1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,040 Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpact this. I want you to join me 2 00:00:02,080 --> 00:00:04,120 for a moment. Just do a little thought experiment with me. 3 00:00:04,919 --> 00:00:08,640 Picture something completely mundane, a jar of pickles in your refrigerator. 4 00:00:08,679 --> 00:00:10,640 Go ahead, open the door in your mind, peer into 5 00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:12,519 the back and look at the expiration date. Let's say 6 00:00:12,519 --> 00:00:15,599 it was last week, a full seven days ago. You 7 00:00:15,599 --> 00:00:19,679 can vividly remember buying them, right bringing them home, and 8 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:24,960 you also vividly remember well everything else. The formation of galaxies, 9 00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,679 the slow, agonizing crawl of evolution, the building of the pyramids, 10 00:00:28,879 --> 00:00:30,559 your own high school graduation. 11 00:00:30,879 --> 00:00:35,520 Speaker 2: Now just hold that image, because here is the terrifying, 12 00:00:35,679 --> 00:00:39,119 logically unassailable thought we're plunging into today. What if the 13 00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:42,479 entire cosmos, the thirteen point eight billion years of cosmic history, 14 00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:46,000 the pickles expiration date, the evidence of your graduation, and 15 00:00:46,079 --> 00:00:49,119 every single one of your most cherished, deeply personal memories. 16 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:51,479 What if all of it was actually created last Thursday. 17 00:00:51,759 --> 00:00:53,960 Speaker 1: Thursday. That just sounds absurd on its face. 18 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:56,799 Speaker 2: It does, But this isn't just a flight of fancy 19 00:00:56,920 --> 00:01:00,439 or some you know, a quirky Internet meme. It's found 20 00:01:00,479 --> 00:01:05,799 philosophical challenge known as Last Thursdayism or LTA for short, 21 00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:09,879 and it is the ultimate skeptical challenge. It forces us 22 00:01:09,879 --> 00:01:12,480 to confront the very foundation of what we think we 23 00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:13,439 know about the past. 24 00:01:13,719 --> 00:01:16,480 Speaker 1: Welcome to Thrilling Threads, where we take a stack of 25 00:01:16,560 --> 00:01:20,840 challenging sources, articles on philosophy, theology, and even theoretical physics, 26 00:01:21,159 --> 00:01:23,000 and we try to extract what you need to know 27 00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:26,159 to be well informed. Our mission today is to really 28 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:30,799 exhaustively analyze this seemingly absurd hypothesis because, as you said, 29 00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:33,319 its absurdity is that's its strength, right. 30 00:01:33,359 --> 00:01:37,000 Speaker 2: We're going to be exploring what's called the theom of indistinguishability, 31 00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:39,920 and simply put, it states that a real history and 32 00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:44,359 an apparent forged history are well, they're empirically identical. You 33 00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:45,640 can't separate them with science. 34 00:01:45,799 --> 00:01:48,599 Speaker 1: So we are challenging the fundamental pillars of our knowledge, 35 00:01:48,599 --> 00:01:51,319 our own memory, are trust in science and I mean 36 00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:54,599 even the presumed character of a potential creator. We're going 37 00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:57,959 to trace this concept from its nineteenth century theological roots 38 00:01:58,079 --> 00:02:02,159 right through to modern unsettling challenges like the simulation hypothesis. 39 00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,519 Speaker 2: And if there is one thrilling thread we follow today, 40 00:02:05,879 --> 00:02:10,280 it is this the undeniable logical truth that you simply 41 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:13,919 cannot prove the universe wasn't created last Thursday with false 42 00:02:13,960 --> 00:02:18,360 memories implanted. And once you truly grasp that, it changes 43 00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,159 how you look at every single scientific fact you have 44 00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:21,960 ever accepted. 