaboo

4 ай бұрын

​@@JorgetePanete 💀

omg, I just watched the first one days ago. It was one of the most intellectually amusing videos I've watched all month. Now a few days later, this video came out. You read my mind.

I love these trolley videos! They're such a fun way to explore how to think critically!

2:40 AI image generation IS "a collage of images that exist on the internet." These algorithms have been fed an enormous amount of images and their descriptions. This is called training data. They've been programmed to identify patterns in those images and descriptions, and then reproduce those patterns on command. The process, very basically, is the programmers going "Okay, algorithm, here's the images that fit these inputs." Followed by "Now, what image would fit THIS input?" What makes the algorithm produce seemingly "new" images is the fact that the algorithm doesn't look directly at the training data, but at the PATTERNS in the training data, with a certain degree of "looseness". This "looseness" is set by the programmer. If it's set too strict, then the algorithm will only be able to reproduce copies of the training data. If it's tooo loose, the algorithm produces gibberish. Get it just right, and it'll spit out something that doesn't look enough like anything in the training data that we assume it's a new thing when, in fact, it's just a remix of a collection of images too large for one human to track, and too dilute for one human to recognize.

Alex, you might want to reconsider working with established titles. There has been a lot of controversy with them recently. As a gag gift it's possibly okay but they basically have asterisks on every claim they make for what they're even selling. What you actually buy is a piece of paper and really nothing else with it. Please look into it.

I love that in the trolley of Theseus, at no point in the replacement, does anyone try to stop the trolley.

For the infinite one, it's interesting that you saw the upper row being "more deadly" because each step had one more person in it. I saw that the top row is the bottom row shifted with 1 less person and so took that one as being the "less deadly" version! This goes to show how important the indexing is when it comes to these "potential infinities". Under that framework, 0+2+3+4+... but 2+3+4+5+... > 1+2+3+4+... Even though we've only subtracted 0

Just wanted to point out that at about 10:10 you mention that your body replaces all of its cells every 7 years (according to a study, but the exact number of years doesn't matter and it's more about the idea) - that's actually false; the average age of cells in your body is seven years, but some (like in your stomach) survive for hours, some (like in your muscles and bones) survive for a decade or two, and some (like your neurons and some cells in your eyes) never get replaced and, in fact, don't actually have a maximum lifespan - they just die when you do because they aren't upkept anymore.

@fellowmemer5693

6 ай бұрын

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Both infinites are countable infinities and therefore the same. It’s still true that taking a measurement means one will be greater than the other but the ultimate logic shows them as both countable infinities.

Pretty interesting series, Alex! I'd hope you keep with it!

YEEEEES!!! I’ve been waiting for this sequel!!

12:45 I don't quite agree. Let's go back to the table with a mug put on top of it example. Sure, we can pull apart a table into a tabletop, and legs, but it woulnd't be a table anymore. Why? Because a table is a table precisely because it can function as a table. Simillarly with a ship. If you break the sails off it will no longer be a ship, because it will no longer serve the ship's function - it will no longer be albe to sail with it. A mug put on top of a table only utilizes table's function, and it doesn't give or take any function from the table (unless it serves as a piece of art, then "a table with a mug on top of it" is an object itself). Similarly, a pressence of a human on a boat does not give or take any functions from it. It just utilizes its purpose - the boat is made to transport humans)

@dominikszumski3206

Жыл бұрын

Also, to everybody, that is going to read this. I'm sorry for any technical issues with what I wrote. English is not my native language, and it's pretty hard for me to wrtie a text like this in a nice way. I hope, though, that you understood, what I meant

@ked49

8 ай бұрын

@@dominikszumski3206you did an amazing job, you even included the art exception.

Please make more! 🙏🙏🙏

thanks so much for sharing the name of the concept of mereological nihilism!!! I've been thinking about ontology exactly this way for years now but never knew if it had a name or if other people ever wrote about it. didn't know how to look it up lol. anyway now I'm going to go down the rabbit hole on this subject for the next couple of weeks.

