Video

Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?

Fuck the Hierarchy! Run your own shit!

This purported paradox proceeds on the false premise that the evaluation of something can be contained within that thing being evaluated. It appears to be impossible for the evaluation of something - let's call it X - to also be contained in that X. The evaluation of X changes the value of X from X to X + [Evaluation of X]. Prima facie these values are not and can never be equal. Imagine X can only be either True or False. We know some things about X, but not whether or not it is T or F. To learn that will add information to and expand our definition of X, changing it from X to either X+T or X+F. This appears to be similar to the observer effect, which alters the results of the double slit experiment by the act of observation of sub-atomic particles, which previously were waves, by collapsing the wave function. Thus, in order to evaluate X, and not X + [Evaluation of X] , the evaluator of X must be completely separate from and independent of X and must not affect the value of X by the act of evaluation. This is impossible when observing sub-atomic particles because of the workings of quantum mechanics, but it is possible in larger, grosser information systems. Symbology - specifically written language - is such a system. The sentence that is the target of evaluation for Truth or Falsity is an essential part of the communication but is missing. This appears similar to asking someone to calculate the square root of ... and then not telling them the number you want them to calculate the square root of. Without the separate sentence to be evaluated being set out, the word combination "This sentence is false" is gibberish with zero information value. The sentence "This sentence is false" must by necessity be an evaluation of a separate and independent sentence which was communicated, in full, at some point in time prior to the evaluation. The only proper answer to the Liar's Paradox of "Is this sentence false?" is, "Which specific sentence are you referring to?"

This sentence

Great video, I hope Super AGI will fix this and many more of our problems.

Great convo!

It's very simple: post-modernists are too stupid to recognize Truth because they are lost in monkey mind.

The polar opposites are different maps so you can have infinite 0s balancing infinite 1s, problem solved.

Good grief. This is not a paradox, just an invalid use of words to construct a non-sentence.

Think this might be a misunderstanding of the infinite. You also seem to assume that there was initial cause because of the direction of the travel. You're posing the question can something from an infinite distance from where I am standing come to me. But the true analogy is can something move from where you are standing for an infinite distance. You can very fairly reject the idea as not something you can accept, and the analogies you gave could help someone decide to do that, but you didn't provide logical proof. The idea of infinity is totally alien for humans and really beyond imagination of comprehension. You can use the concept of it correctly but never can experience it.

This is a silly analysis. The convention that we are adopting is that a claim of the form This sentence has property P. is to be interpreted as meaning the same thing as: "This sentence has property P." has property P. They are NOT the same sentence, they just mean the same thing. For example, "George Washington was born in 1732" means the same thing as "The first President of the United States was born in 1732". But they aren't the same sentence. You can't substitute one for the other in a quoted context. "George Washington was born in 1732" is 34 characters long is true (if I counted correctly), but "The first President of the United States was born in 1732" is 34 characters long is false. Following the convention, This sentence is false is interpreted to mean "This sentence is false" is false. It's not the same SENTENCE, but it means the same thing. You can't substitute sentences inside quotes. There is nothing paradoxical about the use of the convention about "This sentence". This sentence is 36 characters long. means the same thing as "This sentence is 36 characters long." is 36 characters long. which is just TRUE! (If I counted right). There is no need to expand inside the quotes. The same thing works for any non-semantic property of sentences, such as "__ uses only alphanumeric characters" or "__ appears on page 42 of 'Catcher in the Rye'", or "___ does not contain any Russian words". The corresponding sentences This sentence uses only alphanumeric characters. This sentence appears on page 42 of 'Catcher in the Rye' This sentence does not contain any Russian words are all completely unparadoxical. They are meaningful (given our convention about the use of "this sentence") and are either true or false. Your analysis doesn't get at the difference between "This sentence does not contain any Russian words" which is nonproblematic, and "This sentence is false", which is paradoxical. Both of them use the convention for "This sentence", but only one of them is paradoxical. Your analysis doesn't get at the reasons for this difference.

Scientists are bullshitters. They feel enermous pressure to claim they know things even if they know their theories are on shaky grounds or are outright bullshit. World is full of "experts" that are really not experts. They are fake experts. Often they don't even understand basic things they claim to be expert about. That they are after funds is pretty clear. Or should I say that among many scientists, it is the ideas of bullshitters that raise to the top. Their morality seems to be that anything that makes them more money is good. Economists are in a class of their own. Most blatant lies. There everything is political.

The statement below is not true. The statement above is true. Boom fixed it for ya😂

I am humbled with your explanation of the logical incoherence of the infinite regress. Your analogy of the cup of water has been a huge help for me, now I can (mostly) ditch the grim reaper paradox. Liked.

My math teacher and my studious classmate explained this "liar paradox" to me in the "mathematical logic" class many times, but I didn't get it. But with your video, I understood everything easily. Thank you very very much.