45 00:02:22,199 --> 00:02:24,520 Speaker 1: Okay, so let's start with a really precise definition. We 46 00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,159 can't afford to be sloppy here because less thursdayism is 47 00:02:27,199 --> 00:02:29,560 so much more intricate than just saying, oh, the world is. 48 00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:33,159 Speaker 2: Young, right, It's a concept built on deep, meticulous deception. 49 00:02:33,759 --> 00:02:37,240 LTA posits that the universe was created last Thursday. But 50 00:02:37,439 --> 00:02:39,919 and this is the key, it was meticulously designed to 51 00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:42,199 look exactly as if it were billions of years old. 52 00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:46,199 Philosophers call this apparent age, and our sources really emphasize 53 00:02:46,199 --> 00:02:50,280 that this requires a painstakingly intricate tapestry of falsehoods woven 54 00:02:50,319 --> 00:02:52,039 into the very fabric of space time. 55 00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:54,240 Speaker 1: So this isn't a careless, sloppy job. This is this 56 00:02:54,319 --> 00:02:56,319 is forensic level forgery. 57 00:02:56,039 --> 00:02:59,759 Speaker 2: By a supremely powerful entity. Yes, the detail is what 58 00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:03,039 makes the hypothesis so powerful and so difficult to refute. 59 00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:05,599 It means the laws of physics weren't just suddenly turned on. 60 00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:10,639 They were programmed specifically to coincide with what you would 61 00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:12,719 expect to find if the universe had been aging naturally 62 00:03:12,759 --> 00:03:14,360 for thirteen point eight billion years. 63 00:03:14,520 --> 00:03:18,080 Speaker 1: Wow. So think about the data points that cosmologists rely on. 64 00:03:18,199 --> 00:03:21,639 The cores of background radiation, right, this tiny temperature fluctuation, 65 00:03:21,759 --> 00:03:22,000 all of. 66 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:26,080 Speaker 2: It, the cosmic background radiation, the precise geological strata showing 67 00:03:26,159 --> 00:03:29,319 billions of years of sedimentation, the red shift of distant 68 00:03:29,319 --> 00:03:32,280 galaxies that indicates an accelerating expansion. 69 00:03:31,879 --> 00:03:33,439 Speaker 1: Even radioactive decay. 70 00:03:33,199 --> 00:03:36,000 Speaker 2: Even the radioactive decay rates of elements, yeah and LTR. 71 00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:38,360 All of that evidence which appears to point to deep 72 00:03:38,439 --> 00:03:41,719 time was created, fully formed, last Thursday. 73 00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:45,759 Speaker 1: And crucially, this cosmic forgery extends right down to us, 74 00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:48,159 to our own subjective experience. 75 00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,840 Speaker 2: Yes, our sources. Even the simple ELI five breakdowns of 76 00:03:51,879 --> 00:03:55,159 this emphasized that you and everybody else were created, pre 77 00:03:55,199 --> 00:03:58,800 programmed with a lifetime of memories that never actually happened, 78 00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:02,800 but they seem lessly metch with everyone else's implanted memories. 79 00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:05,400 It's not just the external world that's fake. The internal 80 00:04:05,479 --> 00:04:09,280 landscape of your mind is also a complete fabrication, and that. 81 00:04:09,159 --> 00:04:12,000 Speaker 1: Inherent absurdity is why it's so often used as satire. Right, 82 00:04:12,039 --> 00:04:13,560 It's a critique exactly. 83 00:04:13,719 --> 00:04:16,879 Speaker 2: It's a satirical critique that targets the logical weakness in 84 00:04:16,959 --> 00:04:21,879 Young Earth creationism or YEC. The argument is simple. If 85 00:04:21,959 --> 00:04:24,879 one accepts the premise that a creator made the world 86 00:04:24,959 --> 00:04:28,879 six thousand years ago, but included the appearance of age. 87 00:04:28,639 --> 00:04:31,399 Speaker 1: Like fossils already in the ground, or old looking rocks, 88 00:04:31,600 --> 00:04:32,040 or light. 