3 Paradoxes That Will Change the Way You Think About Everything

[@PursuitofWonder]

As always, thank you for watching. Check out more explorations of philosophy in Pursuit of Wonder's books here: www.amazon.com/stores/Robert-Pantano/author/B08DCRJ85C

[@SrAlmeidaMedina]

You may enjoy studying philosopher Gustavo Bueno.

[@ripudamansingh4854]

Brother if you read hindu text like upanishad ( major 10 text ) then you will get all your answers

[@ianjohnson1723]

??,:-D;):-*:-!

[@pierre1119able]

I propose a solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma. There can be no belief without reason. It means that you can only believe something if you can also explain with reason to others that it is true. If challenged, your reason must stand up.

[@willb7392]

it's a fault in our language. instead of two questions. How do we know what we know?

[@slantize]

It doesn't matter if the car is objectively or subjectively red. Perhaps someone sees a different color consistently and their red is different than your red, but what is consistent is that it is always that color being called red that we can all agree on. Consistency is the definition of truth. And these consistencies form the fundamental basis for the justification of the ideas that branch out of them, including philosophical ideas.

[@Nickmares]

Perhaps it is a color that we can not perceive

[@lucystoner]

I've always thought the same thing.

[@Jeff-tu5ol]

What about amounts? I am wondering if for example two apples are objectively two apples. The word we use for two does not matter. All that matters is that we know the amount. And that is a fact?

[@lurkerrekrul]

I've wondered the exact same thing about color. We learn color by having someone point to a color and tell us what it's called. But until they invent a way for people to switch consciousnesses, there's no objective way to tell that colors look the same to everyone.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

Depends how the car is lit. Perhaps its white and a red light is shining upon it.or perhaps it is refracting light and actually has no colour like for example blue morpheus butterflies. But it would be true to say "i perceive that car as red and that butterfly as blue"

[@gansita1983]

The older I get I realize we don’t know what we don’t know. There is also so much to know. And there is always half truth to everything. I also realize how easy some of us believe things that make zero sense to others

[@faulkgough1768]

That is the glorious rub of it all. The more you claim to know, the less you likely do. The more you state facts, the more they break down, and the more you expect others to think like you, the more they won't. This universe, in all it's Glory, is an insane contradiction from every angle. None of it makes sense, but it all works perfectly; we should not be here, but we are; Heck, even just the fact that we have found fundamental concepts of space and our minds to just be... "eh... deal with it..." leans heavily towards we are likely just as crazy as the universe... but, Feck it all, it is a hell of a ride.

[@gansita1983]

@@faulkgough1768 beautifully said

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Saying ‘there is much to know’ is a paradox in itself 😅

[@jackmehoff2363]

Believing things is comfortable

[@jeffmutch7640]

Come on! You know what is true. We all do. This nonsense is overthinking what we know is true by experience, history and outcomes.

[@fabianr9394]

Fun fact: The "Baron von Münchhausen" is also known as the "Lügenbaron" in German, which translates to "the lying Baron"

[@StockpileThomas1]

The Münchausens funded our church

[@drabnail777]

What's sad, is that in order to highlight some religious inconsistencies, he always uses Christians and never any of the 2 other Abrahamic religions even though the same fallacies apply.

[@timmy-wj2hc]

@@drabnail777 All religions are inconsistent, it doesn't matter which one he uses to exemplify the point.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

I almost always tell the truth.

[@drabnail777]

@@timmy-wj2hc To the zealots and people who think those religions are more different than similar, it matters

[@dhm7815]

Reminds me of someone I used to know. He would ask "why" about my choices. It was an infinite regression "why". It made him seem a philosopher because he said "Why?". When I was tired of the steps of regression he would present his arbitrary preference. If I challenged that, his feelings would be hurt. I, in his estimation, was ungrateful and hurtful because, he would assert, he was only trying to help. I no longer speak to him.

[@lorigulfnoldor2162]

I heard about "why-regress" as a real tool to self-knowledge and self-reflection, but there was a caveat: only a five of "why-steps" were required. Perhaps ten if you're a self-reflection maniac lol. But not, NOT infinite.

[@tbone9603]

Why?

[@jamesupton4996]

I was waiting for that comment to the original statement!

[@Thinkscape]

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." I like this quote because it highlights the beauty of embracing uncertainty and the willingness to explore the unknown. It encourages a mindset of curiosity and openness, recognizing that there is value in the process of inquiry and continuous learning rather than seeking absolute certainty.

[@gddurden7871]

aha

[@michaelprince6798]

I agree with much of what you said, we should be curious and open-minded, but we should also seek "absolute certainty" otherwise all we would have is mere speculation (which is what philosophers have).

[@hollawar1391]

love this thanks :)

[@sergioperez2594]

This is basically a critique to religion where you have answers to everything and "certainty" just based on faith...which means you really don't have any...😂

[@TheTruthKiwi]

​@@sergioperez2594yes, I was going to say the same thing :)

[@Justwantahover]

Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.

[@matswessling6600]

wrong. we have evolved to be problem solvers. thats what we do.

[@Reyna-uj8ed]

You perceive yourself as a problem solver.

[@chipwhitley]

But if we can’t draw conclusions from our experiences how meaningful can experience itself be? But if all we really have are conclusions we lose all sense of awe, wonder, and mystery and the joy of experience itself. But if all we have is exper-fml

[@Dilbag-yt]

Reality can only be experienced by overcoming fears. Fears are what keep us in the constant loop that we are here to solve something but nope. We are here simply to enjoy and be an example that others can do the same. There needs to be notable mention that by enjoyment doesn't mean lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego. These are the exact opposite of enjoyment.

[@Kevinjoemamaa]

@@matswessling6600 what is a problem?

[@justaguy2961]

Man your videos are something else. You have such an eloquent way of speaking, and I love that your videos always end around the fact that we're all connected and just trying to live our lives to the fullest. It really got me thinking when you said that quote about how "there's someone out there separated by space and time, yet deeply connected to me, that someone knows me well." It made me feel good. Anyway LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!