Social class is more than just economic, it's an artificial & external social indoctrination people are exposed to from the moment they're born. The school system feeds into this socioeconomic based class system of educating children by separating them into different curriculums based on some loose assessment of their "academic ability". Honors, college prep & remedial are euphemisms for smart, average & stupid or upper, middle & lower classes. It's very cruel to place a child on a course at 6 years old into the 'remedial' track & intentionally under educate them which subsequently allows them to only socialize with other children in the same remedial group before they even have formulated any basic concept of how reality operates. They have no contextual framework to draw from or agency in determining the course of their lives at that age. This socialization is part of the social indoctrination which is perhaps the most insidious effect. The social influence of their classmates, other remedial or poor children(along with their familial networks), sets them all up for failure in the class game. This separation takes place almost from the onset, like first grade, where it's very difficult to measure the true capabilities of a child. The loose measures which determine which caste they're placed into are based on teacher assessment & perhaps standardized test scores, which are extremely unreliable for children so young. The children who are placed into the honors or highest caste/curriculum are the kids who receive more intellectual stimulation at a younger age(before schooling) and have educated parents to subconsciously influence them. The extended familial, peer and neighbor group influences are another factor. These kids are likely to be far more articulate and enjoy learning exponentially more than children of parents who are much more likely to be under educated and not be privy to the esoteric understanding of the value education provides them beyond the monetary effect. Most poor people don't read books. Poor children are more likely to be from broken or dysfunctional families which inhibits their ability to obtain a high level of articulation at a young age. The system is rigged against working class people who get locked out before they're even able to obtain agency. Meritocracy is an illusion for the underclass.

I have noticed this in my profession but never really thought about it to much until recently. Peoples attitudes differ from one person to the next when they enter the situation. I noticed when my boss is only talking to me he is very friendly but when another person enters the conversation he almost competes to stay on top by making small jokes or just taking over the room by walking in and injecting himself into the conversation. A real power struggle of a person very annoying and I had to investigate this nuance.

It's no wonder Evangelicals (Protestants) end up like this, honestly.

The commonly misunderstood “liars paradox” exposes the catastrophic problem of self-reference which forms the sand-like foundation upon which the entire apparent universe rests. That is, the inherent presupposition (or assumption) of truth. Take any self-referential statement and it is bound to have an unfounded assumption of truth baked into its premise (“this sentence is…”) which depending on what is ultimately asserted (“this sentence is false”) creates a paradox. Self-reference assumes the truth because it has to, there is no other option, and so it is unable to judge its own reliability without first presupposing it. A prime example of this is the incomplete system of mathematics which hides its fatal (self-referential) flaw behind smokescreens of technical jargon it uses in order to “proof” itself true by itself which from the get go is assumed to be true (ie the “self-evident truths” or axioms of math). No amount of math however will change the fact that it is impossible to prove the validity of 2 without first making the unreasoned assumption that 2 exists. Rather than dismissing the notion of truth altogether, the incoherence of this paradox appears to place truth outside the reference of “self”. In other words, truth is not (nor can be) self-evident. What exactly does this mean? Firstly, it means that so-called objective knowledge (in and of itself) is an enigma - analogous to subjectivity. While so- called objective knowledge is assumed to have a one-to-one correspondence with reality, the truth of it can only be judged from a standpoint outside of itself - that is, independent of the mediating mind which creates time, space and causality. Is that even possible? Yes, because you are NOT your “self”. There is a self reading these words that “I” call “you” and “you” call “me”. It is a caused fact existing in three dimensional space and passing through time, manifested as perception and conception. Its purpose is to generate the world-for-me (a massive collection of apparently isolated objects it calls “things”) from the “thing-in-itself” or that which representations are of. It is bound in experience to self-reference, forced to rely on tools (sense, language, thought) to describe, understand and manage the apparent world of “things”. The truth of what anything is, however, is ultimately a complete mystery, with one exception. Beyond the self-generated world (the insatiable, thinking, wanting, not wanting self) exists the one thing-in-itself that I have direct inward access to, that I can be, that I am - consciousness - the ultimately ineffable experience in which exists no separate facts, no space, no time and, ultimately, no difference between me and the rest of the universe - the state of being ‘I’ call ‘I’. In being conscious, I experience truth independent and free of self-reference.

How many degrees does it take to be this stupid?

I think people also like this hierarchy because of the beneficts it brings when you are climbing it, such as more respect generally from people, some privileges...

I never paid any mind to it growing up and barely noticed. I was just who I was. Obviously as I’ve gotten older I’ve noticed certain behaviors . I just don’t get it 😭🤣 we all die and can’t take anything with us when we go it’s about what’s in the package not the wrapper. Also life is unpredictable and anyone’s circumstance can change in less than a day for the better or worse.

