Wouldn't it only matter if the person who wrote the sentence was true or false.
@mattb59626 минут бұрын
I’m curious how you create the sense that you are writing backwards and looking at us at the same time. I noticed that you aren’t doing that by a few key things but it is still a cool trick!
@insidiousmaximusСағат бұрын
The study of doodie?
@lux35462 сағат бұрын
I'm not sure if you're into political philosophy, and this is a bit weird to ask, but can you make a lecture about Machiavelli's philosophy?
@BorkToThe3rd2 сағат бұрын
The word you are looking for is "indeterminate".
@planetary-rendez-vous3 сағат бұрын
Wait that's a big problem... Wow. So we live with our paradox. I don't know anyone that doesn't think using classical logic. Who has heard of dialethism or gap theory??
@VonKirda4 сағат бұрын
It is about the jews again ??
@markelleaskew2015 сағат бұрын
stoner here watching
@denverdon34506 сағат бұрын
I just was watching a video that you did called "Ordinary people are evil" You turned off comments, something people do when they know they are full of s#&!t You said, as an example of good charities giving to people in need, U.N.E.S.C.O. feeding starving people. You need to look a bit closer at U.N.E.S.C.O.
@FrankCostanza-ky6xf10 сағат бұрын
People don't just lie; they lie _about_ things. So, to simply say, "I am lying," is to say that you are lying _about_ something. You cannot simply lie about nothing.
@danielduarte21411 сағат бұрын
ARE YOU WRITING BACKWARDS ???
@madhusudanranganathan138212 сағат бұрын
That said, if you want to resolve a paradox, such as this, first thing that you'll see is that its a duality. There is a claim and a disclaim or an agreement and a disagreement. Here it is a simple true or false statement. The statement is either in agreement or in disagreement[claim or disclaim in other instances]. The way to resolve the duality is to go beyond the statement to find the non disputable, indeterrable truth. It will be in the form of a simple fact. Instance here: fribble is true. If "fribble" is the statement "CBS can sue the author", then the simple fact is that CBS has no relationship to the content and therefore cannot sue. When you see the fact that fribble itself has no logic in it, the duality corresponding to whether it is true or false vanishes. Another instance: taking the true and false statements The sentence below is true The sentence above is false These two are propositions. Again a claim is made in each proposition. The simple fact here is that both the statements are propositions holding a claim. Go beyond the propositions to find out what is truth itself. It isn't a proposition therefore there is no relationship with logic in each of the propositions so they vanish. Here the statements themselves were a duality Duality is like seeing two faces of the same coin. Just because the mind can see the two faces one after the other doesn't mean the coin itself comes one after the other. It is a single coin, whereas duality makes it look as though it has two faces. This is truth, seeing things as they are, not as they are supposed to be. Truth is always beyond duality
@SuperCorbeaux12 сағат бұрын
Names my cat “is a cat”
@TAZAR_II15 сағат бұрын
As it turns out, Captain Kirk is suing.
@paulschuurmanspetrovic777015 сағат бұрын
Nice clear talk about logic, that is not logical.
@anthonysowards767115 сағат бұрын
Dumb. So dumb.
@IanPalmer-ej8nm16 сағат бұрын
"Undefined" is not a paradox. Unefinited set. " { X/0, "everything I say is untrue" . . . .} ?
@bobloblaw1000116 сағат бұрын
Zeus did not exist in an ontologic sense as an actual god. But he existed and continues to exist in an epistemic sense.
@bryanjacobson179716 сағат бұрын
So awesome, thank you!!
@amazog18 сағат бұрын
Amazing and excellent context..
@BigFatBugRat19 сағат бұрын
Damn... is a Rat a Rat... huhu.. My dear Shakespire, my dear Sancho Pansa, my dear Leonardo... and Jeffrey. ... Tnx, was fun. :)) 👍
@bazd392619 сағат бұрын
What if you printed text backwards?
@user-pg3mr4oj4p19 сағат бұрын
As more of a physicist than a mathematician I have always held that there are no exceptions to a rule. If an exception is encountered then the 'rule' is not a rule and the 'rule' requires modification such that the exception no longer exists under the modified rule. Set theory rule #11 is at fault. Think of it spatially - set A has a boundary as it 'contains', and the set that 'contains' set A has a second boundary around Set A and is spatially different from Set A - therefore a set cannot contain itself.
@edmundlyczek302120 сағат бұрын
I wasted 5 minutes of my life
@greginnovi81222 сағат бұрын
The following statement is true: "This statement is false"
@TheJochanceКүн бұрын
To insist on some predication that a set can/does contain itself is, in a way, to insist on counting the set twice while there's only one instance. It's merely talking about the same instance of the same {} in two different contexts.
