The Paradox is in the description.

[tony0977]

After watching this paradoxes don't seem like a mystery any more! :-)

[dcproof1]

Suppose there is man living in the village who is the barber. Suppose further that there exists a binary relation 'shaves' defined on the set of all men in that village such that the barber 'shaves' those and only those men in the village who do not shave themselves. You can resolve the resulting paradox by showing that no such relation can exist. See my video, "The Barber Paradox, A Mathematical Analysis."

[KombatGod]

Vin Diesel? Where is Vin Diesel? I only see Bruce Willis there!

[EpicPhudge]

wow i didnt know vin diesel was so smart

[rummyisme]

haha i like the vid its funny and makes sense

[AlecEmpire]

A paradox is just a subjective description created inside the box of thinking - nothing more.

[KrazyAnub1s]

Pretty deep thinking about the barber

I speak another language and I have learned 4 other languages (including english)

All languages have different ending for the word "shave" wheres english doesn't. Thats why english is a really easy language to learn. Some languages have so much grammer & rules that it's hard to memorize at times.

[frazzzer8888]

This particular paradox is due to the description but not all paradoxes are. Some are absolutely independent.

This only applies to one type of paradox.

[CousinoMacul]

I only used this one type of paradox as an illustration, but all paradoxes are in the description.  The concept of "paradox" is something that can only apply to descriptions.

There are no paradoxes in the "real world". The paradoxes only arise in describing the "paradoxical situation". My example was to show that even when you "solve a paradox" the original situation remains unchanged.

I challenge you to find a paradox that is somehow independent of its description.

[suzywao]

A man goes back in time and kills his grandfather.

[suzywao]

So... no brilliant comeback?

[CousinoMacul]

Fine. Assuming that such a situation could actually exist, where's the paradox? (hint: the description) Suppose that physicists discovered particles that could go back in time and annihilate themselves before they existed. How would that be "physically paradoxical"? Wouldn't it just be the way of nature and we would have to adjust our understanding and explanations of nature accordingly? And wouldn't the same apply to the "grandfather paradox"?

[suzywao]

Any paradox could be explained away by the justification of "it's the way of nature and we would have to adjust our understanding of it accordingly."

My example is a paradox not because of the description, but because the man would destroy himself and therefore would not have existed to destroy himself. So.. if he's alive, he's dead, and if he's dead, he's alive. Same with your particle analogy. If the particles destroy themselves, they're gone, and if they don't, they destroy themselves.

[wopaah]

@suzywao If time travelling were possible, you still wouldn't have a paradox. Suppose a man were born today. In 2030 he goes back in time, kills grandfather in the year 1960. Thus, he will not be born in the year 2010. The problem here is our concept of time. We see it as if 1960 lies before 2010, while actually for this man there is a 1960 that existed before his birth, then 2010, 2030 and afterwards a different time that is CALLED 1960. This man was born 20 years before this different 1960.

[KombatGod]

@suzywao The paradox you're thinking is: "if a person prevents his own birth, then wouldn't be able to prevent his own birth", right? The problem is that you're examinating the description, not the situation! You have to imagine what it would would work like: time flows.

If you kill your grandfather time would simply go on in a different reality where you were never born.

[NameFreedom]

This video gives me such a feeling of unity.

[Jaysnipes]

Great video too! 5/5 I like how you ended the video too.

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks!

[Jaysnipes]

I worship paradox and I feel paradox leads to enlightenment and knowledgable truth's or facts.

[elseandortheother]

LIKE A LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT with a BAnk LIEN?

[ShadoManiac]

A) Statement B is true

B) Statement A is false

This sentence contains 2 errers

Will you answer "No" to this question?

Can God make a rock he can't carry?

[CousinoMacul]

In everyone of you examples, the paradox (if any) is found in the description. Take your first example (a variation on the classic "liar's paradox"); the claim is itself a description of itself and so the paradox could not reside anywhere else BUT in the description.

[Rsgamby671]

What about the Russell's Paradox being applied to mathematics? Wouldn't this be more than a description? (X:X=all real number)

Just wondering...

