Well done again, Phil. These are excellent streams, thank you.

These philosophy heavy conversations give me life. Also I appreciate that this episode has a perfect balance of facial hair vs none

I wish I could think half as quickly as Joe can talk. Great episode, looking forward to more!

Disclaimer: This is just my semi-related rambling... For the spatially arranged reapers, imagine the walls already being there. Asking which wall prevents you from going forward is essentially asking which point you traverse first when entering an open interval. The answer being "none of them, there isn't a first one" just means that our intuition that there must be a first one is wrong. "If you're entering an open interval, there has to be a point you're entering first" is the implicit assumption, but the math shows that that isn't true. In the same way, you're blocked from moving forward, but not by any single first reaper, that's just how infinity is: weird. But the apparent contradiction is not an actual one, you just need to accept that your intuition doesn't and can't apply to things dealing with infinity.

This was a very helpful and enjoyable discussion. It's given me lots to think about.

Infinty scares people because we are finite. In reality, there is no problem with infinity. There is only a problem if infinity is supposedly a feature of some sort of being/entity.

Another great episode!! Happy to see Joe on here!

YAYAYAYYAYAYSYSYSYWYYWYWUWUWYWYWYYWYAYWY!!!! JOE, PHIL, DAN, AND ALEX!! BEST SHOW, SUPER EPIC! NEW EPISODE GONNA EXPLODE SO EPIC CANNOT WAIT TO WATCH! SUPER EPIC, THIS IS GONNA BE EPIC!

Not Joe pronouncing the 'x' in Humean necessary connexions lol. Great discussion of a great paper.

I just stay away from the Kalam. It doesn't make 'ordinary' sense to discuss this with the vast majority of people. Waste of time. I simply make the point that if your god can be of a "always" existence and out of time and space, so can a paradigm without a god. I then move onto more substantial, tangible discussions.

Excellent discussion, thanks. I'm having quite a hard time accepting that any reaper though - let alone the supposed first - can successfully kill Fred, when swinging a scythe takes quite a long time:-)

Really enjoying these streams! Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the nature of these paradoxes, it seems to me they are just a roundabout way of asking for the first or second element of a set which has no beginning. 1.) A reaper only swings its scythe if and only if no previous reaper swings its scythe In the finite case isn't there only two possible answers regardless of how many reapers there are? The first reaper may or may not swing their scythe (not entirely sure how to define if 1. is met for the first reaper). If the first doesn't the second definitely does because no previous one swung it's scythe. That's the case no matter how many reapers there are as the condition is always met by #2 if one swings it's over, if one doesn't then two does. So the problem is basically I can set up a situation where the first or second element of a set does x I can't do this for a beginingless set as this doesn't have a first or second element Therefore beginningless sets can't exist Would the proponents of this style of argument find a situation in which the first reaper kills Fred as equally convincing? Perhaps something like 2.) A reaper only swings its scythe if and only if there is no previous reaper Which would be something like this I can set up a situation in which the first reaper kills Fred. I can't do this for a beginingless set as this doesn't have a first reaper Therefore beginningless sets can't exist I know that as written the arguments aren't valid but I think they contain the gist of my understanding of how these are working. It's seems obvious to me that these sort of things can't be set up in the infinite case. Though as I said I may be missing something obvious here as it is 1am 😅

This channel seems fun. All these paradoxes just always struck me as dumb? Of course it isn't impossible to cross the street and I totally crossed an infinity of points in space to do it and that's ok.

Guys ! I've read somewhere that Yablo's paradox is the infinite version of the liar paradox. So the grim reaper paradox is just some version of a self referential problem. Is that correct ??

I like using the rebuff: If we suppose there is an angel that starts counting for as long as God exists (1, 2, 3...), because there are no actual infinities, at some point God must stop existing.

I hope I didn't get it wrong - does this paper claim that certain brand of finitism is more costly _only if_ one has been convinced of finitism through the Grim Reaper Paradox (or a wider class of such paradoxes)?

Basic TLDW: I don’t need to prove that (P) is true or false, or prove (not P) is true or false, I just need to show that (P & not P) is an internal logical contradiction and then we can dismiss the proposition out of hand.