[@minhkhuong6132]

wow.. thanks for words

[@jeremyhennessee6604]

@justsguy.. ironically enough, with this video and the challenging questions (without actual answers) it raises, everyone's assumed connectedness is just that. An assumption or theory without much in the way of tangible evidence to prove the proposition. It's probably good (for you) that you feel an.. awe-inspiring sense of interconnectedness with others/things, but I'm not certain that was the point to this video or any of the videos he puts out. * In regards to dear, overrated Wittgenstein's flies in a bottle analogy...it's interesting/ironic in many respects. That a fly in its own bottle (namely the various mental Illnesses he very likely suffered) would presume to know the way out for any of it's fellow flies. There's no way out of the bottle. Thoughts are flies bottled up in the brain , buzzing around pointlessly until they get caught in the Flypaper and buzz no more. The end .

[@CSM100MK2]

You're simple minded

[@jesus.tresmil]

he speaks so good, sadly speaks nonsense.

[@Tehrawrzorz]

I suffer with severe depression and generally a poor quality of life. This channel helps me put meaning to all of it. Thanks for the great videos (and books too!)

[@Muldoon111]

I hope that your life improves. What are you doing to help yourself?

[@kwicnak4350]

There's people written about in the Bible put into situations for periods of a few years for learning and to be taken away from things happening. You will only ever get what you can handle and stronger people go through more to become that person. Don't turn away from it. Embrace the nothingness. Meaning is easier to see with less distractions.

[@szolanek]

Read David Hume. He will cheer you up.

[@Tehrawrzorz]

@@Muldoon111 Thanks friend. I don't have enough money for a therapist in my country, so I try to get outside, eat/sleep enough or express more of my thoughts through artwork. I find that the last activity helps me a lot. I'm not always conscious of negative emotions that I'm feeling, and they tend to be like a low background hum that tints my day.

[@seank404]

Ashwaganda

[@alisterwhite5714]

1. What do we know? How do we know? The assumption is that we can't answer one without the other, but the statement How do we know is based on the fact that we know at all. The main issue with this paradox assumes that we must know in order for a fact to be true, as if our inability to prove we know invalidates the world around us. How do we know can be answered without a human present. It is the basic understanding of how consciousness works. The question by itself describes the process by which humans perceive knowledge. We don't need to know in order for the ability to know to exist. 2. How can we prove anything is fundamentally true? Realistically, a paradox assumes two contradictions are true, by some means. So in order for something to be a paradox, you need to accept something initially. So the question assuming that you can't assume anything automatically discredits the paradox, because either it disproves itself, or it's not a paradox, because it's just a question. The 3rd reason to prove "paradox" 2 is stupid, because it acts as if senses are not a valid source of information. While yes, you need to validate the senses in this context, but it treats the senses as if it holds no logical value. 3. Can there be any philosophical progress? The only validity to this "paradox" is the assumption "if we can't have any absolute knowledge..." which contradicts the rest of this video, as it is an assumption of itself based on previous statements. The basis of this video is not paradoxes, but fallacies.

[@Clyde_Frog]

Yes! that's the comment I was looking for, thank you man you nailed it

[@josephvillaceran493]

I didn't enjoy my birthday last 4th of July since my wife bought and used a part of our savings as a gift for me. The thought of her giving me a gift (even the simplest) was sweet but I got so furious to the point that I felt guilty. We've been saving for the future (iykyk), but again we live in uncertainty. Now this vid came up on my feed, it made me realise that the so called "facts" or should I say "predictions" are all pointless due to the uncertainty of life. We both have jobs, we both are professionals on our own fields, we both contributed to that savings account and I got furious just because she used a bit of it for my birthday. Now my guilt is still eating me up though I've already apologized before we slept that night. When we were still dating, I've always told her that life is full of uncertainties. And now here I am, so scared of the future, living for tomorrow and not seeing the beauty of today. Thanks for this vid and you've reminded me of who I was before. I love you man!

[@IllesEgri]

There's a song called 4th of July, you should listen to it

[@oggyoggy1299]

Don’t get so worked up.

[@toxic_driift4040]

the unkown is wether you choose to live in fear or be hopeless or sad about it or you can embrace it to the fullest and make memories with your loved ones while you have the time you have on this earth while our scientist continue to imprve technology in hopes of better achieving or undertanding these question we humans ask ourselves like this one. its like death you can either accept its the final procces of life or you can let it scare the living crap out of you and choose to live in fear and all other negative emotions associated with that. we humans are designed to fear uncertanty i believe but once you get past that hump you soon realise that life and the nature we experience is utterly beautiful idk my opinion.

[@melneils9106]

At the end when the narrator says that someone out there, separated by distance or time & probably will never meet, is deeply connected by thought.... That was so powerful for me. Thank you for making this video; it'll help me in my conversations with those that think logic/knowledge are better than emotions/intuition. Of course it's all about the balance. ❤

[@originalkingalpha5116]

You're absolutely right! You're pretty too! I've subbed!🌹☺️

[@michaelramirez6877]

Can you see with your hands Ms. Mel?

[@originalkingalpha5116]

@@michaelramirez6877 You'd probably want to navigate that question towards someone who is blind. (Stevie Wonder enters the room.)🍿😎 #INTOUCHWITHREALITY

[@AbdulAzizSalman711]

How can we know if we are balancing? And how did you know?

[@erajroshan]

Omg same...

[@hanzflackshnack1158]

When I first moved to the projects I saw a guy get shot five times in the chest. I ran to the corner store and told the cashier what I saw. He responded, “It’s just drug ****. Don’t worry about it.” I realized from that day forward, nobody cares about actions. They only care about the context under which they were committed.

[@MrTittybutt]

People are deeply immoral

[@realnothingasitseems]

The blend of 2D and 3D in your animations are truly awestrucking.

[@ronaldpettifurd5957]

​@@Mike-xq7iblol

[@areyouavinalaff]

I'm awestrucked by awestrucking, you're awestrucking.

[@areyouavinalaff]

@lilyeet1980 it is now, you're just jealous because you're not awestrucking.

[@jamesolson7179]

​@lilyeet1980Maybe the right word should be awestriking.

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

Or… amazing, or impressive, or awesome, or striking, or …

[@gohorarsen5938]

like camus said “The struggle itself of being trapped in a bottle is enough to fill a fly’s heart. One must imagine fly happy”

[@rogerstone3068]

"Life is absurd, but we must continue the struggle."

