Відео

Every paradox is generated by the limits of the language in which it is stated.

I could name my cat "is a cat". In that case, "is a cat" is a cat.

The fact that some infinite sets are contained by others demonstrates Cantor's assertion.

In mathematics, this would be similar to dividing by zero. It's undefined, or as I like to think, it's broken. There are things that just don't work and are broken.

Arguing against MORAL relativism by arguing against generic relativism... Happens more often than you think.

"Don't! Doing the right thing is for losers!" 🤣

I used to always wonder what happens if i was to enter a black hole. Even as a small child.

Im just a guy watching all of your videos

In the same way one can distinguish between a liar and a truthful person when confronted by them by asking either of them "would the other guy say you were a liar?", is there such an indirect reflective system for constructing sets? Just asking. It might address the otherwise oscillatory and simultaneous answers shown here.

Syntax error

No paradox here, just a category error…..your “predicate” was turned into a subject but you tried to continue calling it a predicate, that’s a logical fallacy, not a linguistic paradox. Set theory rule making has a similar error….rule number one is improperly defined. It’s like saying R1 - Logical errors are allowed…then getting to R11 and acting surprised when you find a logical error.

I am not having the consciousness of the rock, doesn't mean that the rock has no consciousness. Is the rock not conscious of you as you are not of it?

Coming to the semantics or the understanding part, making sense of things is down to communication between interpreter, performer and the instructor. The performer can, in general, give the outputs in a different manner to the interpreter, than the instruction given. If on the other hand only the instructions are to be performed and the performance validated, then of course there is nothing to make sense of except the performance which is only syntax. Even a digital computer needs some juice to perform, which then leads us to ask where is the intelligence in the computer? It is in the 'learning'. If a computer can truly learn, it is not artificial or simply functional.

This reminds me of a more simple paradox: "This statement is false." This can also be written as two sentences contracting each other. Anyway, this seems a much shorter way of arriving at the same conclusion you reach.

This is gibberish. This is trying to sound smart but not understanding the concepts. It’s easy to see many flaws with this logic. You’re giving extra meaning to a set vs a set with a label. Putting a box around items and calling it a set doesn’t change it or change its identity. A set is defined purely by what it contains. Contains just means it has at least the same items as. A set contains itself by definition. Drawing endless boxes around itself never changes that one set. Most of the issues you are seeing are you just abusing language to try to construct sets that aren’t sets. Language allows us to speak gibberish with no meaning, to contradict itself. Think of something that can’t be thought of, gibberish. Null set is not a real set, because it contains nothing, it can’t be defined. It’s more of a short hand for descriptive purposes. At one point you are trying to define a set by what is not in the set. That’s not appropriate set construction. It’s ok to think of concepts as members of a set as long as you understand the boundaries of these members. There are too many issues to list, but overall the issue is constructing language and sentences without real meaning, only theoretical meaning which changes over time. It is important to construct sets in a way that is stable and unchanging over time. Changing things on the fly doesn’t actually break set theory. It just applies it incorrectly.

It clearly states in the rules nothing is still a set therefore nothing can contain itself

This Paradox has been known for at least 2 millennia: Epimenides of Knossos, an ancient Cretan philosopher and poet who made the immortal statement: “All Cretans are liars.”

I'm a 13 year old who's intersted in philosophy and ethics. And this video is just perfect, it explained it in such a simple way.

Its circular logic. It never ends. "Not a paradox ". Computers get locked up by it. Its just not obvious to them that its just circular logic, which is not valid.

You have read this comment. Is a predicate.

We found morality in our feeling of disapproval. So what if its only feeling? We believe in planets even though we feel pnly loght from them.

But we also experience our feeling that we can call " this is viceous".

Intelligence,,,,the ability to explain complexities with ease! consise and easily understandable,,,,,thankyou kind sir,,,,

It would seem that maybe the simple sentence 'This sentence is a lie.' would be an easier example.

I cant trust anything from someone who writes that well backwards!

This isn’t a paradox it’s idiocy.. logic taken this way is such a waste of time. Try to represent this “sentence” as a binary operation.. if the statement is false then it’s equal to zero, and zero is equal to zero, so no paradox.. just navel gazing over the limitations of language and the the presumptions and illusion of intellectualism misplaced.. no you can’t reach clarity if you’re dwelling in nonsense.

Thanks 👍

6:05 Yes.

Can we applaud that Decart realized that the mind body interaction is mainly dependend on something in the brain?

Wait, the issue here is that there is a major difference between applying this argument to morals and applying this argument to subjects of persistent disagreement like the question of whether God exists. In the case of the existence of God, the disagreement *can* be attributed to human error. If there is a fact of the matter over whether God exists, one party in the disagreement is making an error. So the same can be said of the question over whether there exists moral facts. This doesn’t show that moral skepticism defeats itself at all. Unless I misunderstood something here.

Congradulations sir for finally getting that tenure.✨ Your message has been highly influential and strikes a cord like no amount of sheer pep talk or parental scolding can. As a student in IIT Delhi, even though our student loans are uncommon here, you still manage to speak to the core of what makes a good student by striking a balance between the logistical and the personal to really engrain the fundamentals of what you're trying to say. I'm sure I'll be coming back to this video and playlist time and time again, for which I thank you sincerely.

"Are you the strongest because you are Gojo Satoru or are you Gojo Satoru because you are the strongest?"

absolutely incredible annotation at 11:03 on the far right. so thought provoking!

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" . . . .} ?