Every Paradox in 8 Minutes

Every famous paradox gets explained in 8 minutes.
Patreon to support my channel and end up on the outro list: / thepaintexplainer
Join my Discord to discuss this video:
/ discord
Subscribe and activate the bell!
💼 Business Mail: [e-mail]
-- TIMESTAMPS --
0:00 Grandfather Paradox
0:10 Achilles and the Tortoise
0:25 Ship of Theseus
0:34 Sorites Paradox
0:40 Barbershop Paradox
0:51 Catch-22
1:00 Fermi Paradox
1:05 Opposite Day Paradox
1:09 Simpsons' Paradox
1:20 Tolerance Paradox
1:31 Bootstrap Paradox
1:40 Stockdale Paradox
1:50 Jevons Paradox
2:00 Olbers' Paradox
2:05 Paradox of Thrift
2:14 Unexpected Hanging Paradox
2:34 Value Paradox
2:42 Pinocchio Paradox
2:53 Hedonism Paradox
3:00 Crocodile Paradox
3:20 Sword and Shield Paradox
3:26 Dichotomy Paradox
3:41 Fletcher Paradox
3:58 Grand Hotel Paradox
4:18 Card Paradox
4:30 Liar Paradox
4:38 Grain of Millet Paradox
4:51 Boltzmann Brain
5:02 Paradox of Enrichment
5:10 Service Recovery Paradox
5:18 Stability-Instability Paradox
5:30 Ironic Process Theory
5:41 Paradox of Choice
5:48 Birthday Paradox
6:02 Schrodinger's Cat
6:35 Twin Paradox
6:51 Friendship Paradox
7:00 Raven Paradox
7:13 Temperature Paradox
7:20 Interesting Number Paradox
7:30 Irresistible Force Paradox
7:36 Lottery Paradox
7:48 Preparedness Paradox
-- SOURCES --
(I do not associate with any of these websites)
helpfulprofessor.com/paradox-...
www.mentalfloss.com/article/5...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_pa...
• the five kinds of paradox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzma...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
-- DISCLAIMER --
Do not use this video as your only source of information. This video is for entertainment/edutainment purposes, and some information could be too oversimplified or incorrect. This channel's goal is to spark your curiosity and let you do your own research on these topics.

[@feellikeshitz3783]

Whats the paradox for getting in a comfortable spot to sleep in and then feeling the urge to move one of your limbs and then not being able to sleep comfortably.

[@quintonconoly]

OCD

[@PeriluneStar]

​@@quintonconoly nah that's a pretty normal thing for most people

[@8thFurno]

A skill issue lmao.

[@gnosimon]

It's often referred to as the "paradox of comfort," where the act of adjusting for comfort disrupts the very comfort you were trying to achieve in the first place.

[@dragonnestking3418]

The human condition

[@t___m]

A lot of paradoxes listed here: a) have linguuistic problems b) are underspecified c) are very similar to others

[@ilith1189]

yea it seems that a lot of these are just equivalent to "this statement is false"

[@KrasBadan]

Watch video "5 kinds of paradoxes" by jan misaly, it's pretty interesting

[@Zero-4793]

and some are just wrong also

[@AManChoosesASlaveObeys]

@@ilith1189 but it's true tho, isn't it?

[@bradsievers3541]

Some are simply not fully understanding elements of physics rather than paradoxes

[@curranzz9319]

I have concluded that some paradoxes are actually paradoxical, and others just purposefully ignore reality to be quirky.

[@parkernelson4909]

Finally someone said it

[@3.1414pi]

Like the stars one. There is a scientific explanation to it,like??

[@calebchacon8977]

​@3.1414pi Olber's paradox is still a paradox- just ones to disprove past ideas of the universe.

[@parkernelson4909]

@@calebchacon8977 It really isn't though. it's just a question and it's been answered. The very nature of a paradox is that it can't have an answer. Nobody's calling any of newtons theories paradoxes

[@jonathanhadley-mccarthy8417]

⁠I’m honestly a lot more annoyed about the Achilles paradox. Obviously you would just pass the tortoise

[@NoMouthNoScream]

I swear half of them aren't even paradoxes

[@tekceb-1247]

More like thought experiments

[@Bacon.Bits.]

I don't get Olbers paradox, like that's not a paradox that's just a poor understanding of what "light" is.

[@TheTrueBrawler]

The paradox of thrift illustrates how saving can be bad for the economy. The grand hotel paradox shows that some infinities are only countably infinite. The grain of millet paradox explains how sound works. The birthday paradox is literally just probability. The twin paradox is a demonstration of the theory of relativity. Interesting facts are cool and all, but these aren't even paradoxes.

[@jerryblades5022]

The grandpa one will just give u a new grandpa

[@roterex9115]

and half the others are duplicated

[@DiMeo_0908]

We need the “I am so comfortable that I don’t wanna get up to pee, but since I have to pee I’m uncomfortable” paradox

[@OKC_THUNDER_NUMBER1]

I just pee cuz I could find another comfortable position while also having the comfort of just recently peeing

[@beatmaster3582]

Just piss your pants

[@ShwappaJ]

Needs vs Wants paradox, I guess?

[@lazy_bt]

ah yes, the pee paradox, or the *peeradox*

[@decisivedolphinn]

Catch 22

[@UltimateWobbleBoss]

I think you missed the crux of the unexpected hanging paradox. The prisoner uses the logic you described to deduce that he’ll never be hanged because it can never be a surprise, but he ends up getting hanged on the Tuesday… much to his surprise.

[@the117doctor]

that's great!

[@jakubpuchalski2583]

And the two god paradoxses 1) can an an powerfull god create a stone too heavy for them to pick up? If yes their not all powerful bc theu cant pick it up and if no theyre not all powerful bc they can create something 2) does free will exist? If an all knowing god created us free will cant exist bc our creator knew our every decision ever during creation. So for free will to exist a god couldnt have created us or they cant be all knowing.

[@jakelee9816]

I hear a variation of that but he deduced it just wouldn't be that week and he got hung on Wednesday

[@jakelee9816]

​@@jakubpuchalski2583they can create you and know what you do before you decide making them all knowing and you having fre will

[@jw9407]

@@jakubpuchalski2583 both of these require a "human god" or a god who is part of their creation and is bound by the laws of nature (and its logic). If a god created the world, they would also have created the laws/logic of this world. For 1) they could either alter the logic, or simply promise to never pick up a certain rock (assuming it is a god who would never lie, as per the bible or thora). For 2) it doesn't matter if the god knows what each person will decide to do as the god doesn't have to actively spectate or manipulate the world if they exist outside of time anyway. And if the god exists outside of time, it would be absolutely impossible for us to understand how they would work or think, but they definetely would't have to "wait and worry" for something to happen.

[@HermitKing731]

Olbers paradox is like asking why a single candle can't light up a whole auditorium. It makes no sense.

[@alejandromarmolejo13]

ton of these paradoxes got me thinking "this makes no sense"

[@nytecor3]

Fr

[@trydodis690]

I don't think it has to do with the intensity of light given off by stars. I think the paradox stems from a misunderstanding that since the universe is infinite, there should be in theory a star anywhere you look into space, therefore there should be light coming from any given point in space and it should be completely illuminated. The misunderstanding comes from the fact while it may be true there is a star at any given direction you point to in space, this does not necessarily mean the light of that star has reached earth and we see it as a star. Similarly, the light from stars we currently see in space might be light from stars that have already gone extinct but are still receiving light from. Apart from the finite speed of light to consider there is also the expansion of the universe that also plays a role.