[@puttfordoughdiscgolf9361]

You have put into words of thoughts I could never express about my philosophy of the world. I’ve always had a hard time connecting with people because I’m aware that everything I think or feel is just an abstract thought of the mind. I have a motto that is “I know nothing but what I’ve experienced.” Great video! Cheers.

[@bigredracingdog466]

The problem with these philosophical questions is that knowledge is not dependent upon syllogisms. It is dependent on evidence. For instance, an infinite regression back to before the Big Bang is unnecessary to establish that the earth exists because gravity pulled a swirling cloud of dust together. There is evidence for this in the composition of earth and the surrounding planets. The color red exists outside the human mind; it is that region of the visible spectrum between 620 to 750 nanometers. Whether your language calls it red, rot, rouge, أحمر, or 赤, it is still the color between those wavelengths and will be as long as there is visible light in the universe whether we are around to perceive it or not. Much of philosophy is just people believing themselves to be clever because they can play semantic tricks that only seem to make sense in the absence of actual evidence.

[@mikepalmer1971]

Stop over thinking things.

[@puttfordoughdiscgolf9361]

@@mikepalmer1971 Over thinking, under thinking, pre post present past thinking, underlying thinking. I think I must be thinking.

[@jonathanjonathan7386]

@@bigredracingdog466 what about if another creature, say a bee, perceives that spectrum between 620 to 750 nanometers as what you or I might perceive as say violet? Is it still red? or is red a combination of that spectrum and the perceptual apparatus that turns a spectrum into a colour?

[@bigredracingdog466]

​@@jonathanjonathan7386 Don't confuse the scientific definition of color to the perception of color. People do perceive color differently from one another, like that one house or car in every neighborhood that is a jarring color. It could be a cultural thing or actual colorblindness. Regardless of one's perception or aesthetic appreciation of color, the same wavelength of light is coming off that house. BTW, bees cannot see most shades of red. They see from ~300 to 650 nm, well into the ultraviolet region of the spectrum we can't see (ours is ~400 to 750 nanometers). Even though we can't see ultraviolet, we know it's there. We can detect it, measure it, and even use it with the right equipment.

[@ny3974]

Not going to lie, my head was hurting through 5 mins. But im after learning and will try to get expansion on my critical thinking and philosophy. Its a great channel BTW 🙏

[@joseville]

7:35 For the reasons given, it may be impossible to definitively proof the truth of any statement. Despite that, I think that knowledge is possible. Any "fact" that allows us to predict outcomes or plan for contingencies is knowledge because it is useful. It is knowledge because it is useful. It's like physicists. They have different models of reality and depending on the context, it may be enough to use a simpler model or maybe a more complex model is needed. The model may not be 100% accurate, but if it lets you make predictions, then it is useful and I would argue that its usefulness makes it knowledge.

[@dawniebug784]

You could argue that proof ≠ truth. Truth being 'what is'. Proof being 'referring to what was/is'.

[@joseville]

@@dawniebug784 According to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, within a valid mathematical system, there may be true mathematical statements which cannot be proven.

[@dawniebug784]

@@joseville Probably because the answer is not in the form of math

[@Vincent_Beers]

Math is just a language. When you recognize that, then you realize everything is math in the same way everything is English, Chinese, German or whatever other languages you translate the concepts into. The ability to explain something requires a language you can communicate with or it's just a useless thought in your head that can't be shared. Math, in general is simply the closest we as humans have come to creating a universal language. It's not perfect and it's still evolving, but it's much more defined and less ambiguous than the majority of languages used by the various tribes and countries of the world. You are free to try creating your own universal language to explain things, but globally, math is the best we have for now.

[@sethwick8348]

​@@dawniebug784but they are mathematical statements we are talking about. Godel's basically says any logical system is incomplete, there are always either true things that cannot be proven or untrue things that can be. It is a logical proof (math is simply an extension of logic) that logic is insufficient to completely analyze itself, yet alone reality.

[@nikmpup]

I am connected to all of you because I love you all and I'm constantly wishing everyone well, those near and far, human, alien, flora, and fauna ♡

[@Robert-nz3te]

Everything thing that happens in the universe affect everything in it. Nothing happens in isolation

[@jajajaja2606]

This must be nice. I wish my enemies knew it feels nice to be nice 😂 anyway I'm being sarcastic, but in fact I look up to you. It's not easy to feel what you feel, but basically I agree

[@houseisforthesoul]

we are connected because we are in the matrix

[@nikmpup]

Maybe yes, maybe no, but I still love you ♥

[@albertjewell1963]

9:49 "Sometimes you walk away simply feeling that you are part of the nature of things - that you've been heard, understood; that someone out there, who you'll likely never know, separated by potentially immense distance, and time, is deeply connected to you in thought, in sensibility, that someone knows you well." Can you just imagine how incredible life would be if every person on this planet knowingly had this other person somewhere else? Would it become everyone's life's quest to find this other person? Or would just knowing this person exists be enough?

[@edwinrodeo]

I wouldn’t want to know

[@defoedezign]

Truth comes from within…good luck explaining it to someone who hasn’t experienced it!!

[@houstonisnotmyhome]

Within what?

[@jamesupton4996]

Is that true, though?

[@defoedezign]

Within you. And yes…Look at NDE’s/profound psychedelic experiences or master meditators they’re all a little different but they rhyme.

[@jamesupton4996]

@defoedezign I know a bit about NDEs - they're an interesting psychological phenomenon. I don't know what they have to do with truth though, except as something experienced by some people near death, obviously, but who don't die. They don't seem to communicate any new knowledge and to reflect the culture of the person who has one. There are some rarer cases though of out of body experiences, and people claiming to hear operating theatre conversations. But then the effects of anaesthetics can be strange. I've had some strange experiences in terms of spatial awareness being bizarre when I was on large doses of morphine in hospital. Weird, sometimes scary. But I would not be able to make any truth claims based on them.

[@defoedezign]

@@jamesupton4996 What exactly are you searching for? Truth isn’t exactly the same for everyone, hence good luck explaining it to someone who hasn’t experienced it. That’s why the search is within.

