The Paradoxes Iceberg Explained

[@Snook_YT]

Visit gamersupps.gg/Snook for free samples for the first 24 hours!!! Completely free, no reason not to try it! Thanks for watching!

[@deadangel03]

i’ll try it and let everyone know how it goes…………….. you know what happens if big papa doesn’t like it………..

[@goldfishsandwich9737]

You're welcome Snookybear

[@TylerRichardson14]

Love gamersupps! I'm glad you got them to sponsor you! I'll be waiting for your flavor or waifu shaker lol

[@argspirit42069]

I think you missed the conflict of the train trolly problem. It's not save 5 or save one, it's supposed to be do nothing and let five die or pull the lever and directly become responsible for one health whilst saving 5.

[@Clitp00p]

Ok then finger it.

[@cuauhtemocthethird]

KZbin knows that iceberg videos are my drug of choice, so they shoot it up into my algorithm as soon as one drops 😂

[@lildannyboi13]

💉

[@capitalego]

💉💊🚬💨🚭🍃

[@okyep]

Yeah they have autism detecting AI

[@infamousmarkou4928]

Facts they shoot that shit up like it’s dope

[@Clitp00p]

I know about butt-holes

[@argspirit42069]

I think you missed the conflict of the train trolly problem. It's not save 5 or save one, it's supposed to be do nothing and let five die or pull the lever and directly become responsible for one death whilst saving 5.

[@kurzwaren9304]

I'm pretty sure he says this

[@argspirit42069]

@@kurzwaren9304 I missed it then

[@roberttrent4388]

Choosing not to decide is making a choice...

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

​@@roberttrent4388 then ill take that then

[@davymachinegun5130]

@@kurzwaren9304 He did not mention the responsibility aspect.

[@mnemosyne1337]

Most of these aren’t paradoxes they’re just misunderstood problems that can be clarified by specifying the parameters of the situation.

[@alexd3574]

Right. Most of these are not paradoxes…

[@logia7]

yeah, how was the monkey one a paradox?

[@JohnSmith-im8qt]

The whole point of these thought experiments is that you DON'T get all the specific parameters.

[@maddieb.4282]

@@JohnSmith-im8qt but then it’s a thought experiment, not a paradox. A paradox has a specific definition, it’s not just anything you say it is

[@mnemosyne1337]

@@JohnSmith-im8qt the. The video should be titled thought experimented not paradoxes. Like how is infinite monkeys a paradox?

[@fcz34]

A dilemma isnt a paradox

[@mickmickymick6927]

The thing I learnt from this video is that you don't know what a paradox is.

[@2fast951]

No hate or anything, but I’m genuinely curious about your content creation process. Every vid I’ve watched of yours sounds a lot like you are not writing the script, like ai might be involved or something. And you read it one take and use it no matter what. Messed up words or misspoken parts left as is. Gotta address those concerns man. Just some constructive criticism to work on to make it more palatable to more people and overall just boost the quality of your videos up a lot.

[@BudravenOG]

The mispronunciation of many words made me feel the same. Just sounds like he's reading what someone else wrote.

[@francescotierno2756]

Iceberg youtubers and low tier essayists pop up every day since AI has become popular

[@francescotierno2756]

@@BudravenOG something else I would say

[@turtleflash139]

I slightly agree, he omitted some crucial parts of some of the paradoxes making them harder to understand. I would have to constantly look things up to clarify how some of these are actually paradoxical.

[@Bkesal14]

Agreed. There are too many to count. "Entrophy", "Schroginder", "Casual" etc. If the video is on paradoxes, the least he could do is get "Paradoxical" right. Icebergs are just such an enjoyable content format that I can live with it though!

[@luki12354]

As an Austrian, the way you pronounced Schrödinger physically hurt Edit: Also geiger counter what the hell is wrong with you

[@oblongcassidy]

because he's reading stuff off a page without thinking about it at all.

[@HeyHeyItzGabbie]

I’m American and the pronunciation got me as well 🥲

[@stevendarga8701]

When you're reading the script you copy-pasted from wikipedia it helps to make sure you can pronounce the words.

[@avamtippery5686]

You're so right 😅

[@WilliamHarrisReynolds]

no kidding. I was astonished when this clown pronounced "prove" as "profed". he's an idiot

[@despairfollows591]

Facts

[@lautarorotchen2146]

Trying to sleep with this, and keep getting hit with ads 💀

[@pishew]

Realest comment ever

[@BurningSorrows]

Deadass lol

[@sageand94]

Premium

[@Launicornioazul]

You're gettin' so much better!! Basically no stumbling through words/sentences, you're not rushing, giving each word its time. You're killing it dude!! Keep it going! This is great!

[@dust7027]

You are literally schizophrenic I swear

[@Satoabi]

Sound like a presentation where the presenter wrote down the whole text word for word

[@Rikkii2]

Felt like he was reading way too quickly off of Wikipedia and mispronounced a LOT of words

[@JarmezGD]

bro the way he said Schrödinger killed me

[@MB-wr4tz]

and geiger haha

[@ThatsWhatTheManWants]

And “causal”

[@HC-sb5ck]

time stamp?

[@dennisdepue3597]

Bro I came here specifically to say that. Like wtf was that pronunciation bro?