[@ohlookitsasnake2209]

I think this paradox was from the days when we didn’t know how many stars there were, and people might’ve theorized there were infinite stars

[@dianavamd6710]

@@trydodis690and that there’s nothing to reflect all of that light.

[@Anoth3r_Lozer]

My personal favourite: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he can’t give it to you, because he’s never gonna give you up. But in doing so, he lets you down, thus creating the Astley paradox.

[@nogusek5836]

Arent the sword a shield and unstopable force vs unmovable object the same paradoxes with just different concepts?

[@hear-and-know]

Yes

[@Foxerski]

kinda yeah, but still they are little different, because one is about physics and second one is about logic, but the point is similar

[@PalaeoJoe]

​@Foxerski but is the second one really about physics? I don't think any physicist would recognize such a concept as applicable to the real world. Like there may be forces that cannot be stopped, but there is no object that cannot be moved. An immovable object would violate Newton's laws of motion.

[@Dvkky]

🤫

[@cyclone5786]

​@@PalaeoJoe Are you unaware of the existence of theoretical physics? Cause these are types of problems they think about.

[@spookykitty2327]

Paint Explainer Paradox: If every paradox is only half explained,

[@zedzee11010_]

Paint Explainer Paradox: If everything is only a summarization, is it a full or half explaination?

[@Sunkenplex]

a summary should cover the whole thing in short

[@zedzee11010_]

@@Sunkenplex I had been thinking about it so I did consider that it wouldn't be paradoxical

[@DanielAbraham-nn2jb]

911 likes let me not change that for you

[@0Lvs1]

Smart comment

[@Fantasticleman]

Tiredness paradox: Imagine being so tired, that you are too tired to be tired.

[@Mary_OTT]

Then you’d fall asleep.

[@Phobero]

"Imagine"? 😑

[@n8bayonet]

But those are 2 different types 1 is physically and the other is mentally

[@thatriverguy]

Most of these are on the level of "How me go place if place far away?" Nice paradoxes.

[@onartistiek]

😂

[@fr1zl]

Haha..

[@hyoonoot]

Anime pfps try not to be critical of everything challenge

[@thatriverguy]

@@hyoonoot dunno what my choice of pfp has to do with the quality of the video, but nice try I guess

[@FrequencyFilthy]

@@thatriverguy nice try pal ☝

[@F0RLORN]

Rick Astley Paradox: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to your as he's "never gonna give you up." However, by not giving you Up, he lets you down, which he also cannot do since he's "never gonna let you down."

[@skibbledebabble1853]

he cant walk away because he's "never gonna run around and desert you", he can't insult you because he's "never gonna make you cry", and he can't say he doesn't have it, or simply punch you in the face, because he's "never gonna tell a lie and hurt you".

[@hastley64]

What if a Guy named Rick punches me in the face? Then It proves your theory wrong

[@juneyellowsnek]

​@@skibbledebabble1853it was barely funny until you showed up.

[@abocchiweeb]

@@hastley64 aren't we talking about rick astley and not about guy named rick

[@abylaiutegenov8262]

Is this kind of paradoxical Rickrolled?

[@siberianhusky8183]

Grand hotel is not really a paradox. It’s just how infinity works. Infinity is not a number, it’s a concept such that every number is smaller than it. Nor is birthday. That’s pure probability. The problem is people may not understand math well and thus find those counterintuitive and unbelievable. One common confusion is, we may think of “two people sharing a bday” in the same way as “someone shares my bday”. I’ve taken a college level probability course and still feels like that sometimes.

[@sharktos3218]

Read up what a paradox is. It's not "thing that is illogical or impossible"

[@akospapanitz8390]

​@@sharktos3218I've searched up "what is a paradox" to argue your comment but it turns out you're right😢

[@sharktos3218]

@@akospapanitz8390 We all make mistakes in the heat of passion, Jimbo

[@siberianhusky8183]

@@sharktos3218 My point is, just because people don't understand something well doesn't mean the thing has an internal contradiction. There's no logical solution to catch 22, for example, but the birthday problem can be deducted, whatever probability can be calculated and experimented irl. That's the difference

[@akospapanitz8390]

@@sharktos3218 At least I've learned something new

[@bl_q]

This feels like the things you would think of if you had 4 hours of sleep in last 7 days

[@parkernelson4909]

Here's a sort of paradox I saw: Benny doesn't fix the hole in his roof when it rains because it's too wet to work, but when it's not raining it doesn't need to be fixed

[@BobBob-ml4vp]

Tell Benny to stop being a lazy fuck and you don’t have a paradox to solve anymore.

[@lorenzomartinelli7665]

A few of these paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes or have an explanation. Olbers' paradox in particular is solved beautifully through cosmology (and actually is one of the more intriguing suggestions that the universe might be expanding), the twins' paradox has actually been proven to be true (not with twins I think, but with extremely precise clocks) and Schrödinger's cat paradox is solved once you consider that the cat and the machine HAVE to be considered observers of the phenomenon occurring

[@Armoliver]

Nope, all of these are paradoxes. Look up the definition

[@flambambam3578]

@@Armoliver The definition of paradox is any statement that is self-contradictory. These are only paradoxes if you fail to take into account actual physical reality. The real physics removes all contradictions. Olbers': The universe we see is not infinite, as there are distance places from which we will never again see light from. There's also some things to be said regarding the convergence of infinite series here. Twin: For the twins to have been separated and eventually meet again, at least one of them has to have accelerated to change their velocity at the "turn around". Acceleration complicates special relativity, but--long story short--the twin with the greater acceleration is younger. This one only *seems* like a paradox because of how unintuitive relativity is, but it is in fact based in our reality and does not contradict itself. Schrödinger's cat: No one particle can ever be in complete isolation. The term "observer" is a misnomer that really ought to be corrected to "any physical interaction." Physical interaction resolves quantum mechanical shenanigans. There still remains a lot to be fully fletched out regarding this one.

[@gergelyritter4412]

Technically, the superposition, shich Schrödinger describes exists. The fact that the cat and the machine are observers doesnt change that fact. The only part of the superposition, which is changed is the time. If you are the only possible observer, you can decide when to look at it. Lets say you take a look after a minute. However, if the cat and machine are observers as well, which they are, then the superposition collapses much more quickly. I dont know how fast it would be, but fast enough for it not to matter really. Point being, they superposition still exists, when the cat and machine are observers.

[@darkonyx6995]

@@flambambam3578 Not only Olbers' paradox was solved long ago with the expansion of the universe and the speed of light x expansion of the cosmos, but it is also explained with light pollution, as the reason the sky seems so empty for us is because of the intense light in cities, if you go to an isolated place such as deserts or mountains, you will see the entire Milky Way.

[@flambambam3578]

​@@darkonyx6995 It doesn't make the most sense to call light pollution a solution, as the issue is much younger than the earliest forms of Olber's paradox.

[@Malesks]

paradoxes: make a rule, think of how things are, refuse to comprehend thing because of said rule

[@dustinbrueggemann1875]

Yeah, a paradox is just the smoking gun that you've made a flawed assumption somewhere in the construction of the question. If it resolves when the assumptions are revised, the paradox never existed.

