Alex laid out the grim reaper argument and around the 8 minute timestamp he said something like "now I don't know if you can point out a direct contradiction in this but ..." I think one can draw out a strict logical contradiction. If it's the case that there are an infinite amount of grim reapers that aren't allowing me to move, but it's not the case that any grim reaper will be the one that stops me from moving, then it seems like all you have to do is tie in the fact that in the former, I can't move (because there's an infinite number of these reapers making sure I don't move), and in the latter, I can move (because there is no particular grim reaper that can be the one to stop me). From there, it seems pretty trivial that we will get a statement of the form P&~P. We can even formalize it. P1) If there are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving, then I can't move. P2) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. C1) Therefore, I can't move. P3) If there are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving, then I can move. P4) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. C2) Therefore, I can move. So we can see the two conclusions contradict from P2 and P4. The propositions clearly contradict one another if all of them are taken to be true. Now maybe someone has a problem with P1 and/or P3, but I tried to capture what Alex was saying when giving his thought about the implications of the grim reaper paradox as he laid it out in the beginning. It seemed like he was saying that if there are an infinite number of grim reapers stopping your movement, then it trivially follows that you can't move. And conversely, it seems like a trivially true entailment that if there are no grim reapers that can be the one to stop you from moving, then you can move. So if those entailments are true, I think we can derive a contradiction from the propositions that correspond to P2 and P4: 1) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. 2) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. If that's not what Alex was saying then I would like to be corrected if anyone does know what he was saying. Edit: I should have waited to comment because Alex immediately went on to clear up my confusion 😂
Im surprised that Detroyer has gotten hundreds of academics on his show but not philosophers like Kastrup or Garfield, which are comparatively bigger "gets"
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
Your channel should have more subscribers. Dr Malpass is such an interesting guest and always has an insightful way of explaining his reasoning.
Grand interview: much appreciated!
Btw you should use different thumbnails for repeating guests because when this showed up in my feed I almost skipped it thinking it was an old one
Just see the podcast's number
Alex laid out the grim reaper argument and around the 8 minute timestamp he said something like "now I don't know if you can point out a direct contradiction in this but ..."
I think one can draw out a strict logical contradiction. If it's the case that there are an infinite amount of grim reapers that aren't allowing me to move, but it's not the case that any grim reaper will be the one that stops me from moving, then it seems like all you have to do is tie in the fact that in the former, I can't move (because there's an infinite number of these reapers making sure I don't move), and in the latter, I can move (because there is no particular grim reaper that can be the one to stop me).
From there, it seems pretty trivial that we will get a statement of the form P&~P. We can even formalize it.
P1) If there are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving, then I can't move.
P2) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving.
C1) Therefore, I can't move.
P3) If there are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving, then I can move.
P4) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving.
C2) Therefore, I can move.
So we can see the two conclusions contradict from P2 and P4. The propositions clearly contradict one another if all of them are taken to be true. Now maybe someone has a problem with P1 and/or P3, but I tried to capture what Alex was saying when giving his thought about the implications of the grim reaper paradox as he laid it out in the beginning. It seemed like he was saying that if there are an infinite number of grim reapers stopping your movement, then it trivially follows that you can't move. And conversely, it seems like a trivially true entailment that if there are no grim reapers that can be the one to stop you from moving, then you can move. So if those entailments are true, I think we can derive a contradiction from the propositions that correspond to P2 and P4:
1) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving.
2) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving.
If that's not what Alex was saying then I would like to be corrected if anyone does know what he was saying.
Edit: I should have waited to comment because Alex immediately went on to clear up my confusion 😂
If possible, I would love to see any scholars of argumentation theory on here, such as Scott Aikin, Andrew Aabderdeon, or Franz van Eemeren.
Andrew Aberdein*
Nice
My fav! Tytyty get him back for more
I think that you can make it from point A to point B because infinity is infinite love. There is no contradiction. 9:42
Im surprised that Detroyer has gotten hundreds of academics on his show but not philosophers like Kastrup or Garfield, which are comparatively bigger "gets"
Noice 👌