[@cuLiref]

I quitted all my philosophy forums when I realized philosophical discussions were pointless. They're just ways to excecise your mind. But, if you're in it to understand like me. You'd get disappointed, then bored. It's just chasing after the wind

[@robertlandrum1971]

Logic is a much better class than philosophy. Philosophy is the study of other people’s opinions on how things should be in life. Logic is the process by which one can come up with such ideas on their own. Logic teaches critical thinking 🤔 and it’s that knowledge on HOW TO THINK CRITICALLY that is fundamental to a human’s ability to judge different philosophical concepts.

[@hnr9lt-pz7bn]

​@@robertlandrum1971So philosophy doesn't involve critical thinking?

[@herrweiss2580]

@@hnr9lt-pz7bn A philosopher does not need to be logical.

[@cuLiref]

@@robertlandrum1971 I agree... I'd rather study how to validate arguments and reasoning than reading and making assumptions about something I'd never understand

[@terminat1]

Quit.

[@ReynaSingh]

Existence is an inherent balance between every duality, a living paradox

[@deserttortoise2227]

The universe contains both dualistic and monistic forces. Electromagnetism is dualistic but gravity is a monopole. There is no anti-gravity.

[@barnalipurkayastha8233]

​@@deserttortoise2227that's just ignorant saying something do not exists we yet do not know

[@academicpresentations6062]

Atheists from India here?😂

[@talkinghand122]

Without perception, you would not have duality or paradox.

[@jaye5872]

Idk if I would say it's a balance between every duality but I would at least say that everything in existence may ultimately boil down to some sort of paradox, at its most fundamental level.

[@Dakktyrel]

Paradoxes always have a self imposed limits. Freeing yourself from the limits, frees you from nearly all of these 'problems'.

[@mikepalmer1971]

Exactly. So basically don’t over think crap.

[@mingalo2620]

Not really. Freeing yourself from the "limits" would mean assuming things instead of proving them. You're freeing yourself from the question, but it still exists wether you like it or not. You just decided not to solve it.

[@donovanroberts7394]

⁠@@mingalo2620yea because the problem doesn’t reflect reality. If the problem tells you there’s only 2 questions and both need each other to be solve but in reality there’s 3 questions and if you solve the third you can solve all the questions. Because in reality you must assume to find truth. How do you think science progresses. Philosophy is a small portion of a knowledge, and in reality philosophy, science, and theology exist which allows you to find truth.

[@mingalo2620]

@@donovanroberts7394 what the hell are you talking about

[@otptm]

In the end: Everything is a belief and it requires a belief to believe a belief. Even existence itself and the "self" are based on a belief. Actually, nothing exists (no thing) and nothing IS happening (not "nothing happened"). This is an awesome video! Thank you for sharing.

[@coherentmud]

One thing I learnt at an early age, and it still holds true to this day, is that pain hurts.

[@andrewwatson5360]

Pain is a reminder that you are alive and experiencing the unique human privilege of self-consciousness

[@praveensurapaneni4272]

Increasingly with age, I'am realising that it is questioning that is the essence of human existence! Not finding answers ceased to cause anxiety, or worry anymore to me, for that is the norm considering the almost infinitely expansive nature of universe, and comparatively infinitesimal magnitude of human beings, and more so their temporally ephemeral existence in the big schema! But at an individual or personal level, increasingly, every time a question pops up in my mind I seem to feel alive and kicking!

[@georgeclinton4524]

To use the metaphor of the fly-bottle: It's like being a fly, flying into a bottle, declaring that only what exists inside the bottle is knowledge and certainty, then trying to expand the area inside the bottle by bashing your fly-body into the glass. We all know the path into the bottle and can leave whenever we want.

[@charliewest1221]

Pardon me for my slackness. I'm slow on the uptake. How did the fly get into the bottle and who sealed the bottle?

[@georgeclinton4524]

@@charliewest1221 To answer your questions about the metaphor: It flew in the opening at the top; and No one. There's no lid.

[@Vincent_Beers]

And there's the formation of willful ignorance. Pretending anyone said anything about the bottle being sealed either before or after the fly goes in. When you are busy looking for ways to start arguments instead of paying attention and understanding, this is the basis for all misunderstanding and conflict.

[@charliewest1221]

@@Vincent_Beers ... and I suppose you are a fountain - nay, a paragon - of wisdom (the very antithesis of my lamentable ignorance).

[@redpillnibbler4423]

I like the term ‘Trying to think oneself out of a thought bubble’

[@silvadelshaladin]

And this is why you end up having a 700 page proof that 1+1=2.

[@johannesvanderhorst9778]

The proof of that can be much shorter. We start with the empty set, this time denoted {}. This set exists, even when we truly know nothing; in that case the empty set is the set of everything we truly know. The empty set we can associate with the number 0. To create the next number (of any number), create a new set, consisting of the previous set (as an element) and all the elements of the previous set. So 1 is the set {{}}. With no other elements as there are no elements in {} to join {{}}. Then 1+1 is the union of {{}} and {}, so it it the set {{},{{}} We also can look at power sets, ie the set of all subsets of a given set. For a set S the power set of it is denoted 2^S. Consider the power set of 1 = {{}}. The subsets of {{}} are the empty set and the set consisting of the one element that belongs to {{}}. Hence 2^1 = {{},{{}}}. This is the same set as the set mentioned before that I associated with 1+1. So I conclude that 1+1 = 2^1 = 2.

[@suriyanarayananr9652]

Thats a savage reply.. 😂. I thought of giving it but happy to see someone who is having similar thought 😊

[@Bossslaydee_Bailey]

😂 omg i needed this laugh thank you!

[@n-steam]

Knowledge doesn't start with past statements of truth, it starts with definition. You define numbers. You define what a second is, you define what a metre is, you define what a kilogram is. etc. What we know is derived from the definitions. From numbers we create maths. From units and maths, we create physics. How we know is not based on circular reasoning, it is based upon prediction and reproducable results. Our current knowledge is known to not be the Absolute Truth, as you call it, but it is a closest approximation of it. Like a sculptor working on a block of stone, we're able to chip away all of the things we know to not be true. Our first pass is crude and rough. But with refinement of our knowledge we chip away with more detail.