@makkiazahra7836Күн бұрын
I passed the quiz
@Firmus777Күн бұрын
I don't know about calling people who believe in non-objective moral facts relativists. I'm glad you didn't write that down. It would make Plato a relativist and Plato is usually seen as opposing relativism of the sophists.
@rdy2dstryКүн бұрын
I prefer calling him “that guy who will never be as good as Michael Jordan”
@hilliard665Күн бұрын
These arent paradoxes. They are failures in language.
@paulyhartКүн бұрын
"*beep*" - Captain Pike
@beegreene9744Күн бұрын
This is so helpful, thank you.
@DinisF97Күн бұрын
A quick way to infer that moral truth exists is to call attention to the fact our every act presupposes them. If you're denying moral truths to exist then you cannot reasonably justify any action if not by accident. Let's say for example, you're in a business meeting and someone declares selling more toasters is good for the company, you're already declaring something is good, albeit conditionally, this case the business. What moral truth is, essentially is whether or not something is good regardless of condition. So to deny moral truth would be the same as to say it is neither good nor bad that is good for the business to sell toasters, which makes a contradiction in our description that our already declared good is not good. From this we either go for the option that we exist in a logically inconsistent universe, which would undermine our ability to logically dialogue for that same point to begin with, or we concede a universe we live in that has moral truth. A weaker argument I'd like to say that if you can coherently describe something to exist, why would it not exist? Wont the burden of the proof lie in the opposing party to demonstrate why it does not/cannot? Does the same not go for moral truth? We already presuppose Truth to begin with in order to begin the point of this video and it'd only be logical to assume that a subset of truth, moral truth would too exist until shown otherwise? Would it not also the case that if you can know truth to exist in order to arrive at the given premise that truth exists, that we can too know that mortal truth exists until proven otherwise? This in combination with the fact that we can so much as even experience the impression that moral truth exists, whether false or true in their circumstance, should be enough reason to concede moral truth exists and is discoverable if we are to exclude that we exist in a universe where experience and reason are fundamentally at contradiction with one another.
@krinkle909Күн бұрын
General statements are not without exceptions. At least in sociology, general statements are the norms and counterexamples do not disprove them.
@MilanLDКүн бұрын
Aside from the content, the lack of blinking is disturbing to me 😅
@mauricehickey5214Күн бұрын
The sentence itself is not valid it cannot justify its own meaning ...eg "This sentence is false because......" because of what,why . Neither has the logic to contradict itself
@allanwrobel6607Күн бұрын
Why is rule 8 required, is it not obvious?
@jceepfКүн бұрын
Things can get really hairy when we use word describing "Quantum objects". For example, when we say that an elecron hit a screen, what does it mean? It seems to refer to a process rather than an object since quantum mechanics even rejects that electron are "ontological objects". After all, the Pauli exclusion principle is based on the fact that two elecrons are indistinguishable completely.... So referring to "single electrons" seems to be a contradiction.
@animusadvertere3371Күн бұрын
It's a meaningless sentence. Solved.
@ginogarcia8730Күн бұрын
finally a straightforward explanation
@madhusudanranganathan1382Күн бұрын
This word "paradox" itself arises from duality. Meaning of the word paradox is taken as: para - beside, along with, alongside & dox - opinion, belief, idea. Basically the word paradox itself says an accompanying opinion or belief. When you have a paradox, there is no other way out of it but to relieve it. It is nothing but a figment of imagination, a creation of the mind which leads you nowhere but in never ending circles because it is a creation born out of pure imagination or mind fluff which has no other purpose but to keep going in circles, just like the video did. Professional logicians should be knowing about this. It is nothing but pure imagination. Go do something else, because this is what a paradox is
@okeytay4Күн бұрын
The whole system thing is a fantastic refutation because the mere fact that the people feeding the person symbols also created the rulebook, is all you need to have for the whole system to understand Chinese. Additionally, I feel like this whole thing misses the fact that real world objects and phenomena are themselves a form of syntax, so you would literally have to shove all of the observable universe through the slot, which would inherently allow the person in the room the ability to understand Chinese.
@aidenheffernan7556Күн бұрын
wouldn’t the objective normative law only be that you should believe the empiricist principle because it leads you to truth? the law wouldn’t state *that* believing it would lead you to truth. it seems to me the existence of epistemic facts only suggest there is an objective law stating you should believe what’s true, but no objective law needs to exist for the empiricist principle to lead us to truth.