[CousinoMacul]

Mathematics is a descriptive language that we use to model reality. There are plenty of paradoxes in mathematics: besides Russell's, there's a bijection between any two continuous subsets (including the entire set) of the real numbers, and a statement which is the equivalent of "the liar's paradox" exists in every system strong enough to describe itself (from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems). But the paradoxes are all still in the descriptions (I hope that was a satisfying reply).

[OurCurlyBen]

I know this is a little late reply but what about "the twin paradox" and others like it that we encounter in physics?

[CousinoMacul]

The Twin Paradox happens because time is relative. The paradox arises because it is usually described using a classical framework for time, thus contradicting our expectations. But it is a fact of reality. If you were to describe the scenario using a Relativistic framework for time, the paradox would disappear.

[OurCurlyBen]

I can't wrap my head around this. Could you maybe make a video explaining it a little better?

It seems that the twin A who takes a super-fast journey will age less than the twin B who stays at home. But in the relativity we can consider B to be traveling in relation to A in which case the twin B will age less. If A accelerates in respect to B than B accelerates in relation to A. Right?

So does time slows down for both? For neither? Who will be older? What will they experience? I don't get it.

[anoyingfly]

time slows down for the one traveling faster. the faster you go, the slower time moves.

[OurCurlyBen]

Faster in relation to what? Actually since I asked the question I found an answer, but yours isn't it.

[Censeo]

Yes, it is in the description. Though all paradoxes aren't making this mistake of false equivalence.

One thing is certain though. A paradox is never taking place in actuality, because all things we experience or imagine can be described without using any form of paradox. We can i.e never imagine a barber who shave himself while at the same time doesn't shave himself. This barber lacks physical appearance. The action is unimaginable, meaning we describe nothing at all really.

[socialpersonality]

this content puts me in a hot air balloon! i disagree but not sure what about here. i'm going to play with it though.

[CousinoMacul]

You're welcome.

[rozeboosje]

I defy anyone to listen to that and still not get it. 5f

[CousinoMacul]

Thank you Pino! I think so too, but based on my experience with my 0.999...=1 video, I know that I need to constantly refine my "crystal-clear explanations" ;-D

[ohsarahdar]

Some paradoxial conditions are erronious assumptions, as in the rather easily answered quite definitively riddle "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Humourous, but illustrative Answer: Eggs are too immature to come. (unconstrained definition of a word) Actual answer: Eggs. They weren't chicken eggs, but definitely, eggs preceded chickens. "The Egg" however, is somewhat similar to a religious or mythical reference. "Which came first, a chicken or an egg?" wouldn't have lasted.

[CousinoMacul]

Yes indeed. I would say that the erroneous assumption in the "chicken-egg paradox" is the ignorance of gradual evolution.

[AppleStar7582]

I am feeling paradoxical. Now what, *CHOMP*

[CousinoMacul]

*BITE* *SLURP* *CHOMP*

[bezvezeceda]

I don't understand you fully!. Is it part of the situation that when shaving someone you your self are not shaved, but when you are giving sex you are also getting it. Why is this description of situation.??

[CousinoMacul]

I'm not sure I understand your question fully, but I'm saying that shaving yourself and shaving someone else (or getting shaved by someone else) are distinct acts. The original paradox only works when they are perceived as identical acts. I used the sex analogy because we already have different word for those two scenarios.

[bezvezeceda]

I could agree that it is a lack of description, not description itself.

[mikeypwn]

Thats amazing @.@

Wish my thoughts were that profound haha.

[CousinoMacul]

If you work on it, they will be.

[Durgeofcerberus]

nice forehead

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks?

[kalsolarUK]

Paradox...are they headache pills? I hope so..cuz I need some now. lol.

[CousinoMacul]

But you're a 'biblical scholar' and the bible is a cesspool of paradoxes. I would think you'd be immune to the headaches by now. ;-P

[0ThouArtThat0]

true, but how do you even delineate a situation, paradoxical or not, without language?

[CousinoMacul]

You can't.

[DieselBodine]

Sounds like a paradox may often suffer cohesion with reality from the fact that, in communicating, we tend to use generalizations in trying to get an idea across to someone else.

[CousinoMacul]

Yes Scott, although that's only part of it.