[@clifford4393]

This paradox is akin to basic saying in Statistics: If you assume nothing, you learn nothing. Statistical models do basic assumptions, and learn through modelling. Then we check if the assumptions are approximately satisfied through the data observed. Remember, no models are correct, BUT some are more useful than others. To solve the paradox, we can focus on what is useful for you, or the society, i.e., practicality.

[@dielaughing73]

I agree, and can entirely satisfy myself with an answer to, say, the Big Bang question with "we don't know why it happened, if it actually did happen. Our current scientific understanding of the universe is only a model which we know to be flawed and incomplete." Call me simple-minded, but after overthinking everything into my 20s, at some point I realised that the big mysteries of life have been mysteries forever and I wasn't going to be the one to solve them no matter how much I scratched my head. To even imagine that would be the utter height of arrogance. Not having answers to imponderable questions has done me exactly no harm in the intervening years.

[@luizad4653]

This channel is pure education. I have become a bit obsessed with the channel, not gonna lie. It did change a lot the way in which I think about existance, reality, consciousness. Made me curious to read more around philosophy, astronomy and science. I feel wholesome after each and every one of your videos Pursuit of Wonder, thank you for creating this unique and purely awesome content❤

[@OfficiallyRonny]

wyd up?

[@jerylregina7392]

😂❤Yessss!!!!😅❤THANKYOU!!!! This content is my fav❤❤❤❤

[@haileykibaforever]

This is definitely not education. I like there videos. But this one is trash. The explanations would be better without trying to mix science and philosophy.

[@janicestevenson6496]

"What do we know and how do we know?" Thank you for this presentation. A book of meditations called Steps to Knowledge states it this way: "You want what you think you know... This constitutes the basis of your understanding of yourself and your world. In fact this constitutes the basis of your identity. You will find however, upon honest examination that your understanding is based upon assumptions primarily, and these assumptions have not been founded upon your experience to a very great degree, if at all. Today... devote your total attention to examining your assumptions, think about the things you really think you know, including things you have not thought to question before... You begin to see the difference between what you think you know and real Knowledge itself...Understanding this [difference] may be upsetting... but it is absolutely essential for you to give you the impetus and the desire to discover your true foundation in the world." (STK, Marshall Vian Summers)

[@sahilhotchandani3668]

❤❤gosh true words of yours indeed

[@lyrebird9749]

"How do we know?" We use our senses. It's called empirical evidence. We observe and measure. This is the scientific method for acquiring knowledge: 1. Ask a question 2. Construct / pose a theory that might answer the question 3. Collect information / data 4. Design experiments to test the theory 5. Compare expected results to observed results 6a. If experiments prove theory, report findings and invite independent experiments to also test the theory (peer review) 6b. If experiments don't prove theory, go back to step 2. 7. If independent tests also prove theory, the theory is accepted until further research adds to or posits additional theories. This is how human knowledge has developed over thousands of years. You can apply the same method to any theory, including the ideas in the video and the meditation book mentioned above.

[@amanitamuscaria7500]

or, Who Am I?

[@johnchapman5125]

Thank you!

[@topzozzle5642]

Paradoxes don't exist, we simply aren't as smart as we give ourselves credit for, and we don't know how to make the right tools to compensate. This is the cold hard truth.

[@CaptainTex34]

Source : i made it up

[@topzozzle5642]

@@CaptainTex34 Source: The literal textbook definition for the word ''paradox'', mister anime pfp.

[@CaptainTex34]

@@topzozzle5642 the definition of paradox can varie but usually it's like this : A statement proposition, or situation that appears to be self-contradictory or logically impossible, yet may contain a hidden truth or be true upon closer examination. Mr animal pfp

[@topzozzle5642]

@@CaptainTex34 Good, now all you need to do is comprehend this literal text book definition and you're good. Proud of you bud.

[@cobensemble]

This is such a well put together ad, didn't break the immersion for a moment, perfect.

[@mizuchi13]

loved the animations, cute, smooth and soothing ❤

[@nil_nux556]

The only problem with this channel is that it's so good that you wanna watch all the vids when you should just watch one and let it digest.

[@Joey-JoJo-Jr.64]

“Do not try and bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth… there is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only you.” - The Matrix -

[@professionalpookie]

The Oracle

[@tom-kz9pb]

As fallible beings, we have zero knowledge that is absolute. We generally do not know enough to justify having "beliefs". We should instead have "theories". For every theory that we hold as favorite, we should also have some alternate theories, or else we have not contemplated all the possibilities. All knowledge should be regarded as tentative.

[@heirhead123]

You used two absolutes to say that there are zero absolutes. You assumed that we are fallible. You assume that we have zero knowledge that is absolute. Are you absolutely sure that we still have have zero absolutes?

[@thandofiltane9706]

Kiff video. Got some thinking and rewatching to do. And also... clever plug at the end there. haha. Real smooth like an earlier Grand Line Review/New World Review call-to-action.

[@Junt_Justin]

Just finished you book and now found this channel. Love this stuff, thanks for doing what you do.

[@michaelrivera6989]

These are old dilemmas rooted in a lack of definitions of truth and knowledge. We can only have working truths and working knowledge. Ultimate knowledge neither attainable nor necessary.

[@TheAlf411]

Working truth aka relative truth. Hence ultimately truth is inaccessible. But humans aren't satisfied with relative truths, we want the Essence or the source. Hence the empty hole in our soul

[@michaelrivera6989]

@@TheAlf411 Your we definitely does not include me. I'm satisfied with the 3 lb mass between my ears and what it does for me.

[@psychonaut689]

@@TheAlf411 the difficulty with saying all truths are relative is that, this statement itself is an absolute one.

[@natesmith3592]

Very well done. You always nail the breakdowns and I love the variety of quotes you tie in to all of your videos. Thank you for reminding all of us that we're not searching alone.

[@davidjohnson497]

I want to thank you for this video. It has given me some hope, as I struggle with questions. It defines some questions, some paths to answers, and leaves open lots of things, but that's ok. Thanks for the discourse that has me thinking more!

[@Echo3_]

I really enjoyed this video, its the journey not the destination or what you will do when you get there

[@0ptimal]

Yes, we seem to have our own relative demands on what it takes for something to be deemed true or real. Ultimately it may be the state of knowing that is most important, and not the trail of logic and truth that lead to it's existence, because everything under enough scrutiny ends up unexplainable at it's core.