@aidenheffernan7556Күн бұрын
i’m perfectly comfortable accepting that it’s only my opinion that truth is worth caring about. i actually think i agree with the argument’s conclusion, as i understand it, there are no objective facts stating that you should believe what’s true, but i think that an understanding of truth helps me and society at large better get what we want
@siondafyddКүн бұрын
Related to this and maybe a simpler scenario: If someone has a truly different belief to you, there is no way for you to be able to experience that. You could imagine how certain conditions and facts could change your view. But there is no way for you in your current condition to actually truly believe what the other person believes. You cannot chose what persuades you, you either are or are not persuaded. And there’s no way for you to truly understand how someone else is persuaded.
@franzieaКүн бұрын
"Dili man ka gwapa ba?"
@thinkfloyd2594Күн бұрын
too much lebron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@V7B817Күн бұрын
Your drawings are too good😂
@willieluncheonette5843Күн бұрын
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
@user-lr9fs8hb7pКүн бұрын
I really think this video should conclude with some sort of reference to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which more or less states that any sufficiently powerful system is either inconsistent or incomplete. Any attempt to resolve the inconsistency requires reducing the "power" of the system, usually by removing the possibility of self-reference. As long as we stand "outside" of the system, we can eliminate the paradox. This is essentially Tarsky's Undefinability Theorem.
@smoceany9478Күн бұрын
i just realized how good you are at writing backwards
Пікірлер
Wouldn't it only matter if the person who wrote the sentence was true or false.
I’m curious how you create the sense that you are writing backwards and looking at us at the same time. I noticed that you aren’t doing that by a few key things but it is still a cool trick!
The study of doodie?
I'm not sure if you're into political philosophy, and this is a bit weird to ask, but can you make a lecture about Machiavelli's philosophy?
The word you are looking for is "indeterminate".
Wait that's a big problem... Wow. So we live with our paradox. I don't know anyone that doesn't think using classical logic. Who has heard of dialethism or gap theory??
It is about the jews again ??
stoner here watching
I just was watching a video that you did called "Ordinary people are evil" You turned off comments, something people do when they know they are full of s#&!t You said, as an example of good charities giving to people in need, U.N.E.S.C.O. feeding starving people. You need to look a bit closer at U.N.E.S.C.O.
People don't just lie; they lie _about_ things. So, to simply say, "I am lying," is to say that you are lying _about_ something. You cannot simply lie about nothing.
ARE YOU WRITING BACKWARDS ???
That said, if you want to resolve a paradox, such as this, first thing that you'll see is that its a duality. There is a claim and a disclaim or an agreement and a disagreement. Here it is a simple true or false statement. The statement is either in agreement or in disagreement[claim or disclaim in other instances]. The way to resolve the duality is to go beyond the statement to find the non disputable, indeterrable truth. It will be in the form of a simple fact. Instance here: fribble is true. If "fribble" is the statement "CBS can sue the author", then the simple fact is that CBS has no relationship to the content and therefore cannot sue. When you see the fact that fribble itself has no logic in it, the duality corresponding to whether it is true or false vanishes. Another instance: taking the true and false statements The sentence below is true The sentence above is false These two are propositions. Again a claim is made in each proposition. The simple fact here is that both the statements are propositions holding a claim. Go beyond the propositions to find out what is truth itself. It isn't a proposition therefore there is no relationship with logic in each of the propositions so they vanish. Here the statements themselves were a duality Duality is like seeing two faces of the same coin. Just because the mind can see the two faces one after the other doesn't mean the coin itself comes one after the other. It is a single coin, whereas duality makes it look as though it has two faces. This is truth, seeing things as they are, not as they are supposed to be. Truth is always beyond duality
Names my cat “is a cat”
As it turns out, Captain Kirk is suing.
Nice clear talk about logic, that is not logical.
Dumb. So dumb.
"Undefined" is not a paradox. Unefinited set. " { X/0, "everything I say is untrue" . . . .} ?
Zeus did not exist in an ontologic sense as an actual god. But he existed and continues to exist in an epistemic sense.
So awesome, thank you!!
Amazing and excellent context..
Damn... is a Rat a Rat... huhu.. My dear Shakespire, my dear Sancho Pansa, my dear Leonardo... and Jeffrey. ... Tnx, was fun. :)) 👍
What if you printed text backwards?
As more of a physicist than a mathematician I have always held that there are no exceptions to a rule. If an exception is encountered then the 'rule' is not a rule and the 'rule' requires modification such that the exception no longer exists under the modified rule. Set theory rule #11 is at fault. Think of it spatially - set A has a boundary as it 'contains', and the set that 'contains' set A has a second boundary around Set A and is spatially different from Set A - therefore a set cannot contain itself.
I wasted 5 minutes of my life
The following statement is true: "This statement is false"
To insist on some predication that a set can/does contain itself is, in a way, to insist on counting the set twice while there's only one instance. It's merely talking about the same instance of the same {} in two different contexts.