How about this one? There is a book which only mentions all books that don't mention themselves, should this book mention itself?

Toxic White Men are the HighArchy put the low avove the High

yes bitcoin is a novel and useful tech, but it's mostly been "used" to speculate and hence has little appreciation by most people other than for the idea of making money. kinda sad.

I guess the internet gave us all the ability to critically examine what was inaccessible before the internet. And so it became less clear that all the prior wisdom was foundationally secure. We find out about vigorous discussions, debates and disputes among domain "elites" that show that most fields of thought are very much based on a winning consensus of interpretation and aren't the only valuable interpretations available. whether in politics, maths, science , art, crafts, etc

Also, it really seems like a pretty basic flub to suppose that the phrase “this sentence” could be referring to itself. The phrase “this sentence” is not a sentence. It’s a phrase. If we wanted to attach the predicate “is false” to the phrase “this sentence”, we would just do that, keeping the quotation marks. We wouldn’t add the unnecessarily confusing step to use the phrase “this sentence” to refer to itself. No one uses a language like that. Or, at least, if you do know someone who uses a language like that, please encourage them to stop immediately.

The fact that you can replace the phrase “this sentence” with a copy of the sentence ad infinitum is not the issue. The issue is that, once you *do* replace the phrase “this sentence” with a copy of the sentence, you’ll *HAVE* to do it again to determine whether the sentence is false. The same does not hold true for a sentence like “this sentence contains five words”. Once we replace the phrase “this sentence” with a copy of the sentence, we don’t *HAVE* to do it again to determine whether the sentence contains five words. We just need to count the words in the sentence.

Stop pronouncing the word “false” that way.

🤠👍🌞

I don’t accept your examples, for instance “water” does not equal “justification” & I don’t see the relevance at all.

It's the same reason that trying to divide by 0 equals "undefined". Because that really is the answer since the proposition itself isn't defined.

The blanket accusation of academia as a "orthodoxy generator" and the appeal to the internet as the solution to the problem is a bit simplistic. First, although the "lone ranger" independent thinker model sounds revolutionary, it was quite common for centuries. Newton and Darwin are two examples. The big problem is that with the development of modern science, e.g.modern physics and biology, the lone ranger model of knowledge is no longer feasible. The production of new knowledge, including new technologies, has for at least a century been a social endeavor. Now perhaps the internet might be a suitable means for "teaching oneself a new subject," but the question is whether it is sufficient for generating new knowledge--not simply new ideas or opinions, but new theories that are subject to the critical scrutiny of one's peers.The development of modern academia was not the result of conspiracy to instill orthodoxy and stifle independent thinking, it evolved in part as an institutional response to the social dimension of knowledge. Sure, it is true that academia, like all institutions, is prone to inertia. Very often, it is difficult to introduce new ideas that challenge the status quo. But this is also true in other institutions and industries, e g. business, entertainment, technology, etc. Finally, I believe that the appeal to the internet as a solution is a bit optimistic and naive. It does not promote independent thinking. If anything, the internet and social media have generated a new kind of techno-tribalism and group think where people gravitate to their own echo chambers which reinforce their biases. In the end, the problem is not academia, nor the internet, nor even religion, but simply the human all too human tendency to dogmatism and conformism.

Can a human being stop being evil?

Wow, I am impressed some people admire this bs channel. Humans are just insane monkeys.

bro you either real tall or live in a box house

Sounds the same as the conclusion I came to when thinking about the barbers paradox. It’s basically just am invalid statement and the ‘heavy lifting’ to make it seem valid is done in our imagination. Our imagination does not map congruently onto logic, at least in some areas because I am off the belief we can know logic in itself with rotor, I mean we couldn’t be resolving these paradoxes if not right?