[@TobyAva2023]

We will never know..if we DID!? It would probably scare us...really

[@90-nirmitbatavia45]

Also the Paradox :- Will dad ever return after he went out to get milk 😭

[@kwasaathefirst6572]

That isn't a paradox, it's simply a question

[@helloworld_2472]

no ,he won't😂

[@lynngallerno4145]

When aliens bring him back

[@jsoto185]

I thought he went out for cigarettes..

[@hanaanrosenthal]

What a well written and presented video. Thank you.

[@James-ng5bx]

And yes thinking about this is getting my eyes crossed

[@MusicMike747]

Congratulations to everyone who watched this video. You have engaged your mind and considered ideas to which the majority of people are completely blind, deaf, and dumb

[@justinlaw9336]

Another absolutley stellar video! Ur productions always leave me feeling humbled, yet mentally enriched and fulfilled.

[@sandygoldstrike6451]

I always love to see your new content. You videos are thought provoking and your books are a real treat. Thank you for all of the effort that you invest sharing your talent with the world.

[@Chelvam-so4qh]

Where to find the names of his books?

[@nocturnalsingularity3138]

This reminds me of my daughter... She is 8, and she always infinitely regresses with every single second of every question she ever asked LOL

[@darkwoods7]

Right? My kids have challenged me on EVERYTHING I thought I understood.

[@CiscoWes]

That’s when we end up using the answer “because” 😂

[@katiejo1095]

Glad I have clarity. That was exhausting.

[@ampersandellipsis747]

"But of course, assuming something is true, or claiming something is true, does not prove that anything is." Can you prove that statement or did you just assume that it is correct? The viewpoint that axioms are unproveable assumes that it in itself is objective/proveable, which is a paradox in itself.

[@bille77]

The fact, that we can never stand on solid ground, IS the solid ground. It's solid and adamant AF, if one fully and completely realises this. ❤

[@faulkgough1768]

though you will never really touch anything, consider that your brain knows what is going to happen before it happens. You are living life in your past, slower than you can register, floating as a ghost, separate from cosmos... yet, it all works just as it should.

[@alexstone5116]

it's just energy bro, chill

[@faulkgough1768]

@@alexstone5116 I am chill, just stating facts... watch a few more videos on the topic of quantum theory, and heck, even paradoxes... or, really anything that makes you think about the universe around you. unless you are so at one with reality that you have surpassed the awe that it can be... and turned into a twat.

[@Napoleonwilson1973]

@@alexstone5116Define energy

[@nohandle-b8u]

it's entirely possible that the horse got itself out while dude was pulling his hair

[@lincolnpollack4299]

Love this channel❤

[@adieldiedericks4563]

Very beautiful rendition of one of my favourite tunes❤

[@exoisalive]

Your page is amazing.

[@romanticdonkey468]

Everything is a belief. NOTHING can be proven. “Cogito Ergo Sum” “I Think, therefore I am” ~ Descartes. Beyond that, there is no way to prove anything. The only reason you exist, is because you are able to believe you do. You cannot even prove your body exists, only your mind.

[@rightpa]

Solipsism is a dead end.

[@MrEdu-cj2vl]

because God

[@Oldschool811]

Yes, the sky fairies enjoy your imagination world😅😅😅

[@jaynorthwoods]

I’m justified by Faith in God, which is a gift from Him.

[@jared338]

Jfc

[@jasonvanhorn6970]

Why?

[@JVarghese-x6c]

because because

[@rennoc6478]

We can prove only one thing, that you as an observer exist. But you cannot prove that to anyone else only to yourself.

[@sammygreco]

Yeah this is true. I also don't find this sort of philosophy very helpful if it is used as a trump card in debates. Like a sort of "gotcha". Of course we can boil all knowledge down to "well the only thing I really know is that I exist". But if we want to move beyond that and actually have productive conversations (or to advance as the human race), we need to operate on the basis of agreed upon assumptions. Then once we agree to those, we need to operate on a basis of assuming statistical probability as fact. Like if one were to say "If I drop this ball, it will fall every time" should not be challenged with the necessity for absolute 100% proof, "and so therefore, we can't really say gravity exists". This is the opposite of productive or meaningful for the sake of navigating and learning about our reality.

[@rennoc6478]

@@sammygreco I agree with your assessment just in the context of the video I thought I would add this

[@frankss5145]

How do you know that? Who tells you that you exist? The fact that you percieve reality? This tells you only that the percepiton of reality exists, but doesn't tell you anything about you. Even the feeling of yourself Is Just a perception. Everything Is a perception generated by our mind, but we, as beings, may not exist at all.

[@sammygreco]

@@frankss5145 it's Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." If you are experiencing things then you exist in some form of capacity, somehow, somewhere. Whether our entire reality is fake is irrelevant, it is just a fact that you exist since you are perceiving this reality, fake or otherwise. And it's the only fact that can be proven. But only proven to you, since you can't be sure that anything, including other people, exist. Does this make sense?

[@frankss5145]

@@sammygreco It makes sense, but you're starting from as assumption, the one that even Descartes did. I think therefore i am. You can Say that this Is true for you, but Is an assumption that you do, for me isn't true for example. I have no proofs i exist at all, what am I After all? I can touch things, see things, i can also think about things, but can i see myself? I don't mean my reflection of course, but the Essence of me. Can i touch myself? Can i even think about myself? I can touch my body, sure, and i can think about my name, or about my personality, my Memories, but Is this me? Isn't this Just reality that goes into existence inside my personal and subjective experience of what Is Life? So, After all, even saying that i exist Is an assumption, and not a objective fact.

[@teban67]

I love this channel, thank you so much, keep up this beautiful work.

[@Quimper111]

Your baseline is yourself. Ergo cogito sum. Fokus om the nature of the question rather than the answer and create your paradigm out of that and your own ego consensus.

[@jaye5872]

This was well put together! What a lovely presentation! 👏🏽

[@dipaktrivedi1533]

What a way to express the human dilemma. Awesome 👍 🙏

[@patrickguynn8900]

The answer of truth comes not from replying with an answer but rather through the action. Truth is revealed and one can only bare witness.