[@thilsiktonix]

Preparedness paradox is probably the most interesting one on here to me for sure. You can't possibly know how things would have played out if X action hadn't been taken, and if you knew, you still wouldn't take it as seriously as you would if X hadn't been there to shield you and you'd been impacted. But, odds are, you wouldn't be alive to reflect, either- or, at the very least, you wouldn't be you anymore.

[@astrid2432]

3:04 well the crocodile never says in what for state the child will be, if he eats the child, but spits out like bones, he did both things 3:54 well the arrow isn't a quantum object so it is always moving still

[@virginsovietunion5876]

Olbers paradox is explained by the fact that there is so much space between objects in space that there isn’t enough collective matter to consistently scatter light in space

[@losergorila_6306]

i was looking for this comment!

[@speedy01247]

While this is less important light also changes to lower wavelengths over time fading from human vision due to expanding space so that is another reason why it's not so bright. (Though only really matters for super far away things)

[@virginsovietunion5876]

@@speedy01247 indeed that is very correct

[@WungusBill-lf4iu]

Yeah it's not really a paradox at all, just an incorrect hypothesis about how space ought to look

[@Neo-vz8nh]

It says that if the Universe is infinite (which is not), then you should see infinite stars, and the should be infinetly bright.

[@spidercrumple69420]

3:20 the sword and shield one gives same vibes as “if I punch myself and it hurts am I strong or weak”

[@unfairdare2022]

My question is, what if a lv100 zacian from Pokémon fights a lv100 zamazenta?

[@PlayF0R3V3R]

This is the type of stuff that little kids argue about

[@unfairdare2022]

@@PlayF0R3V3R "hEy thAHTs noT veRy niCE i"m tElgling the TEAcher!1!"""

[@H._.-._]

high damage, low durability

[@azzzr1el]

The answer is you're neither strong nor weak, you're stupid 💀

[@amoralmarker6503]

“Do we run duos because we suck at the game, or do we suck at the game because we run duos?”

[@Volt_Fortnite]

Dichotomy paradox is basically how one of gojos abilities works

[@demonman905]

Fun fact about the Sword and Shield Paradox: the Chinese word for "Contradiction" is comprised of both the characters for "Spear" and "Shield," because there was an ancient Chinese story about a merchant who tried to sell to the Emperor a Spear that could pierce any Shield, and a Shield that could not be pierced.

[@therealelement75]

and then the question was asked what happens when they are used on each other

[@evrint]

@@therealelement75 Half the spear gets obliterated, and half the shield gets obliterated.

[@therealelement75]

@@evrint not worth it I'm not buying them

[@kenthehen1860]

Ace attorney

[@caelincoolz5814]

@@evrint And slowly, the dichotomy paradox kicks in, reducing the two objects to smaller and smaller sizes, yet neither one ever entirely disappears

[@chungus816]

The one with the stars kinda cracked me up because it's completely solvable

[@filipemartinho1753]

Yea I'm not sure how that's a paradox, just sounds like a lack of knowledge regarding how light works

[@mattparis02]

Isn't the reason we can't see stars at night (or at least not a lot of them) because of our atmosphere and pollution? With photos of astronauts in space and stuff like that we can't show the stars because we have to turn the exposure up so much, we wouldn't be able to see anything else.

[@EliLubbe-hi1de]

We can't see all the stars there probably are because they are too far away, and light from them hasn't reached us yet

[@esbi14]

Physics grad here: it’s because as stars get further away their wavelength gets red shifted into the invisible part of the spectrum. The light still reaches us, but we can’t see it. (have a look at the Hubble Telescope’s infrared images!)

[@juleksz.5785]

Plenty of them are solvable in some way

[@shaner2114]

The Boltzmann brain is easily the wildest paradox!

[@MrFallenone]

Honestly its stupid. Both options operate with infinite time so they are both infinitely possible.

[@miniiore]

2:34 my idea is that essential items are made to be cheaper because, you know they're essential. While non-essentials are made to be more expensive because they don't hold any value of essentiality

[@MrFallenone]

Or maybe its because water is almost everywhere and easy to obtain ... not so much for diamonds. Also Diamonds are not the best example because they are actualy usefull thanks to their hardness. Gold works much beter as an example of a worthless material given artificial value.

[@TheRepublicOfDixionconderoga]

@@MrFallenoneGold has uses

[@personpacman7439]

2:00 Actually this is not a paradox, there is a reason for this. It's because stars really far away are moving away from us at very fast speeds due to the expansion/acceleration of the universe, so their wavelengths are red-shifted until they become infared and invisible to the naked eye.

[@thunderred5263]

It is a paradox for a flat earther or science denier

[@foxymetroid]

There are also clouds of gas and dust in the universe that block light. Plus, light from each individual star naturally weakens the further you are from it.

[@ProfessionalCurryDefender]

You could also more simply explain it by the fact that there’s tons of empty space between stars.

[@gay_madilynn]

read this in prismo's voice

[@FreezeFun]

Also the light from those stars may be sucked into a black hole and never reached Earth.

[@hear-and-know]

A lot of paradoxes are solved when you stop attributing an underlying, unchanging "essence" to things

[@user-dx1qv4yz5i]

or you simply don't overcomplicate things. As well as dealing with problems of opinion or outside what we normally perceive(I.e time travel)

[@Provo_N]

damn straight. this is all such a black and white way of seeing things.

[@user-jh7pn9bo3z]

​​@@user-dx1qv4yz5iWe just simply do not know enough about a lot of physical events, including the possibility of time travel. Actually, I think somebody published a video of the solution to the grandfather paradox. I know a possible hypothesis is that the universe changes the situation in order to prevent the paradox. May just go and check the video.

[@erickmatos9472]

@@hellothere5500 based

[@kuruju_vtube]

A lot of this paradoxes are "This statement is false but something makes it true."

[@thesenate1844]

Love how you put Simpsons Paradox right after Opposite Day paradox. We all remember that episode

[@LordKamek]

You're missing the Astley Paradox. If you ask Rick Astley for a DVD of the movie Up, he won't give it to you because he's never gonna give you Up. However, by not giving you Up like you asked for it, he's letting you down.

[@ThiagoGlady]

bro this is genius XD

[@yungmarqmusic.7608]

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@Homerboy44]

Oh, that is hilarious. XDDDD

[@RaccoonGrrrl]

Best text version of Rickroll

[@littledonut99]

This is a genius's work. Whoever made this paradox is.

[@endernightblade1958]

2:49 i have a bone to pick with this one: if he says “my nose will grow”, that’s an indeterminate statement, seeing as it would only apply if he’s consciously lying. for it to be definitively true, he would have to know that at no point in the future would he ever lie again, and if it were false, the same. since pinocchio would have no knowledge, however, the statement would not count as either. so nothing would happen. (this is why asking pinocchio about government secrets would never work)

[@ThiagoGlady]

unless he knows about government secrets

[@endernightblade1958]

@@ThiagoGlady yes, but he’s a nine year old child in semi-rural italy, so the odds of that would be pretty low

[@ThiagoGlady]

@@endernightblade1958 correction: he is a nine year old child in semi-rural Italy with acsses to MAGIC

[@elgrun2913]

​@@endernightblade1958The odds may be extreamly low, _but are never zero._

[@ThiagoGlady]

@@Roblox-NewsYT I don't think so. Consciouslly, Pinochio would have a oppinion wether or not his nose would grow. And if he has no opinion, then the nose would not grown since it wouldn't be a lie anyway

[@AkashPatel-xt6if]

fletcher paradox is literally how derivatives work in physics

[@TheGreenViewer456]

0:01 you would just have another grandfather.