I'm probably just missing something obvious, but could someone tell me what the "pair" of claims is, in the specific case of Kalam-style arguments? I understand the UPD says we can't accept both conjuncts, but I'm not sure what the conjuncts are in this case. "Infinite past causes" seems to be one of them, but what's the other one?

I think, that a similar analysis could also be done for the *"Sleeping Beauty Problem/Paradox".* The (total) probability of the fair and ideal coin flip being heads made on Sunday is 1/2 (without any other significant considerations and conditions) *AND* the (conditional) probability of the same fair and ideal coin flip being heads made on Sunday is 1/3 given and considering, that Sleeping Beauty is currently awaken (in the experiment phase either on Monday or on Tuesday). Everybody should know those probabilities according to the set-up of that experiment including Sleeping Beauty herself prior, while and after the experiment will, is and has been conducted and as such her personal credences should align to those probabilities. Anything other than that is just irrational to hold. If there are two distinct and separate answers given for the same question, well then that question addressed to Sleeping Beauty is simply not well-defined question as it appears to have not one well-defined answer to it but has multiple very valid answers to it. This is THE SOLUTION to this problem here: *The question addressed to Sleeping Beauty is not well-defined.* (Yes, there can be and are wrong and false questions.) As nothing more significant about metaphysical possibilities can be learned from the logical Bernadette-paradoxes similarly nothing more significant about metaphysical possibilities can be learned from the logical (formally not well-defined and analysed) *Sleeping Beauty **_"Problem/Paradox"_* such as that being supposedly evidence for _"us waking up and being in a simulation"_ or _"in a multiverse"_ or that very dubious _"self-locating properties"._ yeak.

47:51 Why can't the "mysterious force" just be that nothing is perfect?

Given the Patchwork principle, we could say ; * If it is possible that Joe sits on a chair and is comfortable, and also, Alex sits on a chair and comfortable, * we could have a possible world where Joe sits on a chair which is positioned on top of Alex, who's also sitting on a chair, and both are comfortable . It seems to me that given the Patchwork principle, this would be absurd because, Alex could not be said to be SITTING and COMFORTABLE, while haven Joe sit on a Chair that is positioned on top of him.

I was thinking about taking the grim reaper paradox and applying it to future. Let's say there is a god at 11 30, another at 11 45, another at 11 45 + 7.5 mins etc. All the gods will either kill you if you are alive or resurrect you if you are dead. At 11 am you are alive. So at 12 01 will you be dead or alive?

If UPD is true What happens to mathamtical induction principle then?

I have to say embracing the UPD does make the most sense, though I'm not sure how it deals with items in the infinite chain that can have multiple values, not just true/false. But i do hope that buried in those papers there is a more formal proof for why the Benardete paradoxes are suggesting truly contradictory positions. Because merely appealing to the unintuitive nature of "you died, but no grim reaper paradox killed you" isn't exactly a contradiction, it could just be viewed as a quirky but unintuitive result of infinities. And second there are ways out of it that don't force you to claim a contradiction, like denying causal finitism. But there is a way to describe the mathematical nature of the paradox with boolean values. Namely if we state that P(n) is true IFF P(n-1), P(n-2), ..., P(-inf) is false, then this implies the conditions for P(n-1) to be true as well, immediately yielding a contradiction. Conversely if P(n) is false, then one m < n must satisfy the condition that P(m) is true. But if P(m) is true, this establishes the same contradiction for P(m-1), which always exists due to the unbounded infinity. So then P(n) can't be true or false. Anyway time to watch the latter half of the video now

The reason the question of which reaper raised the wall is ridiculous is because you personified a mathematical construct. The math may very well correspond to something real, but it won't be persons.