[@treesap2]

Very true. This is what happens when you subordinate participatory knowledge to propositional knowledge. There are many things that we know, but we are unable to describe it with words, because some knowledge comes from experience through participation. Western philosophies are much too focused on the propositional.

[@rogerstone3068]

So that would be the naked truth, I imagine.

[@barsanted]

I found the discussion on the Munchausen trilemma and the nature of fundamental truth really thought-provoking. It's fascinating how we grapple with the question of whether we can ever truly prove anything to be fundamentally true. In terms of philosophical progress, I believe diving into epistemology is crucial. Descartes' famous statement, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am," serves as a solid axiomatic foundation. While acknowledging the possibilities of being a brain in a vat or even a program experiencing a simulation (which leads to radical skepticism), this axiom allows us to philosophically advance. Additionally, our primary perceptions through our senses play a crucial role. By relying on our five senses-sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste-we perceive the reality around us. These perceptions serve as another set of axioms. From this point forward, our philosophical exploration relies (in my opinion of course) on Evidentialism. Unlike rationalists such as Descartes, who hold a lot more presuppositions as self-evident, the evidentialist approach requires us to rely on evidence to support our beliefs and claims. Evidentialism requires us to provide evidence to justify its own validity. It's a self-referential loop that demands introspection. How can we provide evidence to support the concept of providing evidence? It becomes a matter of epistemic circularity. However, we can argue for the coherence and effectiveness of Evidentialism by highlighting its track record in producing reliable and verifiable knowledge. The success of Evidentialism in scientific inquiry and other fields demonstrates its reliability. Yet, we must recognize that this argument still relies on the assumption that evidence is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge. It brings us back to the circularity within the framework itself. Evidentialism requires evidence to justify Evidentialism. In essence, Evidentialism becomes a self-supporting system, where the justification for its truth lies within its own framework. It becomes an inherent belief that guides our epistemological endeavors, even if its direct justification remains circular. By acknowledging this inherent circularity and engaging in critical reflection, we gain a deeper understanding of the epistemic foundations we rely upon. It allows us to explore alternative perspectives within the realm of epistemology and question the limits and possibilities of knowledge. Overall, this video raises some very thought-provoking questions about the nature of truth and the foundations of our beliefs, shaping our understanding of the world. It reminds us to approach these philosophical inquiries with curiosity and a willingness to critically examine our epistemic frameworks. Sorry for the long text, but this subject is not a easy one to compress in to a more palatable small text. There is so much more I would like to elaborate, however, I believe I've been rambling enough as it is. Awesome video!

[@boltzmannnpc]

You shouldn't call this "rambling". I found your comment highly elaborate and well written, thanks for sharing. Btw, you got me interested in evidentialism and I will be researching it.

[@quentenkaviani-far1655]

Wow. What an amazing video. Thank you

[@Jackson_Zheng]

You can easily prove something to be true without it requiring a justification!😂 Example: Do questions exist? The answer is obviously yes. But even beyond that, it is impossible for it not to be true. If questions don't exist, then we'd never be able to contemplate it's existence in the first place. Therefore, the statement "Questions exist." is just one example of an objective truth. It requires no circular reasoning or any axioms. It's true because it would be a paradox if it wasn't.

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

Ideas only exist if you accept the premise that you exist.

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

I think all regression question logic will come down to whether or not you exist.

[@Jackson_Zheng]

@@Xxcyclonexx44 Of course I exist! If I didn't, how am I able to think and ask questions in the first place?

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

@@Jackson_Zheng you have taken you exist as fact. That is great, that also is a “axiom”

[@Jackson_Zheng]

@@Xxcyclonexx44 The type of "axioms" I'm referring to in my original comment are statements that are accepted to be true but are not self-evident - e.g. the ones mentioned in the video. My argument was that there does exist true statements that ARE self-evident (like the fact that I know questions exist), therefore it does not require any "justification" because the statement itself is the proof for why the statement is true. I guess it's also a type of axiom, but it's a very different type and one that is much more grounded and concrete than the ones mentioned in the video.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I've had this hypothetical idea about how the universe works forever now. I look at ecosystems and I see that they recycle energy and find ways to keep a balance. So I can very easily imagine the greater universe's ecosystem following in that manner. Black holes are the perfect candidate for a galactic recycler. The other end of a black hole could be a white hole of unimaginable forces and could connect a tube between 2 bubbles that could represent universe's. Then the cycle can continue. Each universe has the ability to recycle energy and matter from itself to feed another universe, creating a ecosystem that is not wasting matter but converting/reusing the matter from old to feed the new. Just like how forest's exist on our planet. It's symbiotic and destructive and creative all at the same time. In my opinion, it's very messy, & abstract. The only set thing is Matter is recycled, converted not destroyed. *Just because matter is converted doesn't mean that it's stable. I feel like there's a probability of many unstable "universe's" It's chaotic but every now and then the conversion cycle could land on a stable form..? Just like how the forest floor is abstract. The underbrush, dirt, rock, is all abstractly situated. I feel like the cycle of the way the universe recycles matter would be very similar. Any matter that gets recycled would probably be converted into it's most basic essential form once it's thru it's process. Super heated gases, plasma, etc. Basically like a seed. A foundation of a universe being transplanted. Some work; Some don't. Idk? Just a gut feeling I've gotten from going on long hikes in the Oregon wilderness throughout my Life. 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ It's facinating how when we look around & we see all this complexity with-in the Universe. That complexity basically comes from: ~{"Differences"}~ The Factor of how "Differences" interact seems to be the key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. Such as: *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temperatures, different densities, viscosities, turbulent flow, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnet waves. Different velocities/angular momentum. Different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different boundary layers between different materials or physical regions such as: (Land/water/oil/air/soap bubbles/ atmosphere's/space. The different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, solar wind/membrane layers/bubble's/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low temperature 🌡️ create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally inside our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere. The list goes on 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.

[@lynnfisher3037]

Everything you just said is circular reasoning. You are pulling yourself up like the Baron and trying to escape the bottle, just as we ALL are.

[@alexstone5116]

I mean, cool that everything is cyclical but the question is 'why'?