[@maxumunum1926]

3:46 The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

[@Fuegopaintrain]

Banger video I love that explanation, non sensical yet explains as best it can

[@vencedor1774]

Short version: I (followed by either an "n", a "t" or an "f")

[@tsigahn6509]

“The missile knows where it is at all times.” SRAAM users would have something to say about that.

[@kenthartig7065]

This sounds like it was generated by a chat bot.

[@tsigahn6509]

@@kenthartig7065 it’s a copypasta

[@oyc7946]

3:20 Fun Fact: this is also the story behind the Mandarin word 矛盾 meaning "contradiction" came to be. 矛 directly translates to "spear" and 盾 directly translates to "shield". The scenario is the same with a spear that is able to pierce through anything and a shield that is able to block anything thus creating a contradiction

[@davidmantiss7105]

Broooo, in Vietnamese, the term "Paradox" can be translated to "mâu thuẫn" Which "mâu" means a spear, and "thuẫn" means a shield. God dayum

[@thatboyakira4202]

OBJECTION!

[@speedy01247]

​@@davidmantiss7105odds are both words came from the same origin.

[@davidmantiss7105]

@@speedy01247 I suppose Vietnamese used to be dominated in a thounsand year by the Chinese in the ancient time, plus we shared the same common ancestor so...

[@LittleWhole]

​@@davidmantiss7105 Yes, mâu thuẫn is Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary derived from the reading of the two chữ Hán 矛 (mâu) and 盾 (thuẫn). The Sino-Japanese reading is mu-jun (むじゅん), the Sino-Korean reading is mo-sun (모순), and the Modern Standard Chinese reading is máo-dùn (though the older more conservative pronunciation is máo-shǔn, which is where the Sino-Korean reading comes from). The Cantonese pronunciation is maau4 teon5, and the Hakka pronunciation is màu-tún. In Middle Chinese, it was read as myuw zywín/myuw dwón. It comes from this quote in the 韓非子 (Hàn Phi Tử): 楚人有鬻盾與矛者，譽之曰：「吾盾之堅，物莫能陷之。」以譽其矛曰：「吾矛之利，於物無不陷也。」或曰：「以子之矛陷子之盾，何如？」其人弗能應也。夫不可陷之盾與無不陷之矛，不可同世而立。 Sở nhân hữu chúc *thuẫn* dữ *mâu* giả, dự chi viết: "Ngô *thuẫn* chi kiên, vật mạc năng hãm chi." Dĩ dự kìa *mâu* viết: "Ngô *mâu* chi lợi, ở vật vô bất hãm rã." Hoặc viết: "Dĩ tử chi *mâu* hãm tử chi *thuẫn* , hà như?" Kìa nhân phất năng ứng rã. Phu bất khá hãm chi *thuẫn* dữ vô bất hãm chi *mâu* , bất khá đồng thế nhi lập. There was once a man in the state of Sở [Chu in Chinese], who was selling shields and lances. He was praising them saying: “My shields are so firm, that there is nothing that can pierce them.” He praised his lances saying: “My lances are so sharp, that there is nothing that they cannot pierce.” Someone asked: “What if you used your lances to pierce your shields?” The man could not answer. A shield that cannot be pierced and a lance that can pierce everything cannot exist in the same world.

[@InsanityKillstreak]

Achilles and the Tortoise has already been solved, because to this actually happen you have to distort the time, since Achilles must be at a certain speed each second and the Tortoise too, so in one of these seconds Achilles will surprass the Tortoise, for the Achilles to not surprass the Tortoise you would have to decrease the time in between each movement.

[@azhero]

I loveeeeee videos like this, it’s so informational and brain tingling

[@felixhatton7334]

7:47 Y2K is a great example of this. My dad works in IT and gets really annoyed by people saying Y2K wasn’t as big of a deal as people had thought, because it absolutely was, but people who worked in IT helped stop it, and no one gives them the credit.

[@DiamondKingStudios]

That was basically the conclusion made by the _Well There’s Your Problem_ episode on Y2K. Still should have updated some hospital computers. Imagine parents having to explain to their son that he could have had a sibling but the doctor said he had Down Syndrome or some other debilitating condition and the parents decided not to continue the pregnancy for that reason (it was 2000 I don’t know how much popular views on the matter have changed since) and then they find out later the results were a false positive. I feel like that could have happened to hundreds, maybe thousands of expectant parents. But yeah computer technicians knowing what they’re doing are good to have around.

[@jaesjmes5498]

7:47

[@felixhatton7334]

@@jaesjmes5498whoops yeah ty lmao

[@felixhatton7334]

@@jaesjmes5498whoops yeah ty lmao

[@felixhatton7334]

@@jaesjmes5498whoops ty lol

[@Davi.Abraham.Millman]

“We know who tried to erase someone from existence, but we will never know who managed to erase someone.”

[@giovannip8600]

Similar to the "you do not know what you do not know"

[@OMGg4m3r]

Its like the fact how you will never find out about the prefect crime

[@mantasignatavicius7787]

@@OMGg4m3r Well, you can, if the killer decides to tell it himself, it was perfect crime because his whole life nobody found out what he did and he told it himself so it can still be called perfect

[@Mostbee]

@@mantasignatavicius7787 So it isn't perfect, if the killer decided to tell himself and be arrested, the plan wasn't immune to social pressure/community guidelines/morality standards/inflated ego/boredom or whatever other reason that made him tell it, thus making it imperfect as it has flaws. The same way you can drop a hair string in the crime scene, you can drop a bit of guilt in your self being.

[@TJSB.Writing]

4:37 "youre heisenberg"

[@masteshief]

Ong ong

[@Dragonlovermaniak]

Thanks for the explanations. Didn't knew there was a lot of paradoxes.

[@maizen1335]

Achilles and the Tortoise, Dichotomy, and Fletcher (Zeno's paradoxes) make sense until you remember literally any time you've moved or seen movement ever

[@SnoHund2]

real

[@Thr35her]

I don't see any contradiction here, if you half the distance, you also half the time that takes to complate that particular distance. Therefore, it is true you don't move because closer you are to the starting position, time slows down as well respectively.

[@SnoHund2]

@@Thr35her Things move at different speeds yk. What you're assuming is every movement is relative to each other in terms of distance over time but it's not.

[@lawrencebates8172]

Xeno's paradoxes were never meant to suggest that movement is impossible, but to demonstrate that there was a serious gap in our understanding of the universe; in an age where integrals hadn't been invented, converging infinite sums hadn't been discovered, and we couldn't even conceive of the scales involved in possible quantisation of time and space this was a very pertinent thought experiment, and is still a good demonstration of how our intuitions often fail to hold up to scrutiny.

[@wilh3lmmusic]

Or calculus gets invented

[@realltalkest6736]

You made some of these paradoxes 10 times harder to understand than they actually are.