Theists generally seem to have a poor understanding of causality, presumably based on that crap kalam argument. The problem is that the kalam asserts without reason that everything that comes into existence has "A" cause - that is, only one cause. This is blatantly false. I'd say that in general, things that come into existence have at least one cause. This is what we observe throughout our universe. There can be any number of causes necessary for an event to take place. Here's a more concrete example: Suppose you have a simple electrical curcuit: there's a battery for power, a light bulb, and 100 switches connected in series, one after the other. At the start, all switches are in the off position. Flip the first switch. The light bulb remains unlit. Now flip the second switch, same result. Keep flipping until the 99th. The bulb is still off. Now flip the 100th switch. Now all switches are in the on position and so electricity flows. This causes the light bulb to light up, and emit photons. What was the singular cause of those photons coming into being? There was no singular cause. Instead there were 100 independent causal events required. Theists also seem to misunderstand the notion of "first cause". A first cause is "that which has no causal precedent". That says absolutely nothing about how many independent first causes there can be. The common visual metaphor is a line of dominos, with the first in a chain being the "first cause". In this model, that first domino obviously has no prior domino, and so something external to the system is required to make it topple. But here's the problem: Here's a second line of dominos. With its own first domino. And here's a third line. And a fourth. And so on. Thus, there can be arbitrarily many independent causal chains, each with their own first cause. Now consider a large domino with two independent chains leading into it. The first chain topples in sequence, leading up to the large domino, but the large domino remains untoppled. Then the second chain topples, and it's only after the combined weight of the first chain AND the second chain, that the large domino topples, and continues onwards. A single causal chain is INSUFFICIENT. And who says that these multiple causal chains of dominos have to be toppled by just one entity? I knock over a line, and you knock over a different line. This system has TWO PRIME MOVERS. Thus the kalam fails to establish monotheism, as there is no reason to suppose a single causal prime being for all causal chains.

Existential inertia episode? Gimme Dat.

Skydivephil!! You respond to everybody please say hi to me. I been a long time fan

To maintain logical consistency, All unfalsifiables deserve equal credence, For no objective measure exists to rank their plausibility. Their rightful level of belief is zero, Since for any unfalsifiable imagined, One can conceive an infinite array of contradictory unfalsifiables. We must speculate, ponder, and marvel in awe, But to believe? No, For that path leads to endless conflict.

These aren't actually paradoxes. They all have logical answers.

As for spacetime being infinite vs not. Idk if this is true, but Newton apparently said. Space has to be infinite cause if it wasnt all matter would be in one mass at the center. That it isnt meants there is always .ore pulling the other way. I definitely trust the guy who invented the artifical rainbow. It is pride month after all.

Unfalsifiables merit zero belief because they lack any objective criteria by which to rank their plausibility. Without a way to objectively assess their truth, assigning them any level of belief becomes arbitrary and unjustified. Moreover, unfalsifiables are rendered void by the potential for infinite contradiction. For any unfalsifiable claim, one can always conceive an equally unfalsifiable but contradictory claim. This endless possibility of contradictions further undermines their credibility, as it shows that unfalsifiables cannot provide a stable foundation for belief. Therefore, to maintain logical consistency and avoid arbitrary or contradictory beliefs, unfalsifiables deserve no credence.

It seems strange for Joe Schmid to be concerned about some kind of arrogance, I guess, of making some necessity claim about finity or infinity. I guess it's a strong claim, but some things are such that they're either compatible or they aren't, so it seems par for the course to make claims like this even if you end up mistaken often just by the nature of the subject matter. We make "strong, arrogant claims" about triangles and such, too. Indeed, one could imagine logical paradoxes if such claims about triangles were false. Maybe some of us could only imagine one... but how many, exactly, would we need... an infinite amount? :) Even if there were like 50 paradoxes about something, that number might seem small in relation to the infinite number line or something. Yes... we make "large claims" based on "small amounts of paradoxes"... it just doesn't seem so problematic (nor dispensable, even) without context. When we make claims about triangles, we're typically making a claim about an infinite amount of triangles... how arrogant! :) Likewise, you have physicists wondering about the vast world, and boom, someone makes a claim about time as it relates to the whole universe from the armchair! Well, it may very well be the case that our conceptual structuring of the world through time does have something arbitrary about it, and that could involve either infinitism or finitism, but I wouldn't be too prejudiced against either side that wants to say that one or the other is incompatible with reality... I might disagree with them, but prima facie, I wouldn't look at it as a matter of arrogance on the part of either of us... it's not that weird that things that appear in a wide-sweeping amount of cases will have arguments about them that will apply to this collection of wide-sweeping cases, and of course it will be disproportionate-looking if some finite, intuitively small amount of paradoxes are trying to shine a light on an infinite (or really large) amount of cases. It just seems that this kind of general concern is irrelevant as I don't see the relation between something applying to a lot of cases and it being bad, prima facie. If it involves the logical structure of something, it seems that this kind of concern shouldn't factor into the equation, whether it seems "arrogant" intuitively or not. It comes down to specifics, which I understand that Joe and these other philosophers are happy to discuss as well, but it seemed that Joe was acting as if this general feeling of arrogance was also supposed to be some kind of big clue about whether an argument is good or not, when to me this kind of general worry seems to range somewhere from extremely misleading to completely irrelevant; maybe it's relevant to non-deductive arguments, but for deductive ones, I really am not tempted to adopt some general concern stemming from anyone from the armchair making claims about a large amount of things separate from context... in many contexts, _not_ extending a claim to an infinite amount of things (such as an infinite amount of triangles) would be the silly thing to do, so I just see this kind of general, perhaps psychological attitude towards the armchair to be a hindrance more than a guide on forming general impressions about the nature and structures of reality. If the arguments fail, they fail (and I am not aiming my criticism at the body of their work that focuses on the specifics of this), but either way, I don't think it's a matter of not having common sense or something (as if someone were to complain by saying "don't you know, you're trying to make this claim from the armchair just from one paradox, and you should just go out there and find more paradoxes!"). A lot depends on what the paradoxes illustrate, and most of the rest is a distraction... having multiple paradoxes to cite might be one way of doing things, but it might well be that four paradoxes considered collectively that each individually only weakly illustrate something are not as good as one paradox that strongly illustrates something. If we have the paradox in front of us, we can assess its argumentative quality, but the general concern about using one paradox doesn't factor into any relevant conclusion for me... we will find out how much insight it has by looking at it, and we will use whatever the results of that are, which would be _completely independent_ of whether it is congruent with the worry in the abstract that it "seems strange" that we're just using one paradox to understand a large amount of reality; in other words, in no case would it change the correct conclusion from what looking at the paradox would suggest, so at best it does nothing and at worst it distracts and misleads towards the incorrect conclusion, the way I see it.