Problem 3 sounds like an insurance scheme. 16:25 Another way of solving this is with hyperreal numbers. The sequence (2,3,4,5,…) approaches an infinite hyperreal number that is greater than the hyperreal that (1,2,3,4,…) approaches. This was so much fun!

The potential and actual infinite distinction does not sound very maths to me

On mereological nihilism, why are atoms something in themselves? They can be separated, and how do we know of their existence and how do we know what they're made of? by interacting with them. Why don't we then consider those interactions to be what is fundamentally real. I feel that to say something exists it inherently means humans have decided it does by defining it as the source of specific interactions otherwise we could say nothing else other than what is real exists or something like that

Ah I really hope you’ll do more trolley problem meme analyses! Not only are they extremely interesting and engaging, they make me crack up laughing as well 😂

These are so great! Thanks!

You should upload more. I eagerly await for your video.

Your hair been looking good lately 🔥

As usual, superb vid lord Alex!!

really interesting. thank you for making this video.

"... unless u are into pain" 🤣

Alex, haven't you considered playing that one trolley problem game and we will see how you decide on the different problems spot on? It would be great content!

Your explanation of problem #4 helped me more than my calculus class!

The track beginning with two people is the set containing all combinations of adjacent people greater than 1. The track beginning with one person is the set containing all combinations of adjacent people greater than 1, plus 1 extra person at the beginning. The second track has more people, not less

Hey Alex this established titles thing might be scam

@lurkingsoldi2107

Ай бұрын

It was exposed as a scam a long time ago

Here’s an ethical problem. If a company runs a large scale scam, but does it so that they can help plant trees and protect the environment, did they do a bad thing?

@user-qv8zs4vb6n

5 ай бұрын

Established titles is a scam in case you didn’t know 😎

16:24 the way I look at it is the track that starts with 2 people starts later because that switch adds distance for the trolley to travel. Because of that, the trolley hits the set of 2 people at the same time on both tracks. If you stop to measure the deaths at any points the bottom track will be 1 higher than the top track.

wrapping my head around Alex's conclusion for the infinite number of people problem. If the number of people on the track starting with two people is equal to x, then the number of people on the track starting with 1 person is 1 + x, therefore more people are on that track, so more suffering in theory is on that track

i think that there’s a reason why we consider the table and the legs to be one object but not the mug. like, without the legs or the tabletop it wouldn’t be the object we named, it wouldn’t serve its purpose, same thing with the ship, the veils are part of the ship cause the ship wouldn’t work without them. idk just a thought, sorry if it’s not well written, english is not my first language

@terminarothebest

Жыл бұрын

Exactly what I think. Here there is a conceptual difference, not linguistical as Alex suggested; just because language is clear to distinguish two different things it does not mean that the difference is linguistical and arbitrary.

@supernukey419

Жыл бұрын

The ship wouldn't work without the sailors either, though

@terminarothebest

Жыл бұрын

@@supernukey419 That is correct but not the point. The concept of "ship" does not include sailors, even if the ship needs them to work properly. Like "car" does not include "driver" and "hospital" does not include "doctors". Doctors can work outside hospitals and sailors can be momentarily grounded.

@MilkCalf

Жыл бұрын

Another reasoning is that things are often referred to as one thing when they are together. In my mind the coffee cup becomes part of the table if you nail it to the table.

@Gamesaucer

Жыл бұрын

@@MilkCalf If I have a puzzle, I can take it apart and move the pieces into arbitrary relative positions and rotations. It's about as un-together as it could be. But it's still this one thing called a puzzle. So that can't explain the difference.

I like these videos because they're simple and somewhat funny for some reason but also you keep revealing nuanced beliefs in your perspective even though it's just you running ppl over every time

16:30 Wait, now hold on. I was reading the picture as if the track starting with two people just had the first person removed, such that you should pull the lever to save the one person. Now, that's the real paradox.