89 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:34,439 Speaker 2: From stars that supposedly took millions of years to reach us. 90 00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:37,560 If you accept that, why place the creation moment six 91 00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:40,439 thousand years ago? Once you allow a creator to forge 92 00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:43,639 the evidential chain, the timeline becomes entirely arbitrary. 93 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:44,720 Speaker 1: Why not last Thursday? 94 00:04:44,759 --> 00:04:47,399 Speaker 2: Why not last Thursday? Why not five minutes ago? The 95 00:04:47,439 --> 00:04:50,920 satire just reveals that accepting the appearance of age makes 96 00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:55,000 dating the past a matter of theological preference, not empirical certainty. 97 00:04:55,199 --> 00:04:58,319 Speaker 1: And this concept is much older than modern internet satire. 98 00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:00,839 You said it has deep roots, stemming from a mid 99 00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:02,920 nineteenth century book called Umphalos. 100 00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:06,759 Speaker 2: Correct. The term last Thursdayism is derived directly from the 101 00:05:06,839 --> 00:05:10,160 Umphalos hypothesis. It was published by an English naturalist named 102 00:05:10,199 --> 00:05:13,680 Philip Henry Goss in eighteen fifty seven, and the timing 103 00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:16,360 here is absolutely critical. In the eighteen fifties, you have 104 00:05:16,439 --> 00:05:23,519 this massive disagreement between mounting geological and biological evidence for deep. 105 00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:27,800 Speaker 1: Time from people like Lyell and Darwin's ideas were just emerging. 106 00:05:27,399 --> 00:05:29,720 Speaker 2: Right, and all of that was clashing with the traditional 107 00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:32,959 scripturally derived timeline of a young Earth. It was reaching 108 00:05:32,959 --> 00:05:35,120 a breaking point for intellectuals. 109 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:36,160 Speaker 1: And Goss was caught in the middle. He was a 110 00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:38,439 devout Christian but also a competent scientist. 111 00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,920 Speaker 2: He was, and he was deeply troubled by this divide. 112 00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:45,319 He desperately needed a way to reconcile the empirical data 113 00:05:45,360 --> 00:05:48,920 he was observing with his religious convictions. So he argues 114 00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:52,560 for something he called prochronism, and this is the core 115 00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:56,600 logical mechanism of Umphalos. Prochronism is the argument that for 116 00:05:56,680 --> 00:06:00,439 any complex organic or ecological system to be fununctional at 117 00:06:00,439 --> 00:06:03,519 the exact moment of creation, it must already bear the 118 00:06:03,519 --> 00:06:05,480 marks of a prior, non existent history. 119 00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:08,720 Speaker 1: That sounds like a pretty brilliant piece of theological reasoning. 120 00:06:08,759 --> 00:06:11,800 Actually it acknowledges the facts while holding onto the faith. 121 00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:15,319 Speaker 2: He used very concrete, relatable examples to illustrate this. He said, 122 00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:18,839 look for Adam and Eve to be functional as created 123 00:06:19,199 --> 00:06:22,879 mature adults, they must have had fully grown hair, fingernails, 124 00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:27,279 and crucially, a navel Amphilus's Greek for naval, hence the title. 125 00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:29,199 Speaker 1: Even though they were never born, they never met an 126 00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:31,839 umbilical cord. So the navel is evidence of a past 127 00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:33,199 that didn't happen exactly. 128 00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:35,800 Speaker 2: It's a necessary fiction for a functional present. He said. 129 00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,959 The first trees must have had growth rings. Without growth rings, 130 00:06:38,959 --> 00:06:41,680 a tree isn't a mature tree capable of reproduction or 131 00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:42,600 structural support. 