narrative stuff doesnt seem to exist in reality, like take black holes mathematically it seems like it has multiple particles occupying the same space but with the reapers, if two reapers existed in the same space neither one could swing first, and neither one could be "the one to kill", but since theres only one life, one has to have killed it in reality, we know both would swing at once. the non convergant line of reapers requires jim to exist conceptually, not physically. you can't be "infinitely far away", wherever jim exists its finite. with an infinite universe, there is no object that exists infinitely far away, but I dont think that means it cant be unending. an infinite grid of points is the same and I dont think we'd call that paradoxical and for the infinitely converging reapers, I dont think anything really only exists in one precise spacial point. an infinite amount of reapers would swing at the same time, just based on the range of influence, which I doubt is ever infinitesimal.

i haven't visited the library of babel for a while, but i've been confused about this: harry potter is a fictitious character, and fair enough the fictitious character can be doing any number of things in books in "all possible worlds" but does it mean that a _real_ harry potter can exist in some possible worlds, or what? cos it kind of infers that you can write any number of books and scenarios for the fictitious harry potter, and that would mean ANYTHING can happen in "possible worlds". yours, confused, croydon.

Nope, it's turtles, all the way down. 😂

What about the Big Bang? Time itself did not exist "before" the Big Bang.

@37:27 How are we discussing "spacetime" as discrete while earlier discussing a "chain of causes" (cause AND THEN effect) which does not exist in spacetime which is a manifold of past present and future (occasionalist)? This whole panel is in category error. They are using Galilean Idealization to discuss ontology? Flipping between God's Eye View and Ant's Eye View without qualifying their switching? Spacetime is also considered emergent. Thus there is no "local" causal event. Rather the causal event occurs outside of spacetime. If so, this outside cause must be personal via universality as it must emulate minds on worldlines into the future. This is because there is no local physical mind "causing" mentality. My suggestion to be taken seriously as a metaphyscian is "stop saying spacetime" unless you mean spacetime.

None of the logic arguments for god, even if accepting them as true, in no case justify any of the gods defined by the religious books. Fine, let's say god exists according to a logical argument, believers must understand that believing on their particular god it's still on faith and can't be inferred nor justified from that argument. It doesn't help them at all!

Science gets an infinite answer, something's wrong with our theory and there's a lot more work to do. Religion, infinity is required to prove the thing we've already decided must be true. Take your pick.

You do know xenos paradox has been solved? If you have an infinite number of halving then you get 1. Because the infinity of dividing is cancelled by the infinity times it's done.