15:14 I think I would choose 200 units if it would make me able to communicate with the overworld while 100 units wouldn't

@2:45 Actually not true. These image creating AIs, all of them so far, use either a cache of millions of different images from the internet or will actually browse the internet to find what what text prompt might be referring to if it's not already in its database. You can quickly see this for yourself if you are familiar with many internet artists, down to the point where you can pinpoint which parts of the image are influenced by specific artworks. These image AIs truly do just make an extremely convincing collage of source pictures it finds/has access to rather than "drawing" them themselves. It's based off of the same technology that scientists use for brain scans during dreams in an attempt to have computers display what people are dreaming based off of the specific neurons that are triggering while they are asleep, after hours of recording their brain activity while staring at different images. The AI is pulling every single pixel of the image from something, please do not give it more credit than it currently deserves. And I do mean currently. It may very well be drawing its own images from its own design within a year.

(10:00) Isn't that false? As far as I've understood it, it's "on average, a cell it's replaced after 7 years", but that doesn't mean _all_ cells are replaced after 7 years, but that there's been X cell replacements after 7 years where X is the total number of cells. The difference is that one cell can be replaced multiple times and add to X, while another cell is never replaced.

WE NEED MORE OF THESE

For the potential infinites problem, the tracks should be switched to make a more difficult problem. In that case, if you pull the lever, you involve yourself but still in theory kill the same number of people, while not pulling the lever doesn’t involve you but kills one more person if the trolley is stoped at any time.

Nice video Alex. One note on infinities you might want to read up on: in mathematics you actually differentiate sizes of actual infinities. That’s the reason why you can’t just subtract ‘infinity’ from ‘infinity’ - you need to know the substance of each infinity first. For example: (1+2+3+…)/(1x2x3x…) = ‘infinity’/‘infinity’ = 0.

@NoahSpurrier

Жыл бұрын

This is described as different orders of infinites starting with Aleph Null. Omega is the ultimate infinity described by Cantor.

Really enjoy these trolley problems. They're all always so creative haha.

This was awesome. Good memes, and I learned something.

Another Ship of Theseus reference I love is in Edgar Wright's "The World's End". The protagonist is an alcoholic haunted by his glory days and yearns to return to where he spent them. To the extent where he kept his first ever car he got sold in that town for decades, so he still has that nostalgia. But because its 20 years old he's had to replace every part in the car. If a car is nostalgic, and then you replace every part, is it still nostalgic? Great use of the thought experiment I thought.

Does your answer to the question about the two different groups of infinite people tied to the tracks change if we bump every group on the top track a meter to the right?

Maths degree guy (who's admittedly quite rusty with this stuff, so I ask any fellow maths people to correct any mistakes!) here - some infinities are indeed larger than others. The simple way to visualize this is the concept of countability. In layman's terms, countability is the idea that, given any point in that infinite set you could count the number of elements less than it using natural numbers (AKA counting numbers - 1,2,3 etc). This is obviously true for counting numbers and most infinite sets derived from them (like say, the set of natural numbers and their halves: 0.5,1,1.5,2,2.5..., 0.5 is the 1st element, 2.5 is the 5th, 200 is the 400th, 1000000 is the 2000000th and so on - you can always asign a natural number to any element of it). There's sets out there that are too big to be countable, though. The real numbers (so any number you can think of that can be expressed without i, the square root of -1) are uncountably large. In fact, the set of real numbers contained between any two other real numbers is uncountably large. Say you wanted to list all the real numbers between 0 and 1 from lowest to highest. Where in that list is 0.1? Well, it's not the fist number, because 0.01 exists, and then there's 0.001, etc etc. Counting from the "lowest" number in that set all the way to 0.1 (not to speak of all the way to 1!) would take an infinite amount of steps - you can't map it to the counting numbers because the counting numbers aren't large enough, and so it's an uncountably infinite set, larger than the set of counting numbers. This is as opposed to the counting numbers - no matter how high a counting number you name, one can still count to it in a finite amount of steps. (Yes, this is oversimplifying a lot, but I'm trying to make it understandable without higher level maths knowledge, so I'm trying to bring it to stuff most people understand, I'm not going to explain injections and bijections or provide rigorous proof. If anyone's interested in a bit of a better proof for the uncountability of real numbers that's still relatively easy to understand, look up Cantor's Diagonal Argument, it's a satisfyingly intuitive one)

Yeeesss, this is what I've subscribed for

Love your videos!