[@saturos5068]

i still dont get the achilles one

[@Rank1Artist]

@@saturos5068It doesn’t make sense even if someone starts a race ahead of you if you’re faster you’ll overtake eventually lol

[@seansmith877]

Yeah that litterally isn't a paradox it's just hey let's ignore the fact you can overtake in a race and the guy in second will never win haha. It basically says even if you are faster than someone you will never beat them in a race because for example, if they are at the 10 meter point and you run there then you'll still behind because by the time you get there ​they will have moved further ahead. The "paradox" just ignores the fact people can overtake in a race by using dumb phrasing haha.@@saturos5068

[@bjbeast4633]

@@saturos5068so basically, in order for Achilles to pass the turtle they say that he must reach where the turtle is, but by the time he reaches why the turtle is the turtle has moved a little bit, so he can never pass the turtle because everytime he reaches where the turtle was the turtle had moved a little

[@bakonzetaim1090]

I think it would only work if Achilles would be forced to stop at certain moments such as stopping everytime he is right beside the turtle.@@bjbeast4633

[@BrainBrushExplainer]

Wow, very interesting :) I love your explanations! ❤❤❤

[@yairgreen2633]

The friendship paradox is genius. Never thought about it

[@999jussumguy]

4:31 I don't care if he's lying or not, I'm just convinced that he is the one who knocks.

[@jericore]

in am not in a paradox, skyler. i AM the paradox.

[@KhanKush]

Heisenberger

[@masteshief]

Heisenburger

[@999jussumguy]

Heisenberger

[@bod-7268]

Heisenberger

[@berfae]

A cat always lands on its feet Buttered bread always lands buttered side down So if strap buttered bread on a cat buttered side up and throw the cat, the cat will be spinning forever Infinite energy -buttered cat paradox

[@FreezeFun]

If the cat spins forever then it would be in perpetual motion, which would also be impossible.

[@qwart22]

Cats do not necessarily always land on their feet, especially if landing on their feet would cause more harm, and I’m presuming buttered bread lands buttered side down simply because the butter side is heavier than the non-buttered side

[@vsoriginalpoetry6696]

Lowkey kinda confirmed the paradox

[@elgrun2913]

​@@qwart22Since it seems you are intrested in it: The buttered bread lands with the buttered side down not really because that side is heavier, but because the bread spins. So: If you hold the bread buttered side up and drop it from, let's say, 1m height it will perform half a spin and thus fall with the buttered side down. But if you now drop it from 2m, it will have time to make a full rotation and it will fall with buttered side up. If you drop it from 3m - buttered side down. 4m - buttered side up. And so on. The height and number of rotations are of course simplified for the example.

[@The.Corrupt]

No, the bread landing on one side is either pure luck or someone dropped it like that and it didn't have time to flip over. The cat will still land on its feet, and the bread will be dirty and wasted due to being put on a cat. Congratulations, you've abused a cat and dirtied a perfectly good piece of bread just to be proven wrong.

[@schwkrls]

I mean, a heap of sand stops being a heap when there's no more sand piled up.

[@parkernelson4909]

Is two grains of sand on top of each other a heap?

[@schwkrls]

I guess that would be a stack

[@GavinMakesVideos-xm7dd]

I want to see every single Algebra 1 principle (how it's used, what it is, and its practical applications) because I remember these videos really well

[@user-cp8dg6uq2j]

6:20 "meoow" "no no no your ruining my presentation" "MEEEEOW" "STOP MEOWING PLZ"

[@Pocket_Fox]

I never understood why the cat isn't considered an observer. It's like saying "a tree falling in the woods makes no sound because there is no one there to hear it.....but oh yeah there's also a cat under the tree but that totally doesn't count yo"

[@Josalyn-cr9tn]

how is the cat not an observer? Cats can see, y'know

[@LoganCovers91]

@@Josalyn-cr9tn Observer in quantum physics usually means to be able to measure. So a camera, or any data tracking is observing. What's weird about the observer phenomena is that it seems to work retroactively, look up the "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment.

[@s0mthinisf1shy68]

I don't see what's the issue what you're hearing is the cat that's alive You don't expect to hear the dead cat meow too even if it's there do you

[@Bruh234]

@@Pocket_Fox there are 2 answers to that, 1) It is a hypothetical situation anyway, so it is just made that way for the sake of the argument. 2) Schrodinger didn't support the superposition theory and so created the cat situation as an intentionally dumb way of showing how dumb it is, this point was missed and now he is known for a dumb theory without people realising the intentions of said theory. He is constantly spinning in his grave

[@Potable_scent]

the grandfather paradox seems like the worst way to find out your adopted

[@ashhart6792]

lmao

[@dr_mafarioyt4313]

That was always my favorite solution; Either you didnt kill him or hes not... you know

[@chaincat33]

The unexpected hanging paradox goes further, the convict reasons that every day is expected, so he won't be hung. And then he's hung on tuesday and is completely surprised

[@parkeryeager8622]

Is there a paradox that goes like this: If a multiverse exists, then fiction does not exist, making fiction's existence fiction, but then fiction would exist, and they both disprove each other.

[@purpledevilr7463]

3:20 it can cut any shield, the shield can block any blade. Blocking a blade does not mean it is uncut. It can be a 1-time block.

[@mantasignatavicius7787]

Gamer minds solving paradoxes :D love it

[@nayagyjozan9999]

Invent a word that means the opposite of block and you substitute it like math

[@hardcorshik31]

the original paradox has a spear that can pierce any shield and a shield that is unpiercable

[@cergeyivanov7566]

I think that both the shield and the sword will break

[@purpledevilr7463]

@@cergeyivanov7566 a blocked strike does not necessarily mean a broke sword. - and it would be quite a poor sword if that were the case.

[@pineapplepizzaenjoyer2227]

what you can learn on youtube in 8 min VS what you can learn in school in 3 days

[@blixadon4022]

Pillow paradox: Flipping the cold side of the pillow, but using it ends up warming the pillow, thus flipping endlessly

[@silasmuzzy1680]

I think I need an 8 minute video for each of them.

[@GC_Mars]

That’s exactly my problem with this channel. You simply can’t synthesize certain things and, if you do, they become increasingly more complicated. Wait… oversimplifying something makes it more complicated? THAT’S ANOTHER PARADOX!

[@petermurphy9860]

My granduncle beautifully reduced the Ship of Theseus idea to its simplest form when he claimed he had a shovel that had lasted him 20 years (the head and handle had each been replaced several times, but never at the same time)

[@Eagle3302PL]

It's only a paradox if you subscribe to the ideology that there is a TRUE original and everything else is a copy. But realistically speaking picking the original is based on consensus between the parties discussing the originality. So people can agree the reconstructed ship is the original, or the original parts assembled together is what makes the original.

[@Stickmanzed]

I like that and agree with it. It's the same as a human, we completely replace all of the matter we are made up of many times throughout our lives but the more important ideological human is still the same (although changed with life experience admittedly).

[@famlrnamemssng]

The Fermi Paradox is one of the scariest things humans have ever thought about. It's such a simple question and the fact that we don't have an answer to it is frightening

[@themultiversalist5564]

I like to use Marty McFly singing "Johnny B Goode" in the first Back to the Future movie as an example of the Bootstrap Paradox because it brings up the question of who truly created the song, Marty McFly or Chuck Berry.