132 00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:46,199 Speaker 1: So Goss was arguing that this appearance of age wasn't 133 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:49,839 some malicious divine deception. It wasn't God trying to trick us. 134 00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:53,959 Speaker 2: No, he saw it as a logical structural necessity for 135 00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:58,720 the creation of a functional, mature, self sustaining universe. He 136 00:06:58,759 --> 00:07:02,360 wasn't accusing God of lyne. He was arguing that evidence 137 00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:05,240 of the past is simply part the design of a 138 00:07:05,279 --> 00:07:06,079 mature present. 139 00:07:06,439 --> 00:07:09,720 Speaker 1: He was trying to protect the creator's character. But the 140 00:07:09,759 --> 00:07:13,800 philosophical community, they didn't really buy it, did they not really? 141 00:07:13,879 --> 00:07:17,399 Speaker 2: They quickly recognized that this attempt to compromise ultimately failed 142 00:07:17,639 --> 00:07:20,800 because it just opened the door to the ultimate skeptical critique, 143 00:07:21,079 --> 00:07:23,680 the one that Russell would later formalize. 144 00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,519 Speaker 1: Ah, okay. So here's where it gets really interesting. It 145 00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,720 moves out of theology and into pure philosophy. In nineteen 146 00:07:28,759 --> 00:07:32,839 twenty one, Bertrand Russell proposes his famous five minute hypothesis 147 00:07:32,959 --> 00:07:33,639 Yes in his. 148 00:07:33,639 --> 00:07:36,879 Speaker 2: Work The Analysis of Mind, and this fundamentally shifted the 149 00:07:36,879 --> 00:07:40,560 debate from reconciling geology with scripture to purely analyzing the 150 00:07:40,639 --> 00:07:41,759 nature of knowledge itself. 151 00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:44,680 Speaker 1: He just stripped all the theological baggage away completely. 152 00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:48,199 Speaker 2: He just positive that the entire world could have sprung 153 00:07:48,240 --> 00:07:51,240 into being just five minutes ago, exactly as it was 154 00:07:51,279 --> 00:07:55,480 at that moment, complete with a population that remembered a 155 00:07:55,519 --> 00:07:56,839 wholly unreal past. 156 00:07:57,079 --> 00:08:00,240 Speaker 1: And this thought experiment was designed specifically to dissect what 157 00:08:00,279 --> 00:08:03,319 a memory even is. What was his conclusion? Why is 158 00:08:03,360 --> 00:08:04,439 it so revolutionary? 159 00:08:04,720 --> 00:08:10,000 Speaker 2: His core observation is it's radical and highly unsettling. He says, 160 00:08:10,040 --> 00:08:13,199 everything that constitutes a memory belief, the neural patterns in 161 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:16,480 your brain, the feelings of familiarity, the words you use 162 00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:19,279 to describe the event, All of that happens now in 163 00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:20,120 the present moment. 164 00:08:20,319 --> 00:08:23,000 Speaker 1: So my vivid memory of eating breakfast this morning, that's 165 00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:25,959 just a complex configuration of neurons firing in my brain 166 00:08:26,040 --> 00:08:29,160 right now. The memory itself is a present phenomenon exactly. 167 00:08:29,319 --> 00:08:31,920 Speaker 2: The belief refers to the past, but the contents of 168 00:08:31,959 --> 00:08:35,440 the belief are entirely present. So Russell concluded, there is 169 00:08:35,559 --> 00:08:39,240 no logical necessity whatsoever that the event we remember actually occurred. 170 00:08:39,799 --> 00:08:43,200 He argued, our knowledge of the past is wholly analyzable 171 00:08:43,200 --> 00:08:44,320 into present contents. 172 00:08:44,399 --> 00:08:46,759 Speaker 1: So the contents of our minds, the data, the neural 173 00:08:46,799 --> 00:08:50,440 structure could exist identically even if no past that existed 174 00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:51,720 before the last five minutes. 175 00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:55,519 Speaker 2: That's it. He essentially stripped history of its logical anchor. 176 00:08:56,440 --> 00:08:59,320 If we cannot prove that the things we remember actually happen, 177 00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:03,000 becomes logically vulnerable to collapse at any moment. 