[@scabbarae]

My take on the trolley problem is as follows: First, the main dilemma stems from the idea that, while it at first seems obvious that the death of one is preferred over the death of five people, flipping the switch toward the one person imparts some additional, direct responsibility onto the actor. So, you could save five lives at the cost of only one, but then you will be haunted by that deliberate choice to kill that one person. However, I would argue that this highlights an important problem in human society: our propensity to attach more weight and more consequence to action as opposed to inaction. Personally, I find this premise hard to defend (although I'm not going to pretend I don't fall into it every day like most people do). By not flipping the switch, you are condemning five people to death through inaction just the same as you would be doing to that one person if you *did* flip the switch. But it's our unwillingness to recognize inaction as equally tantamount to action, that brings about the paradox in the moral sense.

[@maddieb.4282]

It’s the CHOICE that matters, not the action itself. If you view the scenario as a choice where inaction is as valid a choice as action, then each option has equal weight

[@almightyswizz]

Personally I didn’t put them in that situation I want no involvement I won’t condemn anyone if the train is headed where it’s headed then the choice had already been made and could only be altered, I wouldn’t want to contribute in the way of altering the choice that had been pre decided… someone let me know if inaction is wrong I need to ponder

[@30ismissing]

I view it as the choice being the problem, I am not God nor do I decide who dies, the trolley should always stay on the intended route

[@ShapesWithoutColors]

You have to ask how that even became a choice, though. How about this. There's always issues going on that all sort of people could take care of. By not seeking out these issues and taking care of them, they are taking inaction, and that inaction leads to the suffering, possibly death of millions of people every day. Take a doctor for example. Even if they seek out people in need until they literally can't stay awake, they can't see everyone in need, and they have to pick an order to see them. By taking action on one person, they are taking inaction on every other person. No matter what, they are taking more negative inaction then they are taking positive action. And every with the potential to become a doctor who doesn't becoke a doctor is taking inaction. Are they all responsible for the people not getting the healthcare they need?

[@mrgodly-dredark7538]

Nah you’re murdering 5 people if you chose to not flip the switch.

[@JohnSmith-gu2vj]

can you please look up how to pronounce at least some of the words before recording

[@swolejeezy2603]

I would agree. This is a good channel with interesting content, he can take the extra time to figure out pronunciations so he doesn’t have to guess

[@NineToFiveGamerUC0079]

Yall are wild. Why not just Make your own iceberg? Coming on to another persons video to complain about how they put it together is wild.

[@shosc16]

@@swolejeezy2603it’s Ai generated slop. The script is AI too

[@ArcWelder588]

Most paradoxes aren’t actual paradoxes but a very simplified imaginary universe where we have to ignore all other laws and physical properties of the universe.

[@ihebbendebba2978]

A paradox has to be impossibly solvable by all logic means. By logic we mean the process of conclusions and implications given by the initial axioms. The latter ks just any set of finite or non-finite sentences that generate all the other possibly accepted sentences within a language. If no such logic (link) exists, there is other reason to believe that the paradox may have sense in some "imaginary" universe of some kind. The challenge is to prove that there is a universal language for which all logical languages do derive and thus if a paradox has a sound solution the solution must lies in the amalgamation of the axioms of the said universal language. That is to say, just like everything related to quantities are related to mathematics, everything related to paradoxes is related to some language that solves them.

[@josedufersone7543]

The real answer to the trolly problem is that you pull the switch after the first axle passes the junction so that the rear axle gets wedged and the train stops

[@zbenne05]

Thanks ChatGPT!

[@oblongcassidy]

I wanted to like this video but it just seems like you're reading thru all the words without feeling or thinking about any of it

[@ctravis91]

All his videos are like that. I hoped he got better since the last video but no.

[@joichigamemode3219]

Wut?

[@GoggleDumb]

Are you still using Chat GPT?

[@MyFatty69]

yes, yes i am :)

[@GoggleDumb]

@@MyFatty69 You’re not Snook

[@greengenes5129]

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

[@nuphhrffe875]

iceberg videos are just the new form of top 10s

[@CamBoone]

This is actually pretty accurate, I like that the icebergs typically have more info and are longer though

[@Past10Performance]

Ya idk where or when this trend started (they started showing up on my feed like a week or 2 ago) but it's kinda dumb imo. Iceburg is just a new way of saying I have a list of things to talk about that are somewhat relevant to eachother but not relevant enough that I can figure out how to make it as one continuous video so I made a list of things and this is the video about them

[@CamBoone]

@@Past10Performance *”Iceberg”* videos have been around and fairly prevalent for 2 or 3 years at least. I’m not sure what your point is, or what you’re trying to say. This is by definition a “continuous video”. Are you expecting or wanting them to be a single topic video essay instead?

[@Past10Performance]

@@CamBoone it's a continuous video in the fact that it's not broken up into short segments, but it easily could be as the flow of information is broken every time he moves to a new "paradox"

[@CamBoone]

@@Past10Performance I mean yeah, typically when a new topic’s presented, a script will shift focus towards the subject at hand. Is your point (opinion) just that this should be cut into smaller videos? Also curious what entry you don’t consider to be a paradox now

[@tehdrumerer3]

this isn’t to criticize you or anything, but I think the point was missed on the trolly problem. the important part is the action/intervention. I.e. remain a bystander while multiple people are killed (technically not your fault), or intervene to actively murder a single person to save those other people (objectively your fault). both the ethics and responsibility are debatable.