Cool video. I think that you're correct that the liar' statement should reference itself to be sensible. What is actually being said is: (This statement is false) is false However, I don't think that the next step (substitution) follows and hence there is no ad infinitum of claims. I think that liar's statement refers only to the statement inside the first bracket and not anything after it. However, it could refer to the whole statement as you argue which leads to ad infinitum. I agree with your conclusion, in this case. However, the crucial question that needs to be addresed is that there is an ambiguity regarding what is actually meant by "sentence" after the first substitution. That ambiguity leads to subjective conclusions about what is actually referenced (the whole statement or only what's inside the first bracket). I don't think there is a correct way to answer this. The nature of the problem is subjective. In that sense, both interpretations are correct. If we stick to "my" interpretation (not saying this is the only correct interpretation), we have: (This statement is false) is false My conclusion is that the statement: "This statement is false", is a dialetheia. It's a true contradiction. I think that there do exist true contradictions. There aren't a lot of them, though. In the West, contradictions are generally disliked and took as necessary proof of logical incoherence. I don't think this is always true, but it is mostly. I don't think that laws of logic are some kind of unquestionable absolute. Logic is actually quite scientific. You try something and if it doesn't work, you update your logical system. In India, logical system known as catuṣkoṭi (lat. tetralemma) is used. It allows statement to be true, false, both or neither. This system allows contradictions to be true (it doesn't imply that all contradictions are true). The latter two options are taken as impossible to be true in the Western logic. This is expressed as the law of non-contradiction (statement can't be both true and false) and law of excluded middle (statement is either true or false). Both are the essence of classical logic which heavily influenced Western philoshopy. Kant, Heidegger and Wittgenstein all faced contradictions in their work and concluded that thus their theories are meaningless and incorrect. However, such conclusions leads them to undermining themselves. If their ideas are actually meaningless, than they have no grounds to support that their ideas are meaningless. When they want to avoid contradiction, their conclusions become logically incoherent and self-undermining. If one agrees with their theories, one also needs to accept the contradiction (I think). Catuṣkoṭi gives you that option.

The problem with offering an "intuitive" description of infinites is that they are always guaranteed to be faulty imo. You can have an infinite number of 0s AND 1. an infinite number of 0s PLUS 1. So the concern might be redefined as "when did the 1 get added to the series of 0s" but that would be begging the question, surely?! Maybe it was never added. Maybe it was always a part of the series. This series is, and has always been , a series containing 1. The current "location" of the 1 might be discrete only by virtue of the perspective of the observer. I find it interesting that we can't conceive of infinites despite being constantly surrounded by them. Everything you have ever experienced has causal connections that span farther backwards than the lifetime of the planet you live on. It extends further forward and backwards than you can fathom. I feel like saying "there must be a start" is less a statement of undeniable truth, amd more an axiomatic statement based on human perspective. We struggle with the concept of infinites, imo, not because it is somehow fundamentally flawed, but because we are not infinite.

to be honest, I am very much of a person who loves social hierarchy and trying to be on top, but, in my own defense, would like to say, I don't show off and put other people down. I just don't wanna make people feel bad, its their own business. But, in my experience, why do i want to be higher and higher with every year - is that, I am sick of being poor and being treated like I am worth nothing. I did my best to understand people and just not see that shit they are doing, just live my own life, but, damn, this hierarchy heats everyone. I am tired of people looking at me like I am a garbage can and they can scream at me, beat me how they want and just see me as a little, naive, stupid girl who they can abuse. I am wprking my ass off to get a good, comfortable job, live in better country, have money not only for biological needs, but also for other things. And, also, actually, people who do not have enough money - they are more agressive, toxic and greedy. Years of life expirience says it. They only think of how to make money for today's food and just survive, and they will literally anything for it - put other people down and do any kjnd of shit. I am sick of and if there is no escape, so I am gonna be on top, on a very top. Also, if I am on top, it does not mean I will treat people as a garbage. no. I just don't care, I just wanna live peacefully and with comfort.

and that's why there's a creator to this universe

How can you say something is not logic when everything is relative?

Thaddeus is good at pretending that he understands the question when he doesnt, And makes appeals to absurdity when he loses the argument,

Post Moderism is everyone's philosophy until the age of 3. Only I exist.

54:39 BLEW MY FUCKING MIND !!! 😂

I show ur videos to everyone, as you use great descriptive language, and have good ideas. You also have an interesting speaking voice that emphasizes certain sounds in a unique way; Like, you put an elegant twang to specific words, but not in a rigid way, more so, its like a flowy language of your own.... *(e.g. i think you pronounced difficulty, like "divviculty" once)* -hmm I'm like, "hmm, interesting i might have to borrow that" ...stuff like that.

formal logic way of doing it suppose x defined by x = (x is false) x = !x this is a contradiction, thus no such sentence exists

what sentence ? is my first question and my second question is what truth or false proposition is the sentence making because if its not making one, than its a formal error because this is no different that saying "Thursday ate five" just because its a sentence i can read doesn't mean its a sentence making a logical proposition of truth are false, you're just granting yourself the presup that it is

To anyone who wants to write a comment criticising Chris. Seek him out and actual contact him. Don’t think you’ve posted a comment debunking him on some dark corner where he’s unlikely to respond and show you why you’ve not debunked his ideas at all. Don’t be a chicken.

The fact is that the lack of vaccination on the West is causing the return of the long cured illnesses. I wonder, what is so corrupt on a vaccine that was pre-designed, just used different virus particle. Because people doubt medicine and science, the doubt which you somehow support, at least it seems to me. And yet I consider this as a symptom of a dark age when the general public doesn't consider the facts but rather their own feelings and their own opinion not backed by statistically measurable data. This general fear of evil vaccines reminds me a fear of the hellish miasma.