178 00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:07,480 Speaker 1: Wow. So Russell found the IDEO logically tenable, a perfectly 179 00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:09,399 valid logical proposition. 180 00:09:09,519 --> 00:09:13,480 Speaker 2: He did, he dismissed it as uninteresting as a serious 181 00:09:13,519 --> 00:09:17,000 truth claim. I mean, nobody genuinely believes this in practice. 182 00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:21,120 But he thought it was philosophically invaluable because it ruthlessly 183 00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:25,039 clarifies the absolute logical limits of our empirical knowledge. It 184 00:09:25,039 --> 00:09:27,799 tells us where logic stops and where practical assumption has 185 00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:28,159 to begin. 186 00:09:28,279 --> 00:09:31,919 Speaker 1: Okay, So If last thursdayism is logically tenable, we have 187 00:09:31,960 --> 00:09:35,399 to grapple with what that means. The theorem of indistinguishability. 188 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:37,279 This seems to be the core verdict. 189 00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:40,600 Speaker 2: It is the real past and the apparent forged past 190 00:09:40,759 --> 00:09:44,120 are empirically identical. There is no scientific tests that can 191 00:09:44,120 --> 00:09:44,639 separate them. 192 00:09:44,639 --> 00:09:45,679 Speaker 1: They're indistinguishable. 193 00:09:46,000 --> 00:09:50,080 Speaker 2: Sadly, yes, our sources encapsulate this logical verdict with this 194 00:09:50,159 --> 00:09:55,519 great phrase recreation without remainders. Imagine for a moment that 195 00:09:55,720 --> 00:09:58,480 our universe, or a previous version of it, let's call 196 00:09:58,519 --> 00:10:01,480 it Hero it ends and a new one, Kiro is 197 00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:05,879 created instantaneously. The critical verdict is that Kiro has absolutely 198 00:10:06,279 --> 00:10:08,240 no links to Kuro, no links at all. 199 00:10:08,279 --> 00:10:10,559 Speaker 1: What does that mean for artifacts for history? 200 00:10:10,799 --> 00:10:13,039 Speaker 2: It means that whether the past history of our world 201 00:10:13,519 --> 00:10:17,799 Kiro is simulated or re enacted, its accessible, verifiable history 202 00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:21,960 belongs solely to this current run. Any monuments or artifacts 203 00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:24,240 from the old world from Kiro, they only exist in 204 00:10:24,279 --> 00:10:27,120 the creator's memory. Let's call that. If that memory isn't 205 00:10:27,159 --> 00:10:28,679 explicitly shared with us, then for. 206 00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:30,639 Speaker 1: Us it's as if those things never were. 207 00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:32,840 Speaker 2: Exactly they left no empirical trace in our world. 208 00:10:33,039 --> 00:10:35,279 Speaker 1: This brings us to a crucial point about evidence, the 209 00:10:35,360 --> 00:10:39,919 reliability of physical evidence. Philosophers call it inanimate memory. Right, 210 00:10:40,159 --> 00:10:42,360 This is where science really hits a philosophical wall. 211 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:45,879 Speaker 2: Inanimate memory, Yes, it refers to the physical traces of 212 00:10:45,919 --> 00:10:49,320 past events. The growth rings on a tree, the strata 213 00:10:49,360 --> 00:10:52,000 of a canyon, the wear and tear on an ancient road. 214 00:10:52,639 --> 00:10:55,759 We generally interpret these physical facts as being caused by 215 00:10:55,759 --> 00:10:57,279 a preceding causal chain. 216 00:10:57,559 --> 00:11:00,200 Speaker 1: Let's use that forensic science example from our sources. It 217 00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:04,240 makes this so terrifyingly clear. Imagine investigators are called to 218 00:11:04,279 --> 00:11:07,519 a car collision. Red car hit a black one. They 219 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:10,120 use the paint flakes, the dents, the skid marks, the 220 00:11:10,120 --> 00:11:14,919 inanimate memory to reconstruct what happened. They conclude the collision happened. 