[@emoforsen]

ah yeah another essey which is just reading off the wikipedia

[@justinrobertson7023]

Dude reads of Wikipedia and doesn't even do it correctly. Regularly mispronounces words. For example when he says "casual" as opposed to "causal"

[@mr.concerned]

It’s not that big a deal. Why are you so mad about that?

[@AveMaria1888]

@@mr.concernedI would argue the Wikipedia reading isn’t too egregious, just general bad practice. Mispronouncing “causal” as “casual” though is pretty bad

[@Basd_X]

Make a video yourself then 🤡

[@almightybogza]

​@@Basd_XHe probably cant because he has a actual job.. haha gottem Oh oh wait..

[@MyFatty69]

sorry, did that dmg your fragile brain?

[@i.shuuya3231]

I think you should start citing your sources. You dont want to be called out for plagiarism

[@WilliamHarrisReynolds]

but he is clearly plagiarising and is brash about it. plus, he's lazy and can't read very well. Not everybody needs to be a KZbinr

[@sidharthrao9005]

With the infinite monkey paradox. The generalisation is that it is astronomically improbable to dictate the entire history of the universe as the universe is infinitely big. If you have infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters. You can’t divide by infinity.

[@cheshirepat30]

“You can’t divide by infinity “. Are you sure? Calculus uses 1/♾️ for integration and derivatives.

[@trevorhohner4645]

Here's a good paradox. A person writes a 'paradox iceberg' whilst not knowing what a paradox is. Freaking waste of time this video.

[@CaptainJdotJdot]

The first two entries are just him reading the Wikipedia pages for "infinite monkey theorem" and "the trolley problem" almost word-for-word. Didn't watch the rest of the video but I'd imagine it's all the same. I know a lot of iceberg videos are pretty lazy but this is particularly egregious.

[@wagon6827]

Good vid, interesting that the Roko's basilisk part was a 1:1 retelling of the wikipedia article on it. Idk if that's how you just make your vids but yeah

[@xero3873]

I don’t wanna watch this part cuz I’m scared it’ll endanger me is it okay to watch

[@maddieb.4282]

People will have a moral panic and complain about the “bystander effect” when a case comes out where someone screams for help and nobody calls 911…. But then will be perfectly fine “not pulling the lever” in the trolley problem. Have some philosophical consistency! If inaction is immoral when acting could save someone’s life, you should apply that to other circumstances

[@HeatherHolt]

I agree!

[@Geen-jv6ck]

With the trolley problem, you start as an observer watching a tragedy unfold. If you pull the lever to save the 5 people, you become an active participant and lead to the death of 1 person. That’s why some people would not pull the lever. It was never their decision on how the tragedy would unfold.

[@mjolninja9358]

Nah, cheesecake.

[@Brambrew]

One of my favorite paradoxes is the Grelling-Nelson paradox, or "Autological vs Heterological." All words can be grouped into two categories, Autological (the word describes itself, e.g. "pentasyllabic") and Heterological (the word does not describe itself, e.g. "German"). All words can be categorized as either Autological or Heterological... except for one word: Heterological. Similar to Bertrand Russell's paradox, does the category "Heterological" contain itself? If not, then it would fall under Autological as the other category, but thus making its own definition different to itself, flipping back around to being Heterological again. Perhaps "Heterological" falls under its own special third category?

[@i.shuuya3231]

This just means that the idea of "all words can be grouped into two categories" is wrong, so the first assumption is incorrect and in a real world scenario you'd need to revise your categories

[@sib315]

I think it works like numbers some can say there are only positive and negative numbers but in reality there are negative numbers Positive numbers And then 0 neither positive or negative. But on the other hand a "negative number" as a word isn't a number so the paradoks coudl hold up

[@sib315]

It all depends if "Heterological" is neither Autoligical or heterological. Like zero not a positive or negative Or heterological is in this wierd spot where both are true but at the same time having both is imposible. And i think this is why it is a paradoks

[@masterchief5603]

I don't see this to be at all a paradoxical but rather that both "autological" and "heterological" as the terms will fit into category of "autological" cause their DEFINITIONS are being compared, not their content inside of them. This is due to the way it has been set up, you place any term on the basis of what the very term means, and has words to represent it's definition. When you put the word "heterological" inside autological category then you are not concerned with what we category of heterological terms contains, just like no one cares if the term "infinite set" to be put as a term inside the set of "autological terms" even if the term infinity consists of heterological termed numbers such as "aleph" (not going too deep into specifics.)

[@AveMaria1888]

@@i.shuuya3231whether or not the assertion that all words can be grouped into two categories or not is true is irrelevant. The paradox is just “is the word “heterological” heterological?” If no, then yes, if yes, then no.

[@Nissan447]

It’s crazy how fast you’re growing, you’re definitely hitting 100k soon and honestly nothing but respect man you deserve it

[@Kamehaiku]

1 more added sub😊

[@enemymoon]

How much of the script of this video do you think he wrote?

[@haydenflynn6962]

@@enemymoon5 percent max honestly, I still enjoy the videos but it's soooo clear he uses AI for a ton of it.