[@parkernelson4909]

Well neither because Marty only learned because chuck played it and Chuck only knew it because Marty played it. It was neither of their original ideas so it brings into question where the song even came from

[@Son0fApolo]

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" They marry and give birth to a blue cat, and a pink rabbit and adopt an orange fish bought from a mysterious store.

[@greyx9815]

AYYY

[@thengspjo4716]

Wouldn't the unstoppable force move out of the way of the immovable object, or pass through it

[@Win090949]

2:30 you forgot to mention the rest of the paradox. The prisoner then crosses out every other day, concluding that he wouldn’t be executed. He was then surprised when he got executed on Wednesday.

[@parkernelson4909]

I love this paradox, it presents illogical thinking that feels like it should make sense. A lot of the other ones do this and try to make it seem like there's no solution, which makes it more comical when the solution is presented right in front of you

[@tobymcgarthland6485]

With the twin paradox it's likely that the twin that is left on earth would be infinitely older because the paradox is supposed to be for a number

[@AMan-xz7tx]

I love how the artificiality of Calculus is the cause behind almost a third of these paradoxes, and sure, while there ARE an infinite number of increments between you and anything else, those increments are also infinitely small, practically zero in fact, so I posit the inverse, why isn't everything and all of time all at the same exact point? What I'm trying to say is stick with estimation and don't play with infinities, kids.

[@MesmerisingGlow]

However, if we tolerate not tolerating intolerance, would that make not tolerating intolerance tolerable, thus making all anti-intolerant intolerance tolerable?

[@Littlevampiregirl100]

would that mean intolerance is no longer intolerance but tolerance, but without intolerance tolerance cannot exist because tolerating something means intolerance should be possible otherwise why do you need to tolerate it

[@felixhatton7334]

If toleration is tolerable to tolerate intolerance, isn’t a toleration of tolerance tolerable to not tolerate when toleration is tolerant and when a toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable person? And when toleration becomes tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration become intolerable to an intolerable? Is tolerable to toleration becomes intolerance when does toleration?

[@2kilopirzola]

thats a mouthful

[@LadyLucyna]

That's exactly why it's a paradox - absolute tolerance is somehow less tolerant than anti-intolerant tolerance.

[@conradolosada7835]

i cant tolerate this

[@nydeity9100]

A lot of these aren’t really paradoxes

[@Goberino]

I feel like he’s debunking the ones that don’t work

[@awilduser895]

Some paradoxes arise from a lack of knowledge in the past. For example, the Fletcher’s paradox was solved because people learnt that time can’t be split up into instances, thus debunking the paradox.

[@skierrybo]

Fr

[@2010hyundaielantra]

I like how all of these are either genuinely unsettling or just stupid.

[@crimson7204]

This is super cool, thank you for this

[@simonjohansson248]

The prisoner being brought to hanging site on thursday: "Well, this wasn't surpising." Suddenly sees the executioner pull out a bicycle, a wrench and fifteen rubber ducks ..

[@vic7694]

6:06 yooo it’s kiki and bouba 🔥🔥

[@elianhg2144]

Glad someone was thinking the same thing im thinking

[@Katsariss]

nooo i already commented that only to notice someone noticed afterwards

[@verylexiconic]

BOUBA IS [ROUND] KIKI IS [SHARP]

[@my.fav.no..is.12.point.9]

wait where have i heard that before-

[@didgeridooo]

​@@my.fav.no..is.12.point.9 TLDR when people are shown these 2 shapes (that are very similar to those) and are asked which is kiki and which is bouba they usually answer that kiki is the sharp one and bouba is the round one

[@WartortleIsTheBestPokemon]

thank you. i didn't need this. but it was perfect.

[@RD-170]

A lot of these aren’t really paradoxes, but just statements or questions that haven’t been thought through; Grain of Millet - One grain does make a sound, it’s just very quiet Fletcher’s Paradox - The arrow is stationary only in an instant reference frame, but outside of it it still moves Olber’s paradox - Because stars are too dim Also the Dichotomy and the Achilles’ paradox are both temporal supertasks that have a simple answer; if you do not change the timeframe, the task remains possible

[@cly_]

1:01 That's close, but not quite The fermi paradox doesn't need an infinite universe It just suggests that aliens are a statistical certainty due to the large amount of stars in the observable universe, even the galaxy. So, of all of those stars, some must have life sustaining planets, and then some must have developed life. Some of those civilizations must have advanced far enough to be able to travel through space, and thus we must have already interacted with them. However, there is no extraterrestrial life that we have found so far. The observable universe is big enough to be virtually infinite.

[@IAmSkystrike]

I never understood why that’s the case, though. We don’t know the probability of life existing on other planets. Yeah the universe is gigantic and it’s been around for a few billion years, but so what? Just because life happened on one planet, why should it have to have happened on another? It could have, but we can’t quantify a probability until we understand the universe better

[@elgrun2913]

​​​​@@IAmSkystrikeThat's because we know how life on Earth came to be, and what is needed for that to happen. Simplifying a lot, in our current understanding the most important factor is liquid water. We know that for that to happen, a planet must be at a certain distance from it's star for water to exist (so called Goldilocks Zone - planet is to close and water evaporates, planet is to far and water freezes). Then we combine that with the averege number of planets in Goldilocks Zone per star system. Add the probability of hydrogen and oxygen existing in it's atmoshepre (they are both quite common elements, actually) and then probability of live evolving on such a planet (our sample size is extreamly low on universal scale, but we have to work with what we have). Then we use Fermi's formula and we get how many technological civilizations there are in the Universe. However, iirc, there is one important factor Fermi's formula doesn't take into consideration - time. So the number we get is in reality the number of technological civilizations that ever existed, exist and will exist in the Universe according to our current knowledge.

[@MaroniMacaroni]

We shouldn't forget about how lucky we are, since most planets are very likely to collide with another celestial body which destroys all evolved forms of life that existed so far (like the dinosaurs in our case). Statistically, we are very lucky that we managed to evolve that far (probably thanks to jupiter)! This might never have happened anywhere else

[@SolTheIdiot]

Or the low chance that they get hit by a GRB (Gamma ray burst) and get sterilized.

[@nealangerrebos2262]

​@@IAmSkystrikethat is one of the possible solutions to the paradox - maybe we're overestimating how likely it is for life to form. I think many scientists don't find that to be a very satisfying answer though, because there are so many stars and so much time before us that in order to make the low probability explanation make sense, the chance of life forming would need to be next to impossible. Like, incomprehensibly close to impossible. And since we're not willing to accept that Earth is somehow magically unique, we expect that if Earth-like conditions are repeated billions of times over billions of years then an Earth-like result should reoccur.

[@marisakirisame1st]

7:30 i remember minutephysics explaining this theoretical scenario! since the immovable object cannot move, it must stay still, and since the unstoppable force cannot stop, it must pass through the object

[@elianhg2144]

Wouldnt the force gling through the object count as moving it? Unless its intangible

[@Eagle3302PL]

@@elianhg2144 If the unstoppable force phases through the immovable object without displacing it then there is no paradox as the force did not get stopped and the object did not get moved. I think it neatly resolves the paradox and you'd have to keep adding conditions to the paradox to turn it back into a paradox.

[@thekellanator2642]

I have a better explanation. Basically, they can’t even both exist. If there is an unstoppable force, there *can’t* be an immovable object, and vise versa. Only one or the other can be a thing. But yeah, theoretically if they both were a thing, the force would do some weird particle stuff and phase through.