[RichardBeddard]

What about the omnipotence/rock paradox? I mean, I can't think of a way that you can re-word it so that there's no paradox there.

If God can do everything, he can create anything, and he can do what he wants with it. Can he make a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Make it non-paradoxical with language and I'll be convinced.

[CousinoMacul]

This was the comment that made me take so long to answer all the comments.

First, I never really claimed that I could find a non-paradoxical description for every "paradoxical" situation. Only that the paradox was in the description.

[CousinoMacul]

I believe that omnipotence is impossible BECAUSE there is no way to describe it non-paradoxically. However, you can change the nature of the paradox by scrutinizing the language.

[CousinoMacul]

We tend to think of omnipotence as monolithic (until we make ourselves think otherwise). But the skills of making things and moving things (at least when it comes to humans, ie. US) are completely different, unrelated skill sets. There is no particularly good "objective" reason to lump them together other than we consider them both to be useful ("good") and therefore worthy of an "omnipotent god"

I hope that answers your question.

[strav12]

What do you mean by 'paradox'?

[CousinoMacul]

Something which is seemingly impossible, but yet seemingly must be.

[strav12]

Is your definition true only in language or does your definition exist outside of language?

There is a huge area of thought on this topic around language and reality that kind of obsessed a lot of Euro thinkers - Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, Mikhail Bakhtin - who then kind of set up people like Heidegger and Derrida on language and reality - but a really interesting guy is Jacques Lacan - more anon!

[CousinoMacul]

The description need not be linguistic. For example, if you've ever played 'Pictionary' then you know that drawings (as well as photos, animations, etc.) can serve as descriptions.

Which brings us to the MC Escher drawings of impossible (ie. paradoxical) objects. The proof that the paradox is in the description is that sculptors have built many of the objects from Escher's drawings, but the illusion of impossibility disappears as soon as you view them from a different perspective.

[strav12]

'Impossibility' is not in your criteria of paradox. Why does a paradox have to be impossible? Kierkegaard said that paradox is a necessary condition of life, and simply 'absurd', not impossible, and that was where objective science broke down...It's absurd from the perspective of rationalism, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

[CousinoMacul]

Huh??? How does "seemingly impossible, but yet seemingly must be" not include 'impossibility' or how does that description not apply to the aforementioned Escher drawings?

[strav12]

Duh! Sorry! I have a different def of paradox and was being dumb. OK 'The description need not be linguistic'. Any representation of 'reality' is just a representation whatever the media. My point was whether paradox exists only as a representation (lang, pic, or other) or if it can refer to an entity outside of the representation. Is your definition just a representation, or does paradox actually exist outside your definition? Building Escher models proves paradox exists?

[premed411]

What a great vid. Beautifully explained, well organized, interesting, friendly and fun. I just loved it! Watched it twice. This vid is so to my liking, that I'm even going to forgo my standard wise-ass remark!

[CousinoMacul]

Obviously the great wisdom of this video made you realize that you weren't wise enough to be a "wise-ass"! Haha!! As you can see, I am not constricted by your forgoingness! LOLOLOLOL! Bwahahahahaha!!!!

[EverettsVLOG]

am i the only one who looked in the description box for a 'paradox'?

[CousinoMacul]

Awesome!!!!!!

That actually goes great with what I was saying about how word MUST be able to mean more than one thing.

I didn't think of that, but now it's so obvious. I will need to amend the description box. ;-)

[trick0171]

Agreed. Great vid...explained very well.

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks!

[koenichfuerst]

Understanding that is the purpose of many Zen koans.

This was a very good video. The prostitute-example was a really good one.

[CousinoMacul]

I do my best (or at least good enough).  ;-P

[2bsirius]

Brilliant video! It reminded me of the Bohr remark, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how

Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature."

BTW the definition of onanism would confuse everybody in your hypothetical town with only one sex industry worker since it can mean both...The less common definition for it is "coitus interruptus"...

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

[CousinoMacul]

I really like that Bohr quote. I can't believe I've never heard it before.

[2bsirius]

That quote was drilled into us in my history of science courses at university because 19th and very early 20th century physics consisted, ALMOST without exception, in attempts to pin description to the material world, sometimes in an almost one-to-one correspondence, so Bohr's conception was a complete departure from those earlier ideas.