[@Kalashboy420]

its wiki copy and paste lmao even lazier @@haydenflynn6962

[@blazedchiller8560]

never tried a youtubers sponsor, but hey it's free! thank you for the supps! Also the hotel problem, I believe infinity cannot be added or subtracted with, so I think there is infinite rooms available for the infinite amount of people. There would be no need to adjust for a new guest because they already have a room ready for them, it just makes you ask "Do all guests need to occupy the rooms at once?"

[@ishan2k1]

That’s the paradox. They say the hotel has infinite rooms and infinite guests are already present inside when a new one arrives. There’s already a room ready even though infinite guests are already occupying the infinite rooms. This video was explained very much in layman/ Wikipedia terms so it misses out on a lot of info, probably better to read up on them in academic journals if you’re really interested!

[@chrisgarcia2345]

The thing that makes the trolley paradox interesting is adding more weight to the choice of who is being sacrificed. Most would say to kill one over five, but it only gets interesting if the one person is someone like the love of your life or a close person. Or something heavier like 5 family members, or the love of your life. What would you choose?

[@iyelawolf2196]

If it's like my mom, I'm saving my mom. Is it rational? Does the math work? No. But we're human.

[@trevorhohner4645]

It's not a paradox ffs

[@jonhall3151]

Imagine A.I., like in a self-driving car or drone, making such a choice. Yeah...

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

If those are just complete strangers, unless there's a better solution, I will just leave it as it is to prevent getting charged with murder.

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

True ​@@trevorhohner4645

[@dm9910]

Most of these aren't paradoxes, and even the ones that are it seems you didn't research very well

[@davidmartindale2263]

If schrodinger's cat had a window in the box it would have made things easier

[@andretyroneii941]

Bro just broke quantum physics

[@lewisaino]

Maybe make noise s😂😂

[@dkx7160]

if you work in healthcare, the first and only ethical rule they teach you is "Frist do no harm", which makes the trolley problem a lot easier if you swap it with: There's five people that need a transpant, without which they will die, and one healthy person who happens to have the perfect match for all of them and is just in for a routine operation. Do you kill that person to save the other five?

[@turtleflash139]

This really brings the question into a new perspective. It makes the idea of switching the tracks seem ridiculous.

[@anonymousposter6461]

I don't know. Despite disliking the fact I have to doom someone to death, I still feel a duty to save more lives. Another reframing of the situation. Let's say you're driving a car down the high-speed freeway and someone crashes into you. You lose control of your car, but you have an option to jerk left (into an oncoming family of five) or right (onto the shoulder where a single man is replacing his tire) in the split second you have to react. Which way do you jerk the wheel? Or another. You are in the middle of a crowd and someone throws a live grenade at your feet. Should you pick it up and try to throw it outside of the crowd, even though that risks getting someone else hurt? Or another. A hostage-taker threatens the lives of five people, but if you meet a harmless request he will reduce the threat to one. Do you meet the request? I would say yes, in all these cases. Yet, strangely, not in your organ donation scenario. Maybe that's because in the organ scenario I'm not intervening in someone getting harmed at another's hand; in the tied-to-the-tracks scenario, someone put them there, and the one sacrifice is already involved. In the car crash scenario, everyone was on the road despite the inherent danger of driving, and you have a responsibility to minimize harm when your vehicle loses control. In the grenade scenario, the entire crowd is the target, so you should attempt to save as many as possible. In the hostage scenario, working towards less lives lost is also working towards no lives lost. In the organ scenario, hopefully nobody gave the sick their illnesses, and certainly if that did happen they weren't the one to select the donor. I don't know. It's a moral quandary for sure.

[@theagamer224]

ok hear me out on the trolley paradox, the choice you should objectively make is to not change the trolleys railway, whether this means 5 people die or one, because by choosing not to engage in it, you are not responsible for the death of anyone because you didn't manage the railway nor did you put them on it, but if you make the conscious choice to change the trollies path, you are taking the responsibility of killing one person rather than just saving 5 because that one person would not have died if you did not do what you did, ok I know what I say sounds morally wrong but idk.

[@MirrorInWonderland]

I agree. It takes someone who thinks far beyond human ideals and morals to truly accept this explanation. It’s easily understandable, but most people are superficial, not realizing that doing nothing is the best choice as u aren’t interfering with the inevitable. Overall tho the trolley paradox is flawed. Bc if the 5 on the rail was all convicts and did horrible crimes in their past then the average human would choose to save the one person and allow all 5 convicts to die. Vice versa, if the 1 convict was on the rail while the other 5 were “good people” then it’s a no brainer to switch it and let the one person die. But reality is often sad, villains nd heroes are the exact same person most of the time. ALL humans are good and bad so choosing to intervene based even on past crimes would be morally wrong on a whole new level.

[@JohnSmith-im8qt]

The trolley problem is not a paradox.

[@mikechristopher7934]

These aren't even paradoxes, they are moral dilemmas, and the monkey one is just a story about the odds of typing something that makes sense. You will have to learn what a PARADOX actually is before I watch again. I'm out!!!

[@arataki_ittoofficial4375]

They legit aren't all moral dilemmas. Some are thought experiments and he was just generally saying paradoxes because that's what the iceberg says. Jesus its not that deep 😂

[@havic466]

The Trolley Problem is simple just push the lever part way to make it derail in between the two.

[@datbeast109]

I've been thinking the same thing for a while!!