[@banallanimeandfurries]

anime pfp using peddle file

[@elianhg2144]

@@banallanimeandfurries it isnt even anime 💀 its from touhou

[@odysseas573]

Barbershop Paradox looking so innocent and unassuming and it almost broke the foundations of math at the beginning of the 20th century

[@Wolverine_onYTTV]

The preparedness paradox is the perfect explanation behind y2k. I've spoke to sooooo many people who think nothing happened because nothing was going to happen in the first place

[@lipesons]

0:17 bruh, he is faster than the tortoise

[@motixor]

yeah, but if you keep subdividing, there seems to be and infinite number of steps he has to take before he can pass the tortoise, and so he never does.

[@alex2005z]

​@@motixorthen dont subdivide it. He doesnt walk infinitively small amounts at a time.

[@chocolavabrainstorm]

A lot of people believed it to be true even tho it's counterintuitive until humans figured out calculus.

[@ThiagoGlady]

That is why is a paradox in the first place. We know he will catch the tortoise eventually but the logic in the explanation still applies. lets say the turtle walk 1 meter. Aquiles must walk 1 meter, but at that time, the turtle would have walked a little bit more, like 10cm. Aquiles then has to walk 10cm, but the turtle will have walk 1cm, and so it goes

[@alex2005z]

@@ThiagoGlady more like the logic in the explanation sucks. You can graph their speeds and distance and see exactly when he overtakes it

[@wayaf_5908]

the common theme here is that people love to overthink and make shit more complicated than it has to be, some of these can be answered with common sense while others actually are just unsolved either because we haven’t figured it out or don’t have the means to figure it out

[@TimTime10]

It's what happens when we don't apply occam's razor to things.

[@btf_flotsam478]

It's slightly more complicated than that: all of these are fully explained/understood, the ones you think are unsolved are either explained via some formal logic stuff (fuzzy logic, defining logic to avoid self-referential statements) and is so well understood it is abused in weird ways, or collapses when considered from some more accurate perspectives.

[@BeryllYT]

What about the locked room paradox? You need to get your keys to open the door, behind the door is the keys that you need to open the door, you can never reach the keys so you can never open the door to get the keys to open the door. This is what happens when you lock your keys in your car.

[@debbiegarcia2800]

5:30 Great, now I’m going to think about a pink elephant for the intire month

[@The_Shimp]

Some of these aren’t paradoxes

[@Molteniceee]

Yeah some of them look like Relationship Paradox: s(he )be(lie)ve(d)

[@fr1zl]

Paradigms.

[@Swanzz]

​@@Molteniceee sbeve

[@Sadrock316]

@The_Shimp how can you tell?

[@The_Shimp]

@@Sadrock316 idk I don’t remember the video

[@mantasignatavicius7787]

Achiles and tortoise paradox, you missed the key ingredient, it is said he has to first catch up and only then he can overtake the tortoise that is why he never overtakes

[@littlefishbigmountain]

Yeah, he explained it properly in the “Dichotomy Paradox”, which is as much the same thing as sword and shield vs unstoppable force vs immovable object

[@lowgrav5900]

To my understanding he messed up dichotomy paradox as well as he said to get to a destination you have to get halfway there and to get there you need to get a quater way there...... I don't see what's the problem here we do this every day im in my room the fridge is my destination yes I pass the halfway and even the quarter mark and still get to my destination fine what is he talking about infinite steps? This must be explained wrong as there must be more to this puzzle than what video says as how it's said in video its a non issue

[@littlefishbigmountain]

@@lowgrav5900 The story I’ve heard is told Aesop’s Fable style where the hero Achilles and a tortoise are going to have a race, but since it’s so unfair Achilles agrees to give the poor old tortoise a headstart. Having gotten the hero’s word, the tortoise points out how no matter how slow he might be, the hero can never catch up because in the time it takes him to get to where the tortoise was when he started, the tortoise will have moved a little further, and by the time he makes up that difference the turtle will have gotten a little further still, and so on and so on, such that since Achilles gave the tortoise a headstart he can now never win. Convinced by the tortoise’s logic, Achilles admits defeat before the race starts. Of course, we all know this is nonsense, since as you said we all reach out and grab things without having to travel an infinite distance. In reality there would’ve reached a point where Achilles would’ve been so close to the tortoise’s position that it’s as if there was no headstart and his faster speed would then obviously overcome the tortoise. I personally see this as a moral story more than anything, but beyond that I see it as a thought experiment about how sometimes our mathematical and logical intuitions are wrong, and maybe at most an argument that the universe really is made out of analog Planck length sized pixels rather than infinitely continuous.

[@Sly88Frye]

Fascinating!

[@T3nch1]

Grand Hotel Paradox: Meanwhile, at the front desk: "New arrival? Greetings and salutations, my name is Ik."

[@HungryWarden]

You forgot the Astley paradox. Basically, if you ask Rick Astley for his copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to you as he will never give you up. But in doing so, he has let you down, thus creating the Astley paradox. Edit: I did not come up with this myself, I just thought it was worth including. I believe it originated as a Reddit meme.

[@ictupanels]

Solution: “give you up” in the context of the song obviously means “to abandon to yield control” as if he was saying “Never gonna abandon you.” (Also the “up” in “give you up” is not capitalized while the movie Up is as it’s a proper noun)

[@HungryWarden]

@@ictupanels I know that! It’s funnier if you don’t think too hard about it!

[@gustavolopes5094]

@@ictupanels Okay then, you ask that Astley gives you up, abandons you. If he does, he's given you up. If he doesn't, he's letting you down.

[@dashcrowngd8954]

@@ictupanels🤓👆

[@gabor6259]

Freakin genius!

[@cream_pieluver]

5:21 basically every war right now

[@Foxerski]

this is how the world now works because of deadly technology with which you can attack, but you can't defend from it, so the best defense is offense

[@arttemka2536]

And so it should be. If one has a weapon the other one aslo should have a weapon.

[@ComissarYarrick]

Well, every except war in Ukraine :P .

[@Iiiiiiiii69iiiiiiiiii]

​@@arttemka2536then why people hating on hamas?

[@vixxcelacea2778]

Mutually assured destruction. That said, we could always have a crazy person who doesn't care about it who just happens to get access in some freak possibility. So still not good to have such powerful weapons from the beginning due to that. Unless all processes in which to activate them require much more interactivity than technological failure, crazy people or misunderstanding. Which given one Russian guy who was told to fire at a American submarine, but didn't and literally stopped WWIII, I can only hope the process of actually activating nuclear bombs requires a lot less sheer luck that someone thought something was wrong and didn't follow through with orders.

[@ezrakornfeld8436]

First off, you just said the part before the actual paradoxical bit for the grand hotel paradox, Veritasium has a good video if anyone is curious. Second, the card one is basically Gödels incompleteness theorem and also is explained in a way that makes it identical to the next paradox in the list. Veritasium also has a video on Gödels theorem. I’ll add more as they come, which I’m sure they will. The Schröedingers cat one completely evades the whole point of the thought experiment by just using the superposition of a particle anyways. It’s supposed to be a cat in a box with a poisoned treat or a poisoned toy and until you open the box, you don’t know if it’s dead or not. Oh yea and the one with the barber and the shaving is just an analogy for the incompleteness theorem that Gödel came up with to simplify the idea, however fruitlessly.