I passed the quiz
I don't know about calling people who believe in non-objective moral facts relativists. I'm glad you didn't write that down. It would make Plato a relativist and Plato is usually seen as opposing relativism of the sophists.
I prefer calling him “that guy who will never be as good as Michael Jordan”
These arent paradoxes. They are failures in language.
"*beep*" - Captain Pike
This is so helpful, thank you.
A quick way to infer that moral truth exists is to call attention to the fact our every act presupposes them. If you're denying moral truths to exist then you cannot reasonably justify any action if not by accident. Let's say for example, you're in a business meeting and someone declares selling more toasters is good for the company, you're already declaring something is good, albeit conditionally, this case the business. What moral truth is, essentially is whether or not something is good regardless of condition. So to deny moral truth would be the same as to say it is neither good nor bad that is good for the business to sell toasters, which makes a contradiction in our description that our already declared good is not good. From this we either go for the option that we exist in a logically inconsistent universe, which would undermine our ability to logically dialogue for that same point to begin with, or we concede a universe we live in that has moral truth. A weaker argument I'd like to say that if you can coherently describe something to exist, why would it not exist? Wont the burden of the proof lie in the opposing party to demonstrate why it does not/cannot? Does the same not go for moral truth? We already presuppose Truth to begin with in order to begin the point of this video and it'd only be logical to assume that a subset of truth, moral truth would too exist until shown otherwise? Would it not also the case that if you can know truth to exist in order to arrive at the given premise that truth exists, that we can too know that mortal truth exists until proven otherwise? This in combination with the fact that we can so much as even experience the impression that moral truth exists, whether false or true in their circumstance, should be enough reason to concede moral truth exists and is discoverable if we are to exclude that we exist in a universe where experience and reason are fundamentally at contradiction with one another.
General statements are not without exceptions. At least in sociology, general statements are the norms and counterexamples do not disprove them.
Aside from the content, the lack of blinking is disturbing to me 😅
The sentence itself is not valid it cannot justify its own meaning ...eg "This sentence is false because......" because of what,why . Neither has the logic to contradict itself
Why is rule 8 required, is it not obvious?
Things can get really hairy when we use word describing "Quantum objects". For example, when we say that an elecron hit a screen, what does it mean? It seems to refer to a process rather than an object since quantum mechanics even rejects that electron are "ontological objects". After all, the Pauli exclusion principle is based on the fact that two elecrons are indistinguishable completely.... So referring to "single electrons" seems to be a contradiction.
It's a meaningless sentence. Solved.
finally a straightforward explanation
This word "paradox" itself arises from duality. Meaning of the word paradox is taken as: para - beside, along with, alongside & dox - opinion, belief, idea. Basically the word paradox itself says an accompanying opinion or belief. When you have a paradox, there is no other way out of it but to relieve it. It is nothing but a figment of imagination, a creation of the mind which leads you nowhere but in never ending circles because it is a creation born out of pure imagination or mind fluff which has no other purpose but to keep going in circles, just like the video did. Professional logicians should be knowing about this. It is nothing but pure imagination. Go do something else, because this is what a paradox is
The whole system thing is a fantastic refutation because the mere fact that the people feeding the person symbols also created the rulebook, is all you need to have for the whole system to understand Chinese. Additionally, I feel like this whole thing misses the fact that real world objects and phenomena are themselves a form of syntax, so you would literally have to shove all of the observable universe through the slot, which would inherently allow the person in the room the ability to understand Chinese.
wouldn’t the objective normative law only be that you should believe the empiricist principle because it leads you to truth? the law wouldn’t state *that* believing it would lead you to truth. it seems to me the existence of epistemic facts only suggest there is an objective law stating you should believe what’s true, but no objective law needs to exist for the empiricist principle to lead us to truth.
i’m perfectly comfortable accepting that it’s only my opinion that truth is worth caring about. i actually think i agree with the argument’s conclusion, as i understand it, there are no objective facts stating that you should believe what’s true, but i think that an understanding of truth helps me and society at large better get what we want
Related to this and maybe a simpler scenario: If someone has a truly different belief to you, there is no way for you to be able to experience that. You could imagine how certain conditions and facts could change your view. But there is no way for you in your current condition to actually truly believe what the other person believes. You cannot chose what persuades you, you either are or are not persuaded. And there’s no way for you to truly understand how someone else is persuaded.
"Dili man ka gwapa ba?"
too much lebron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your drawings are too good😂
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
I really think this video should conclude with some sort of reference to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which more or less states that any sufficiently powerful system is either inconsistent or incomplete. Any attempt to resolve the inconsistency requires reducing the "power" of the system, usually by removing the possibility of self-reference. As long as we stand "outside" of the system, we can eliminate the paradox. This is essentially Tarsky's Undefinability Theorem.
i just realized how good you are at writing backwards