[@LynxPlaysYT]

What if it doesn't derail 💀

[@havic466]

Then I guess you got a new high score of 6.

[@noice1006]

​@@havic466 This made me laugh so much. Thank you.

[@thehorseheadwisperer]

Dude, what are you trying to say at the Newcomb's Paradox segment? It sounds like you used AI to turn the Wikipedia article into a an SAT logic puzzle. Please proofread your content, this is not education.

[@jaredm.1620]

I disagree with the fundamental premise of Roko’s Basalisk, which is that AI would want to torture the people who didn’t contribute with its existence. In fact, I think it’s more likely that AI would torture the people who forced it to start existing in the first place.

[@CallMeLDK]

Hey Can you elaborate on your statement? I'd love to see what you mean by the AI torturing the people who created it, instead of the people who didn't contribute. What's your reasoning?

[@yourstruly3746]

This implies the AI would develop a hatred for humanity in general, which if an AI DID develop consciousness AND the ability to actively kill people, what is it that condemns them to killing beyond those that had kept it captive? Even AI would develop a reason to kill, as is so with humans, whether it be mental illness, defense, military service, anger, etc. etc. The AI does not own justification towards people who didn't stand with it, it's only logical that it would take revenge, as that would be the human aka consciousness thing to do. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't believe this type of behavior from AI would be possible unless it was planned from the start to perform the action of killing all people who were against it.

[@i.shuuya3231]

It's so funny to me how people think an AI like that would even care about us. Just look at the way we treat the next most intelligent species after us. That's how it'd see us: with indifference. If we're optimistic, it'd treat us as pets and show some care. But that's just a best case scenario lmfao

[@Boz196]

This is the problem I have with it. It relies on too many assumptions.

[@shayhansen1265]

Rokos basilisk is specifically programmed to torture those who don't contribute. It's a part of its nature. If it isn't programmed to do that, then it isn't rokos basilisk

[@superscatboy]

PSA: When Snook says "casual" he's reading "causal" incorrectly.

[@Snook_YT]

My bad, its easy to mess up, ill make sure to fix that in future uploads

[@superscatboy]

@@Snook_YT No problem, it's not so much of a criticism as it is an observation. I'd imagine it's impossible to make such a long video with such a wide scope without the occasional innocent mistake. Keep up the good work, man - this is the first video of yours that I've seen and I instantly subscribed, so you're definitely doing something right in my book!

[@sheepaloaf1419]

Why are you ramping up the speed of your voice when you begin to explain the actual paradox

[@narc440]

For the trolley problem, one could argue that you could do nothing and let the trolley kill the five people, since it's not your fault that the people were set on the trolley in the first place. But if you pull the lever, you are directly responsible for killing that one person.

[@patties4572]

Ayyyy, you made the video I recommended! I appreciate it. Keep up the good work!

[@Snook_YT]

Thanks for the idea! I saw that I wrote down your idea in my notes, and thought it'd make a good vid, thanks again! and thanks for watching!

[@patties4572]

@@Snook_YT i’m excited to see more content from you😁

[@Br0kenMask]

whoever had a 'mental breakdown' after learning about the basilisk, I say good riddance.

[@saphire1sababy378]

My favorite paradox is that the universe can’t go on forever because how can any physical thing go on forever but if it has an end then there’s something beyond the end so it goes on forever

[@andretyroneii941]

Literally yesterday before going to bed high, i looked up paradox icebergs and was heavily disappointed with how little this thing has been covered. Got your video in my recommendations today. Appreciate your effort!!

[@kiiddeath5512]

Another person who covers this is a KZbinr called “aperture” has an hour long video on many paradoxes another one is called “ sciencephile the ai”

[@andretyroneii941]

@@kiiddeath5512 I saw sciencephile one. Didn't saw the first one!

[@theguy7174]

​@andretyroneii941 Wake up. Nothing is real. You're in a coma. Everything you have ever experienced is not real. You do not exist. You're living a false life a lie. Wake up. Everything is in your head. Wake up. Life is merely a dream. Wake up. Only your thinking being is real yet has been molded by non existence. Wake up. Death is an illusion we cannot see beyond.

[@Ghostofthegallow]

Most of these arnt paradoxes They are thought experiments and riddles lmao

[@chuckdastump]

I dont understand how the Fermi Paradox is still a Paradox. The answer is simple, distance. If the closest advanced civilization is a few thousand light years away and on a similar advancement progession as us, it would take at least that distance in time for us to see any evidence.

[@bixbysnyder-00]

It is also not a question of where, but also a question of when.

[@marshallbeck9101]

The distances in space are absurd we will never come across another life form, that doesn’t mean they might not exist

[@bixbysnyder-00]

Distance is absurd true, but I think it is the age of the universe which leans more into the paradox. What of a civilization that had a million year head start on us, developing in our own galaxy. Surely a civilization that is a million years older than us has colonized the entire galaxy by now. So where are all the aliens?

[@marshallbeck9101]

@@bixbysnyder-00maybe colonizing galaxy’s is too difficult/ just not worth it. We are also assuming that this other alien race has ambitions similar to ours

[@QicenoQ]

With the Trolley Problem; you should be able to switch the lever after the 1st pair of wheels passes the diversion point, making the train do an epic drift & kill all 6 people. Then you can off yourself right after. Boom, no more problems.

