I totally agree! The only reason I skipped it, is because it was the last section of my script, and I ran out of time :(

@@Italianjedi7 ooooh good question! It depends on your perspective! On some level, yes, and on another no. The mind is a fickle thing, sometimes you lose your thoughts, whereas it's pretty rare for words in a text to just disappear 🤔 Does an idea belong to you if you thought it? Sometimes our minds can trick us into thinking things we've heard are our own thoughts 🤔 Is the recollection of a single person's prior thoughts enough evidence to constitute originality? It's hard to say 😉

@@Italianjedi7 I don't know who she is, but shout out to Judy 😉 tell her I said thanks! 🙂

These are timestamps 😅

This is a good question! The answer is simple, that one I actually made up myself 😅 There are primarily two reasons why I named it "The Many Molecules Paradox" 1) It lets me use the same naming convention for all three, which further allows me to refer to the group of them collectively as paradoxes. A superficial reason, to be sure but I had to call it something 😅 2) In my head, the contradiction implied by the word "paradox," is the way that we handle assigning the quality of wetness differently to different molecules, even though they are both water. But I appreciate the critique, I can certainly try to be more explicit with my naming conventions in the future! Thanks!

I would assume when people are asking if water is wet or not, they are talking about liquid water,

This is a valid perspective! But I wanted to avoid using scientific nomenclature, because I thought this would be a video that I could try to make more accessible to the layman ;) But I would point out, that someone on the other side of the argument could say that they would count adhesion, but discount cohesion. But its also perfectly fine to count cohesion, if that's your perspective :)

Haha, I have no idea for snow! I hadn't even thought of that! It's a very good question! Pure Ice and Snow have the same chemical composition, H2O, the primary difference is their structure. Ice is typically formed in a process called solidification (aka freezing), causing it to form into crystalline lattices. Snow, however is also made of ice crystals, but they take a different arrangement because they form in a process called deposition (where a gas turns into a solid) The question of whether ice is wet is actually much more complicated than liquid water. Some theories suggested that there is a thin layer of water on the outer edge of ice, but it has been debated back and forth for years. I think there was a paper recently published that resolved the question, but I can't quite remember the details off the top of my head. But, while I may not know the answer to your question, I can say, that if your perspective would count individual ice molecules as wet, then ice crystals would count as wet, and therefore snow would be wet. And vice versa if you didn't count individual ice molecules as wet. Thanks for the intriguing comment! I wish I could've talked to you before the video got posted, would have been an interesting thing to add! ;)

Interesting meta argument, watching a video on a philosophical debate then boldly declaring that the topic you chose to watch and invest time on is dumb, and then expending energy on sharing that declaration with others. Is it egoless self-awareness in declaring that you were duped into watching a video that you initially thought would be interesting but found uninteresting. Or is that a ruse merely to entice more comments. Or to gain attention for declaring oneself independent of the argument. Or satirical in nature. Or is it a purely nihilistic argument.

@@LogicalNiko I watched the video because I thought it would be interesting and possibly even teach me some chemistry. While it did not teach me any chemistry, it was interesting. I've made a habit of commenting on videos, so I scrolled down and took literally one second to type that. I thought it a little bit funny, even if it is the truth. I don't think anyone can tell me what actual good it will do to know whether water is wet or not, at least for now. Anybody arguing about it that can't tell me the good to come from it are exactly the people that don't need to be arguing about it. If they can tell us what good can come from it, they probably already have an answer to this that works well for what they need to do. I am a mathematician at heart, and one who specializes in the nonsense that is imaginary numbers at that. There are plenty of people who talk smack about imaginary numbers saying that they're useless and not real. Someone else could argue that they're just as real as any other number, because all numbers aren't actually real. Neither of them would be able to tell what they're useful for or why it matters. The mathematicians and engineers that use them all the time on the other hand, they don't argue about it because they all go, "Well, they're real enough for me to use to my benefit," and they don't say anymore. They already have the answer that they're real, and they're useful, because the mathematicians and engineers know what it's useful for. Same thing for those who argue about whether 0.9999999 . . . equals one. Those who argue about it will never use it again in their lives, and those who use it already know that it does indeed equal one. All that to say, whoever participates in this argument is not in it to just to argue, not find an actual answer. Those who have an actual answer that works see everyone arguing about it as morons. Then there are people like me who will never use the result of this argument in our lives, so we don't argue about it. (Maybe sometimes, though, if we're a little board.)

@@LogicalNiko That reply took a lot of work; I hope you're happy.

@@lazarussevy2777 and also the third and most commonly occuring in pure mathematitians (IMO) argument is that they want to learn math for the sake of learning and developing their understanding of math. and to me these kinds of useless discussions and learning about useless math I'll never need to use, really help me escape from reality, since it truly doesn't matter. I wonder what kind of mathematitian at heart you are, since most mathematitians I see just want to learn more math and understand more math regardless of (sometimes in spite of) practical applications. I guess that would make you an applied mathematitian at heart?