[andrewrberkshire]

Brilliant. I don't think anything else needs to be said!

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks.

[mrbluesky323]

What is a thing beyond what it can be described as?  Sure, things that exist exist, and things that don't don't. A thing can't be both a liquid and a solid. The concept is defined by the definition which is derived from the properties we observe.

Words point to concepts. Concepts point to realities(real or potential). There can be a paradox in concepts as well as potential, though impossible, realities.

Because I'm running out of space, I'll sum up with: You're wrong.

[ballyboneman]

"A thing can't be both a liquid and a solid."

Glass can exhibit the properties of both at the same time. The glass in very old windows is often thicker at the bottom than at the top as the glass has 'flowed' downward under the influence of gravity.

[EverettsVLOG]

bally, if you draw firmly a line b/w liquid an solid, as, say, a parituclar quantity of RMSD of the molecules, then it would be impossible for somehting to be both liquid and solid... it all depends on how you define these qualities

[ballyboneman]

Agreed

[mrbluesky323]

Still, a glass is considered a liquid, not a solid. It just has an extremely low viscosity so that it appears solid because of how slow it moves.

[mrbluesky323]

I'll try to explain it another way:

The term paradox indicates a contradiction of logic. Logical contradictions are not limited to language. Though a situation would generally be described by language, the contradiction could exist in the situation as well.

EX:

If i say a point can occupy only one position. Then i can safely say that a point occupying two positions is a paradox(Both by description and by the situation). A paradox CAN be in the language, but isn't necessarily.

[CousinoMacul]

I agree with all (almost) but your last sentence. ;-)

[mrbluesky323]

Well then, to take it a step further, what if language didn't exist? Would it be impossible for a person or being to conceive of a paradoxical concept? If you assume that a concept is a thing separate from its description (its description points to it, but is not the same thing), then you're forced to conclude that the paradox isn't necessarily in the description. So if that's not the case, you think that concepts are just a subset of descriptions. Is that so?

[CousinoMacul]

Descriptions need not necessarily be in language. For example, an MC Escher drawing of an impossible object doesn't use language, but it is still very much a description of that object. (And if you've ever seen sculptures that have been made of these "impossible" objects, you'll see that the paradox is broken as soon as you turn the object to view it from a different vantage).

[CousinoMacul]

I see descriptions as properties of concepts. However, since concepts must be defined by a description, then all concepts must have at least one description. In other words, if something cannot somehow be described, then it can't be a concept.

[mrbluesky323]

But that's defining anything that we can know or sense or think as a description. If everything that our mind can conceive of is, at its base, a description, then there's no point in making the statement that a paradox is too.

[CousinoMacul]

"But that's defining anything that we can know or sense or think as a description."

NO NO NO!!! That's not what I'm saying at all! What I'm saying is that CONCEPTS must be describable. So an undescribable feeling cannot be a concept. That's it. I NEVER said that a feeling or a concept 'was' a description (although it's possible--as in the "liar's paradox" which is a statement that describes itself)

[mrbluesky323]

Well, like what about senses then. Surely the concept of seeing exists. Do you think it's possible to adequately describe the experience to a blind man? A description of a new sense(i might argue a description of anything at its core) requires that it be relate-able to the other senses that the person has. If you have a unique sense it can be a concept to you while at the same time being indescribable to others.

[cozmikzen]

awesome video, and great point made!!

the 1st thing that comes to mind is the liar's paradox. which i'm sure you're familiar with, but i'd like to hear your take on it.

for anyone who doesnt know...

"This sentence is not true"

[CousinoMacul]

See my response to OneLazyGimp. :-)

[Loreleila]

While all you say is true in essence the paradox is more than words, definitions, in the sense that when one finds oneself perceiving a paradox there one can also find the essence of reality. That which confounds the mind, which goes beyond 'this' or 'that' which is in itself false, a construct of language, can be where an overview and awareness of how many perspectives life can be viewed from. In Lapland they have no word for snow (not true, but great line from a Joe Orton play lol)

[CousinoMacul]

Yes Cathy, but in my (current) view of the world, our perception of reality is defined by our description of it. If something confounds us, it is the description which is doing so, and it is through language that we find the solution. :-D

[Loreleila]

So do you feel it's impossible to comprehend something without the benefit of language? Does that mean no creature other than man can have any understanding of life in any way, or have conscious awareness?