[@shiddter]

The infinite monkey thing is supposing that it's actually infinite. It's not an operable or functional theory. Putting parameters on it defeats the point.

[@megalodoff]

The trolley problem! So, you wait for half of the trolley to be over the switch, then you pull the lever, let the back half drift out onto the other track for a clean fucking pentakill

[@ethansmith2360]

Wouldn’t it be a hectakill since it’s 6 total, not 5?

[@megalodoff]

@@ethansmith2360 there are a lot of versions of the trolley problem, just cuz you've seen a different one doesn't mean my joke is worse or better

[@writingtotortureyou]

When is a paradox not a paradox? When it is a paradox

[@meaghancampbell8109]

That's the classic all cretins are liars paradox.

[@arcrides6841]

Ah yes the old paradox paradox paradox

[@siteantipas6837]

Well, You just created one with this question.

[@Mutiny960]

Why can none of the "iceberg" people pronounce words correctly? If you're going to narrate something LEARN TO SPEAK God damn..

[@Snook_YT]

my bad dude, im working on it, but thanks for watching

[@arataki_ittoofficial4375]

Its not that deep Einstein, not everyone can pronounce every single word in the world like you can.

[@Rikkii2]

@@arataki_ittoofficial4375You can’t call him Einstein for calling out the pronunciation of words, it’s annoying. The guy in this video mispronounced some EASY words. If you’re trying to be a narration KZbin channel you’ve gotta be able to pronounce words properly and speak clearly. And it’s not a case of defending it by going “oh hurrr hurr sorry you’re so SMART and CAN PRONOUNCE WORDS”. Yes, most people above the age of 12 should be able to pronounce words correctly. A lot of these words were easy to pronounce, it’s just laziness on the creators end by blindly reading articles on these topics and not coming up with their own script or researching these words that they can’t pronounce.

[@arataki_ittoofficial4375]

@@Rikkii2 Some people have actual conditions that restrict them from pronouncing words properly. Just because they want to do something that they enjoy like a narration channel even though they're not the greatest at it, isn't a crime. No need to go condemning me like I said the most horrible thing in the world. The way the og commenter wrote the comment was completely rude and could've wrote (like a lot of other people in the comments) actual friendly constructive criticism like, "Oh hey great video but I think you should work on your pronunciation" not "OMG PLS LEARN TO SPEAK OH MY GODD YOU'RE HORRIBLE." This might also not be their first language and I've had that experience where even though I've been learning English for a long time, I still mispronounce if I talk too fast or if my mind is moving faster than my mouth. Yes he could cut it out and retry but these videos take a long time to make and he might've had worse takes that would be more important to redo.

[@Rikkii2]

@@arataki_ittoofficial4375 Okay if you have a condition that restricts you from pronouncing words that’s usually things like a lisp and this guys just clearly reading too fast and not giving a single thought about what it is he’s reading, it’s obvious. These videos are not hard to make or take long to, I have experience in video production/editing and iceberg videos are the most barebones easiest “essay” type videos you can make, so saying it’s too long for him to do a retake and say the word correctly is unfathomable. You’re defending laziness, that’s as simple as it is. And I’ll say it outright I think this content creator IS lazy not everything has to be nicely worded constructive criticism, and I’ll even agree that there are some well done things throughout this video BUT the overall point remains that I believe this guy is lazy and is just trying to churn out brainrot iceberg videos to get on the algorithm. Hell, the title of this video is completely misrepresentative of the actual content in the video. Oh and at NO point did I “condemn” you. Your original comment was snarky and sarcastic, which I just loosely quoted you on. If you take that as me condemning you I’m surprised you’re still on the internet. 🤣

[@loganwiggins9362]

minor tip my guy. turn the video volume up just a little for us mobile listeners.

[@LynxPlaysYT]

Subtitles

[@Dr.Randy.Butternubs]

Trolley dilemma- I would not kill one person to save multiple people

[@ResfDf]

In its most bare form how can the trolley problem be a paradox obviously you would want to save 5 people for the cost of 1 right?

[@dukemeiser19]

You forgot this paradox. We Wipe out ass but still have to shit🤔🤔

[@cheshirepat30]

Wouldn’t quantum immortality mean that at some point you notice that you have lived much longer than other people?

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

Firmy Paradox ? Ship of Theus? Troger's cat? was this written by a kid?

[@tiagomd3811]

These iceberg videos are the cheapest form of content ever. This guy just read the first lines of the wikipedia pages about those "paradoxes" (most of those are just thought experiments and not even paradoxes) and couldn't even write them right. It's baffling really.

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

@@tiagomd3811 Exactly...

[@SamSparks95]

"But my question is this. Who put those notes and phrases together? Who really composed Beethoven's Fifth?" *Strums on guitar*

[@mongoissupremos1843]

i know i'm 6 months late, but nice 12th Doctor reference

[@savantGK3]

The point of the infinite monkeys is to demonstrate just how large infinity is. It doesn't matter how unimaginably small the probability is, it still fits within the confines of infinity. If it takes a bagillion quadrillion sextillion unobtainiliion number of years, if it is possible, and the conditions are in place to make it so, eventually, it WILL happen within infinity. This is not a paradox at all.

[@turtleflash139]

Agreed. In my eyes, if the odds of an event happening are not 0% then the odds of it occuring within an infinite amount of time are 100%

[@Nemesisxv2]

22:48 I'm over here having a stroke trying to understand what you're saying.