[@skippy675]

​@@alexstone5116 "why" is a silly question though because asking why presumes that there is a reason. The most basic question i can come up with is why is there something instead of nothing? Already, I am stuck. I don't know if nothing, truly nothing is even possible. I don't think nothing is a possibility. Don't know this for sure. Can't know this for sure. But if nothing isn't a possibility, the questions about why did our universe come to be is still valid, but "easier" to answer. Because all that is took this form either by design or by chance.

[@alexstone5116]

@@skippy675 i think a human mind is incapable of comprehending anything that doesn't involve reason. This is why we have all these questions without a tangible answer

[@benmcreynolds8581]

@@alexstone5116 i dont think anyone can ever truly know from our current perspective. I think our best option is to observe our surroundings. Look at how a forest functions, or other environments? Seems like a good example that we could utilize as a comparable analogy? Maybe?

[@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life]

This is a hugely important video for the world to see, and for all religious types and scientists alike for they like the rest of us, are filled with false beliefs. . There are only 3 things that one can know with a certainty. 1. You exist. 2. The time is now. 3. You are here. Everything else is a belief, opinion, or judgement based without knowing. The three truths above don't require a belief or the use of your 5 senses. They also don't require thought. Any and all beliefs are just wishes and desires and thought forms that one has which are not based in truth. Truth is what is known when there is no thought. When thinking stops that is the real you. When thinking starts you mistake the conditioning for yourself as a self. Truth exists only when there is no thinking or thoughts to cloud your Awareness.

[@andrewhodgkins2292]

Of couse we could always turn to observation and evidence. Truth is easy to define when it is observed. Certainly we can make ludicrous paradoxical problems from theoretocal hypotheses but that's why hypotheses are not given the name fact until ot is backed by aforementioned evidence.

[@pretikewl76]

Any color has a consistent waveform. Regardless of how a person "sees" it, the wave does not change per that specific color. You may not see red the same way I do, but it doesn't mean it isn't red or true.

[@akid9675]

How do you know that?

[@bobjensen8040]

A very good summation of the state of man without God or a knowledge of the true nature of God. To sum up Richard Feynman's statement in one word, humility. No progress in knowledge can be made without humility. Great video.

[@Miami7]

Richard Feynman was an incredible and amazing person. I've read all of his books and many of his works. "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is one of the best books I've ever read. Wish he was still around.

[@Brousey]

To believe isnt to know. To truly know something is to experience it first hand. Problem is..its subjective

[@poellot]

The car is red because, because the entire human race had deemed that color of light reflected into the eyes is what somone in history called red and now everyone else does as well.

[@mingalo2620]

One of the most interesting things about paradoxes, is that only after going into the helplessness of trying to solve them, you realize that we are built to ignore problems as much as we are built to solve them.

[@michaeldoe4805]

Also known as a daily conversation with a 4 year old

[@arnoldlawrence744]

Thats why Faith is the substance of things is such a powerful statement

[@nickmet123]

Simply brilliant! Seems like the process of thinking is more valuable than the solution.

[@lennyjoseph7382]

One quote I love from science is everything we know is wrong but some of it is useful. Example a map is always wrong because a tree may grow or get chopped down or a stone moved but that map is still useful so we view it as being right.

[@tasantana1174]

The car is not red, it is actually a mixture of every color except red. The color red is a frequency that is being reflected and or rejected off the material. We actually do not see objects in the way that they truly exist we see a reflection of the object that light provides us. This is why with the absence of light we see darkness or the illusion of empty space.

[@andrewscruggs5906]

... I think the point of that story went wayyy over your head

[@brandonscott643]

Existential crisis: activated

[@dancunningham9520]

Truth is not dependent on our beliefs. To debate truth is fruitless, because we are not capable of ascertaining it. What is, is, and our thoughts, beliefs, philosophies and debates will not change or alter it. Live.

[@ZafOsophy]

Similar to the flies in the bottle. We are characters in a simulation, who want to see/escape the wires/conductors, within which we exist. The paradox is that it is impossible to exist outside the wires, because the wires 'support' the fabric of our being, in the same way dark matter supports matter, but we cannot detect it.

[@johndiss]

The simulation is a dream.

[@daultonlargena2800]

Everything is one.

[@ZafOsophy]

@@johndiss Yes, people who have Near Death Experience, describe life as a murky dream.

[@ZafOsophy]

@@daultonlargena2800 Yes, everything and everyone is connected, quantum entanglement.

[@NAYAINSAAN-ij9lb]

@@ZafOsophy does it mean i cant change my surroundings as my code wint allow ne ?

[@BU_IDo]

Reasoning that we are most likely chasing a carrot on a stick to find answers while questioning the very existence of the carrot and stick is what keeps us going.

[@edisoncarteresq9111]

It is simply,”WHY”. Your child asks for prove at three years old. “Why”! Just keep asking it until infinity!

[@javiergonzalezcr]

Me encantó el análisis y la conclusión, muchas gracias!

[@VijayKailas-m7f]

This is all easily answered by shaman of the amazon. We know our own truth from its unmistakble beauty . Philosophers, psychologists, and clergy can all know truth in seeing what helps bring balance and harm to the mind, body, and soul.

[@johnsullivan6843]

Also, “you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” 😏

[@djinnx01]

Like a 3 Year old asking those dang "why" questions 😂😂😂😅😊

[@arjuntt2604]

They knew the true wisdom/or were in search for and we programmed them to be dumber

[@NealThomas-h9x]

Everyone sees and perceives everything different. Red may be purple to some, as some live with spiders in harmony or others who kill them due to fear.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

We are all unique Perspectives (Consciousness) of One Truth (Mind)! ;)

[@heirhead123]

We don't have to know everything to get started. We must first have a goal of wanting to know something or solve a problem or understand something or reach a dream or help others etc. Then we use what we know to be true (our axioms) to establish more absolutes that help us reach our goals. If we run out of absolutes before we reach our goals then we either need to assume or believe something to be true or be satisfied with not knowing. But at any stage of the process we cannot say we have zero knowledge or absolute truths.

[@miezetis]

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.

[@joshchamis1981]

Thank you

[@Ben_Gates]

"You divided the universe into a million different ways. The instrument that broke the world into pieces is your intellect. With that, you're trying to fix everything. It's not going to work."

[@JustARandomDude89]

If the more I know is the less I know, so what if I don't know anything about knowledge paradox, do I know everything?