Also, what of those times when you comprehend something yet how to describe it eludes you, where language itself is lacking?

[CousinoMacul]

Of course you can understand things without language (by language here, I mean any system with descriptive power), but language adds dimensions to thoughts that you don't get without it.

[Loreleila]

Quite. Yet it can also limit, since it is created only based upon that of which we can find a common descriptor.

[patflix]

All kidding aside....that was a wonderful presentation!!!!

[CousinoMacul]

THANKS!!

[lovasip]

Altough the situations are not exactly analogous.

Shaving is a one directional activity. X shaves Y.

Having sex has no specific direction. (Let us forget about the technical details.)

If the barber shaves let's say John then John does not shave the barber.

On the other hand if John has sex with the prostitute, then the prostitute also has sex with John.

[CousinoMacul]

Well, I could argue with you about the bidirectionality of heterosexual intercourse, but instead I will acknowledge that analogies and metaphors are never perfect or exact. ;-P

[HaleyMary]

"The paradox is in the description, not in the situation."

Never thought of it like that before. It makes paradoxes seem subjective, in the way that individuals describe a paradoxical situation.

[CousinoMacul]

Yes and no. (I assert that) They are subjective in the philosophical sense, but I still believe that paradoxes are real, I just know where they are.

[OneLazyGimp]

So how about epimenides paradox (aka liar paradox)? Does your explanation (one word - two meanings) apply here?

"All Cretans are liars" - all these words are pretty well defined in any language I can think of.

[CousinoMacul]

Well, the liar paradox is one where the description describes itself. Or where the paradox is a description of itself. Either way, there's no way to escape the fact that the paradox is in the description (since the paradox--in this case--IS the description).

[winterwinwin]

That is very interesting! Thanks for posting this. :D

[CousinoMacul]

No prob, sweetie.  :-D :-P

[D4Shawn]

A few weeks ago I was thinking a lot about paradoxes due to the fact that my own thinking had synchronistically culminated in quite a few of them. At the time, it hadn't occurred to me that a paradox was merely a linguistic artifact. Like a stupid mystic, I reluctantly considered that maybe the "universe was just paradoxical" after all. I feel better now that I have a more reasonable way to consider the problem, and I can return to my former, rather comfortable sensibilities. Thanks!

[CousinoMacul]

You are quite welcome. Enjoy your vacation!

[PacYang]

That was wonderful. You explained it very well.

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks!

[musicisthegateway]

does high quality does not improve your face

[musicisthegateway]

I can't even give myself a thumbs down. How sad.

[CousinoMacul]

There! I just did it for you.

BTW, FU music!

[Mjhavok]

The second sentence is false.

The first sentence is true.

[randyhelzerman]

Yeah, I don't see how this analysis would solve a similar paradox:

Fred said: "Everything John says is true."

John said: "Everything Fred says is false."

There's no use saying that Fred and John are actually doing too different things, fred-speaking and john-speaking. I also don't really know how convincing it is to say that shaving myself is any different from shaving somebody else.

[neuronstorm]

Looks to me like just a slightly more complex form of 'this sentence is false'

Extending it to two sentences, or a chain of more is just a trick.

[Mjhavok]

Look closer and you will find out that it is.

[CousinoMacul]

What Randy and neuron said. :-P

[TrueNorth15]

speaking of shaving, you now have more hair than I do

[CousinoMacul]

I challenge you to a shave-off. We both shave the hair off our asses (or do you say "arses" up in Canucksville?) and weigh them to see which has a lower mass. I predict I will win! HAHAHA!!!

[TrueNorth15]

I counter that with which one is more buoyant for I shall certainly be champion

[thinkmorepink]

Very interesting video. Great job Javi, another great lesson <33

[CousinoMacul]

<333

[CivilHuman]

Good video, Paradox's are weird little thing.

[CousinoMacul]

Indeed!