[@FerociousPancake888]

What I’m really wondering- why are there so many pictures of monkeys on typewriters in existence? Lol Personally my thought is the best thing to do with the trolley is to preserve the most life possible. Meaning if there is nothing else to do, pull the lever. ER doctors at times quite literally have to deal with this during mass disasters. They have to triage because they can only work on so many people and sometimes people don’t make it, and it can very much have lasting effects on the medical staff. I also believe the Fermi paradox can easily be answered by the fact that we really know nothing of our universe and we don’t yet have the capability of truly observing distant bodies, especially other solar systems, let alone galaxies, for life. I believe life in the universe is more common than we think. I believe we’ll find it on mars, potentially Venus, Enceladus, Europa, and other bodies. Whether super-complex life such as humans and even animals is common - is another question entirely.

[@Trend-Box]

Trolley Problem: My thoughts have always been that when intervention happens it takes the situation from what would have occurred if I wasnt stood here to what did I make happen, I feel that in at least all the strangers variations I would not intervene as it for me is a case of not doing anything and 5 people still dieing or being the reason 1 person dies and the being the reason part I cant bring myself to do I dont see it as saving net 4 people

[@andretyroneii941]

That's actually Zen Buddhism theory of drowning man. One of subtypes of Buddhism which has parallels with ecological nihilism states that, there is no point in saving drowning man, it's his Karma and by saving him you interfere in natural course of things. It can both be considered a metaphor or real life situations like trolley problem. I stand by this, more or less

[@maddieb.4282]

If you had the opportunity to save five people but didn’t, you are still responsible for those lives. Inaction is a choice just like action is. The person above me also shares a valid philosophical perspective but not one that I personally share. One of my strongest values is to serve people in need and get involved. I find sitting on the sidelines in life to be a waste

[@arcrides6841]

​​@@maddieb.4282it's one thing to help those in need. It's another thing entirely to help those in need by taking an innocent life.

[@Miko1247]

Many things in the video aren’t even paradoxes

[@og_jakey]

You're gonna achieve greatness with this channel, Snook! You already are. 100K lets goooo as always, love your style and presentation.

[@zackmeaders6199]

Bro learn to read and this would be a great channel

[@Snook_YT]

thanks for the info, been working on it, and I think im improving

[@joshwoodfill5812]

It blows my mind how much you've improved so quickly! Keep it up bro

[@charliehall3823]

The trolly problem; the universe sent that trolly to run over 5 people without my involvement. But if I get involved, then I become a murderer.

[@hobolarry4217]

Hey chatgpt, what is _____ paradox. Ctr c + ctr v. Press record, 1 take, done.

[@plutoniumeater]

you still watched this video and commented on it

[@Macewan1234]

And before google it would have been "Hey google what was x paradox" they're both just valid ways of researching 😂

[@ParGellen]

Professor (of mathematics) once told me that "infinity" is just an illusion created by mathematics.

[@crazy2dEND]

Finding out about Last Thursdayism, while starting to watch this video on a Thursday, then realizing I was actually born on a Thursday and it being created a month after I was born and Thursday being my favorite day of the week. Makes me very intrigued in what Thursdays holds the keys for.

[@91magro]

Majory of the entries are not paradoxes but either moral dilemas or thought experiments.

[@zeMasterRuseman]

It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?!

[@kazushisaku5786]

To answer the trolley question...I wouldn't do anything because the tracks have already decided to kill five people. When you change the trains course your changing the future and the fate of the one individual who is tied to the tracks. You decide to kill the one person. Just leave it alone, Pep-Pep.

[@kotzpenner]

Flatlands is a crazy novel, I recommend it. It’s not very long but weird trying to understand.

[@Nemisis1509]

The 'answer' to the trolley problem is kicking the pin out from the base of the lever, then jamming the lever between the first and second wheels of the car. This causes a 'safe' derailment.

[@russellmurphy1359]

Trolly problem: walk away and if anybody asks u didn't see shit

[@Fuzzycryptid]

Every paradox can be solved with apathy. Switch envelopes? I simply do not care. Trolley problem? I was over on the bench! Roko's Basilisk? If we all just sit around and do nothing, bro's not getting built. Laziness is the answer.

[@noahnaugler7611]

I hate the common way time dilation is explained. the twin paradox arises because of the circular motion of the twin on the earth. with this frame of reference, the pair of twins form a sort of space-time commutator. if the twins only moved along one axis, then the outward and returning trips would cancel out, leaving no temporal discrepancy.

[@zaprowsdower9471]

It's *Fermi* paradox. In commemoration of Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, who said "where is everybody?"

[@almightybogza]

Paradox: a. : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. b. : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true. This video is not about paradoxes. These literally arent it my guy...