@@karolissad.4270 I actually believe I am a pure mathematician, although I can see why you'd think otherwise. The math I enjoy the most (all things waves and imaginary numbers) is the stuff that I rarely use. I know that it has tons of applications, just not ones that I am involved in right now. (Although I did get my giant, 150-gallon water trailer unstuck with a golfcart and my knowledge of acoustics; I thought that was pretty cool.) I honestly believe that there is no such thing as pure math, just math that isn't obviously being used for something yet. I believe that every bit of math we do will eventually be applied SOMEWHERE at SOMETIME, even if not for centuries (hard to believe that would happen). Many of the things most people viewed as gobbledygook a long time ago are now viewed as foundations for life that we require our youth to learn. Anyway, I call myself more of a pure mathematician because I'm not specifically looking to apply the stuff that I learn; I just find it cool when it is applied. By the way, did "(IMO)" mean in my opinion or International Math Olympiad?

This is a very informed take, I'm impressed! However, I would say, that someone from the opposite perspective could say that surface tension doesn't make water "wet" or "dry," rather, it is a physical property that influences how water makes other things wet. Or perhaps they might say that the cohesive forces that compose the surface tension of water itself count as imparting the quality of "wetness" onto the water. The prescriptive choice of including adhesion but excluding cohesion is a matter of interpretation. Personally I'm pretty agnostic, so it's pretty hard for me to make up counters on the fly! But your comment was very thorough and impressive, and absolutely represents a valid perspective! You seem like a pretty smart person! Maybe you should think about starting up your channel and do a video on it! Thanks for your thoughts :)

I kind of agree, I don't really think it's a great idea, not unless we can figure out how to make the planet sustainably habitable... There's also the idea that going to mars before then might help motivate technological development... But to me, I don't really see why we wouldn't just test that tech on the moon, and wait on the whole mars plan for awhile.

Thank you! Cheers!

That's fair! You have a valid perspective, I don't truly know what the answer is, but I do try to lay out both perspectives. The goal of my channel is to present ideas in order to make you think, not tell you what to think

That's more than fair, but in my example it is supposed to represent both-- since Tar for Mortar is not specifically about the "philosophy of art," it's more about the nature of language, meaning and totality. It is supposed to represent both a change in context in the sense of conceptual framework, and context in the sense of presentation. But I certainly could have been more clear about that, making these videos takes a tooooon of time, and I regularly have to pull all-nighters to complete them. At the time that I contacted Jonathan, I hadn't even developed a criticism yet, I wrote that into my script very last minute. I appreciate having critical thinkers like you that are willing to criticize my work! So thank you :)

You're not wrong to have this perspective! It's perfectly valid, and well thought out! The first half of the video (roughly) is all about creativity in the sense of being "objectively novel" but Jonathan Basile (the creator of the library of babel) has a different perspective, which I summarize in the second half of the video (roughly). If you'd like to know more about his perspective, I'd recommend his book "Tar for Mortar" where he provides a more detailed account and outlines the philosophical tradition of the perspective in more detail :)

@@LostPentimento I think I'll add it to the reading list, it sounds right up my ally. I do remember your summery because on top of it being interesting on it's own, I felt you did an exceedingly great job at presenting Basile's perceptive accurately while highlighting how it differed from yours in a way that was easy to understand and informative. That being said, thanks for clarifying a more succinct description of your idea of creative objectivity. I'm glad to see that I had the right idea about how you interpreted the concept. I suppose my first comment wasn't as clear with what I was asking as it seems I was rambling a little lol. In any case I'll try to ask again more clearly. So I understand what you mean by an objective creativity as something being objectively novel, absent of the context in which it appears. I wonder however, what could be our personal or the larger societal use for making such a distinction? What could be the material value in knowing whether something was objectively creative as apposed to subjectively so? If we assume that there is some kind of creativity that exists in the sense that math does, and then determine through your formula that this painting I'm drawing is, in fact, not objectively creative, how does that information affect my, or anyone else's, relationship to it?

thank you so much :) I worked really hard on it!

This is sort of what Jonathan's perspective is ;) He gives a thorough account and cites philosophical tradition in his book "Tar For Mortar." I summarize his perspective in the video, but if you want to know more, you should check it out :)

The library of babel contains all letter combinations, including every book that has ever been written or will be written. But that's only true for books shorter than 1,312,000 characters. The problem is, that its too large of a library, and most of the books in the library are full of nonsense letters, so you will almost certainly never find them. I talk more about it in my previous video, but if you would like to know more about it. I linked the website in the description :)

Yep! Not all of my thumbnails are AI Generated, and all of them receive some manual edits, but this one was AI generated. Though I do hope to eventually pay a certain artist to do them. Right now, I have to get to a point where I'm actually making money (not consistently losing it) on each video, before I start scaling up my operation.

@@LostPentimento okay that’s fine