[@arsenijeandric]

amazing video m8, keep it up

[@ColemanRBentz888]

When you explained the sword and shield paradox my brain instantly started playing sounds of two metal objects clipping inside each other and spazzing out in Garry's Mod lmao

[@turtle2fast684]

The piss paradox: too tired to piss but too full of piss to sleep

[@omnianima4540]

I have time so I'm gonna go through each and list why some aren't even paradoxes, please correct me if I'm wrong it's just an opinion: Grandfather Paradox: It's a hypothetical idea of how time travel could look like, but it's on of the options of time travelling that creates one of the actual few paradoxes, which would mean it's either not possible or it happens in a different way than how we imagine it Achilles and the Tortoise: Just an idea to expore infinity, but by definition if something is faster than the thing it has to outrun, there is no paradox, eventually the gap between headstart and reached previous point will be so short that in one of those spans achilles will overtake it. Ship of Theseus: I find it to be a fascinating philosophical question, I guess this one depends on what one believes to make "the ship" to "the ship" and how fast the replacement takes place. If one wooden plank is replaced, it becomes a part of the entire thing so no paradox here, so next time the same plank is replaced, a part of the ship as everyone would understand is replaced, making the new plank a part of the ship. I guess given we are talking about a ship, it would be for now fair to define being a part, once the whole thing has sailed on the sea or even floated, making it a ship. For it to BE a ship all parts, including this plank had to work together to make it work, from then on it's a part of that ship. So as long as one does not replace above 50% of the ship before it has sailed out, it's still the same ship. If above 50%, it depends if the other 50% were from ONE other ship or various ships, which would still mean the big chunk was the original ship, I think the biggest chunk of the ship, with the highest percentage makes the ship to the ship that it originally was, if we are talking about singular replacements that did not belong to a ship before it's an identityless part anyway, becoming a part of the ship it is added too automatically. If it sails out once, comes back and is replaced even more, it's still the same ship because all other parts became the original functional ship before further replacement took place. BASICALLY, if you replace a bigger chunk of the ship with something new before it has sailed. It can gain a new identity as a ship, except those parts were identityless factory new things. So given this does it mean an almost factory new ship that has never sailed and only has 2% of a previous ship, when it is added to 100% makes the factory new ship to the old ship? Fck...I thought I had figured a way out the paradox by inserting the value of "has to sail once", by connecting it to it's functionality and identity, or purpose of original existence basically. If I take that away. It's just about the percentages an original ship has left in them and the parts that replace it. But I would still say, the sailing makes a ship to what is their new 100%. So without sailing, over time, if the original ship loses every part by them being replaced without ever sailing, it's a new ship because nothing from the old is left, no experiences that integrated the new parts with the old parts making it one entity, just them being there. Kinda solved? At least I have defined what makes a ship original and new and when it turns new when the old is still intact. I just continued watching the Video and saw it was about the old part replacing a different ship. But this also explains, to a degree, it depends on the chunk of the ship. But holy f...that means I can have several same ships if I only take 1% of the original ship, and replace it with 100 - 0,99% of different ships (not new) and make them sail. I have 100 of those original ships which is baloney. But then again why is it baloney, we are talking about a patched up ship that consists of 100 different previous ships, which is unrealistic but possible. In a more realistic case the ship would be replaced if the new parts outweigh the old parts and then sails. If we have 40% old ship 30% factory new and 30% different old ship. It's still the "old ship" integrating the "new parts" making it the original. The rest 60% that has other ship parts included as well would be also the original, but both of them would not be fully the original because at the end of the day, their parts were taken away from them, so yes in question of "originality" nothing is original that has quite literally lost or have replaced parts of their originality, the higher the loss, less original it is. The 60% ship would therefore be a more close remnant of the true original ship. Sorites Paradox: It stops being a heap, the moment you would independently look at a different sand formation and not regard it as a heap, just because you do it slower and it "was" a heap, doesn't mean it continues being a heap forever. But I guess, estimating the exact amount of sandcorns it takes for your mind to regard a heap of sand as what it is, is what is really difficult, but not a paradox. Barber Paradox: Simple math error, because the rule that is created, prevents the rule from taking place given only one barber is there, which is the case for the Paradox. I mean theoretically one could involve the argument of superposition of decision making, the decision is not made and represents a possibility of both, before it is actually made. Given that, as long as he does not shave himself, his option of shaving himself is given, even though paradoxically he can't, he isn't and not (because shaving is not a 24/7 thing), so therefore as long as he shaves those that decide to be shaved because they can't shave themselves, he is not getting into a paradox and just creates long hair with the option of eventually shaving himself and creating a rift in the time continuum. Catch 22: Is actually a paradox, talking about logically contradicting general paradoxes, nothing to add. Fermi-Paradox: We don't know if the Universe is infinite and I feel like it also did not fully factor in the rarity of life in general? Despite the sheer size and age of our universe, the possibilities shrink drastically for life and then even more for technologically advanced life, even though it might be possible, it does not mean than in our few years of committing attrocities, genocide and wars we have evolved far enough to actually detect it, this paradox is only a paradox because we can't see quite well. Ok my attententionspan for writing and watching is fading, cya!

[@gamesbybrady2159]

“Second sentence is lying” “First sentence is telling the truth”

[@palgamer-tzcg-]

Birthday paradox: You would need 367 people to have a 100% chance of 2 people having the same birthday, because a leap year has 366 day so there could be all different birthdays.

[@rnpstll]

glad I wasn't the only one to pick this up

[@DanColtea]

I almost said something stupid 😂 i wanted to say that there should be more than 367 because birthdays would be random. After i typed it out i realized that “me stoopid” 😂

[@icecrystal7965]

6:33 And the sensor that senses the particle absolutely does count as an observer

[@catalyze_]

3:28 is how Limitless works And the one right after makes me think of “The missile knows where it is at all times.”

[@schmon8409]

The dichotomy paradox is only a paradox if you need to stop at every step. If you just need to reach it before going to the next step, you can still just start walking. Infinitely small steps are still always steps ahead of you.

[@vx0tic-959]

But there are infinite number of subdivisions as well

[@GrimdarkTigy]

but you can add an infinite amount of infinitely small subdivisions to get a finite amount

[@Sillysillysillysillysilly259]

0:44 2 barbers, shave each other and everyone else too

[@retr0of300]

There is 1 barber, and if they shave each other they break the rule that they need to shave everyone that can’t shave, for they won’t shave everyone in the way your awnser works

[@Sillysillysillysillysilly259]

@@retr0of300 did it not say that cant shave themselves? In this situation the barbers can't shave themselves and therefore can shave each other

[@Mooskym]

The Barber Paradox is only a paradox so long as we insist in cataloging people according to their profession. When "the barber" is at home he is off-duty, so he isn't "the barber", he's just "Bill", meaning he can shave himself without causing a paradox. Also, in this day and age, a woman can also be a barber, and women don't usually shave their face (nor do barbers usually shave their patron's legs or any other body-part bellow the neck).

[@voxvolhynia5400]

I think the paradox comes from the fact that this town only has one barber, "the barber". Otherwise you're completely right, so it would be great if they put up a sign inviting any barbers to join their town lol

[@nagarajansubramani]

The barber is a lady. Solved!

[@connorroberts8350]

I like how you did the pinnocio twice and the sword and shield twice