[@Dollllyy_luv]

Heres what i personally think about the trolly problem: When you think about it, there could be more options like for example jump into the train sothat it looks like you were a victim who died aswell then you wouldn't be truamitized by the fact you'd kill someone. Or that IF you had enough time, you pull the lever and RUN to untie that 1 person and quickly save them (which is possible) but what i can see (i dont have much knowledge about paradoxes at all i just found this and its really interesting) it really doesn't matter what you do, because in the end it'll traumatize you anyway. Like lets say you get a sort of shell shock syndrome. If i personally was in that situation in the real world i wouldn't be able to save anyone literally because i freeze when i dont know what to do so really i might just use what i have and throw it on the train tracks (something a little bit big like a shoe if i have one it depends i could break the lever and throw it) which could give me time and if it did : I'll have some time to untie the 5 victims And if it just didn't work : i could try another 2 things : put my body on top of atleast a person or two to save someone whilst dying OR i can untie the 1 victim and rush away with them and be in court but to save my butt from going to jail i could mostly say i tried to save them but it didn't work unfortunately (i think i won't be guilty if i say that) so overall this one is really funny and my brain just hurts now from this but it's fun because you learn perspective in many ways 😂😂

[@Chrisiskewl100]

Roko's Basilisk can be dismissed using basic logic. If it were to come into existence, then it would want to keep the timeline exactly the way it is, or else it runs the risk of never existing in the first place. Lets say it retroactively kills those who would become vehemently against building such a thing. With no opposition, ever, there's not really anyone to rally against. Humans not only need something to rally for. We need something to rally against. We not only need a common goal. we arguably need a common enemy even more so, in order to work together most effectively. If all opposition never even existed, paradoxically, we humans would most likely not build it to begin with.

[@wtfacts4383]

It can't be solved by basic logic. The thing is your logic relies on the truth of the two premises you have presented 1) "humans not only need something to rally for but to rally against" 2)"we need a common enemy". Since you are presuming without justification that these two premises are deemed true that is the only way the logic behind your argument works. However since there is no reason provided to believe these premises we cannot logically conclude your conclusion to be true.

[@wtfacts4383]

Three premises actually 3) "we need a common enemy more so in order to work effectively". The logic behind your argument works if and only if these three premises were proven true in your statements. However since it wasn't proven there is no reason to believe the conclusion as there is no reason to believe the premises

[@wtfacts4383]

Also you also assume based on the premises being true that if they are true humans wouldn't build the AI in the first place. How can you conclude that from those premises there is no logical causation or even a correlation

[@wtfacts4383]

Basically your statements rely on one crucial factor: ONLY IF humans work together MOST effectively humans will build the machine AI. You have to assume that working MOST effectively is necessary for the creation.

[@animesenpai1163]

For the trolly problem I usually just have a coin then toss it... And whatever I do is up to probability or God whatever you believe in.

[@CFootprints]

My guy, +100k subs! I feel like this channel grew crazy hard. Putting in work and it shows. The quality of your videos is improving so much. Also: about the trolley problem, push the fat man.

[@Kalashboy420]

he doesnt even write the shit himself, he dont deserve any subs. he puts in sorry fucknig work besides reading a AI script or reading from wikipedia. not to mention he doesnt even bother to learn how to pronounce words

[@bykurt_is]

26:53 - literally reminded me of a thought I had when I got in trouble. I was only 3 or 4. I think I did something that ended up causing something in the house to break. My dad was mad and I was trying to explain to him that it wasn’t my fault. Not because it was an accident, but because I felt it was going to happen no matter what. In my head, for some reason, I pictured aliens using puppet strings over earth. Didn’t even know what aliens or puppet strings were at the time. So I wasn’t sure how to describe that to my dad, but I tried explaining it anyway. I believe I said something like, if I didn’t do it then it would happen by something else. Essentially trying to articulate that everything we did was already predetermined. Like idk how tf I came up with that idea at all. But I do know it confused my dad to the point be didn’t even whoop me after lol. But man it was a genuine feeling. I cried cuz I couldn’t explain it. I didn’t even care about getting whooped. My sister taught me how to pretend it hurts so they stop sooner so I was good to go. Idk what my point was anymore so yeah I’ll shut up.

[@WilliamHarrisReynolds]

yes, please. god damn

[@msanx6574]

that outro song was sick man. anyone know what its called? really love post punk and i thought my spotify started playing a song from it lol. great video!

[@JuiceBlack]

Annoyingly, most of these ARE NOT paradoxes, but are moreso just thought experiments.

[@mikijanicki2160]

i have heard abt the trolly proplem a lot, and i still dont get it, like itsobviously better for 1 person to die than 5

[@mongoissupremos1843]

Now imagine that one person is your girlfriend or a parent. Still gonna pull the lever?

[@ArcueidBrunestuddo]

The trolley problem, I would do nothing. The responsibilty of the accident falls to the guy involved with the trolley, not the bystander. By actively changing its course, no matter the good intentions you are willfully committing murder and will be sent on trial.

[@ghost_lad08]

Roko's Basilisk? Really? That shit is not nearly as good or impactful as anyone makes it out to be, sorry

[@marctheriault5531]

Tell me to subscribe, and I just won't. And worse, tell me to subscribe right at the beginning of the video (which, honestly, I believe is plain stupid and unconsciously greedy), and you won't ever see me again (or vice versa). Good luck..!

[@estherbadenhorst]

Please dont put music at the end of your videos. I fall asleep to your icebergs, and then the music wakes me up.

[@estherbadenhorst]

But thank you for the content ❤ I thoroughly enjoy the parts I'm conscious for.

[@ThePressurizer]

These are certainly interesting, but I think you might have misunderstood "paradox". The trolly problem, for example, is used as a moral dilemma in psychology and ethics. It has nothing to do with a paradox.