221 00:11:14,639 --> 00:11:18,279 Speaker 2: Yesterday because the evidence points to a preceding causal chain 222 00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:21,519 that must have happened to produce this result. Now consider 223 00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:24,279 the LTA scenario. If the universe was created last Thursday, 224 00:11:24,399 --> 00:11:27,360 it was simply created in the post collision state. The 225 00:11:27,399 --> 00:11:30,159 paint flakes and dents exist now in the present, but 226 00:11:30,240 --> 00:11:33,080 they don't prove the collision occurred. They only prove that 227 00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:35,720 the universe was created last Thursday with paint flakes and 228 00:11:35,799 --> 00:11:39,720 dents in those specific locations. The past event is an illusion. 229 00:11:40,000 --> 00:11:42,320 Speaker 1: And this isn't just a quirky example. This applies to 230 00:11:42,399 --> 00:11:46,559 every single historical science. When an archaeologist dates a Roman 231 00:11:46,639 --> 00:11:50,399 ruin based on pottery, they assume that civilization actually made 232 00:11:50,399 --> 00:11:51,519 the pottery previously. 233 00:11:51,759 --> 00:11:55,240 Speaker 2: When a pealeontologist dates a fossil, they assumed the creature 234 00:11:55,320 --> 00:11:57,879 actually lived and died millions of years ago, and that 235 00:11:57,919 --> 00:12:01,840 the decay process was gradual. In the LTR reality, all 236 00:12:01,919 --> 00:12:05,519 empirical data is merely a detailed, present snapshot of the 237 00:12:05,519 --> 00:12:09,559 configuration of matter designed to look old. Any conclusion about 238 00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:12,679 the past, an asteroid impact, the age of the Earth, 239 00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:16,240 it's an inference that assumes the very continuity of nature 240 00:12:16,279 --> 00:12:19,720 we are questioning. Without that assumption, the evidence is just 241 00:12:20,440 --> 00:12:22,759 present data, not historical proof. 242 00:12:22,919 --> 00:12:26,039 Speaker 1: Okay, this is the foundational crisis. This is what underpins 243 00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:28,720 all of LTA at the problem of induction, and this 244 00:12:28,799 --> 00:12:30,639 is where it moves from a thought experiment to a 245 00:12:30,679 --> 00:12:32,480 genuine challenge to science itself. 246 00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:34,960 Speaker 2: This is David Hume's great challenge. All the way back 247 00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:38,039 in seventeen thirty nine, Hume observed that all our empirical 248 00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:42,600 predictions in all historical reconstructions rely on one massive, unprovable 249 00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,759 and essentially circular assumption that the future will be like 250 00:12:45,799 --> 00:12:50,240 the past, or more formally, that nature is uniform. 251 00:12:49,759 --> 00:12:52,559 Speaker 1: And we use induction constantly. We see the sun has 252 00:12:52,639 --> 00:12:55,240 risen every day, so we induce the prediction that the 253 00:12:55,279 --> 00:12:58,360 sun will rise tomorrow. It's essential for survival. 254 00:12:58,799 --> 00:13:01,960 Speaker 2: But Hume pointed out that this belief isn't rationally justified 255 00:13:01,960 --> 00:13:05,840 by logic. It's simply a habit of mind, an inductive 256 00:13:05,879 --> 00:13:09,679 inference based on past uniformity. When we try to justify 257 00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:12,840 induction rationally, we run into a circle. We say, well, 258 00:13:12,879 --> 00:13:15,720 it has worked successfully in the past, which is itself 259 00:13:15,759 --> 00:13:16,879 an inductive inference. 260 00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:19,159 Speaker 1: Right, You can't use induction to prove induction. 261 00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:21,600 Speaker 2: You can't. We cannot prove the laws of nature will 262 00:13:21,600 --> 00:13:25,360 remain constant without assuming the very regularity we're trying to establish. 263 00:13:25,960 --> 00:13:29,279 The principle of uniformity is logically insecure. 264 00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:32,080 Speaker 1: And Last thursdayism exploits this gap perfectly. It drives a 265 00:13:32,120 --> 00:13:34,679 cosmic truck right through that logical insecurity. 266 00:13:34,879 --> 00:13:38,120 Speaker 2: Precisely, if we cannot prove that the laws of nature 267 00:13:38,159 --> 00:13:40,960 were the same yesterday or even five minutes ago. We 268 00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:44,879 cannot prove yesterday existed at all. LTA suggests the laws 269 00:13:44,879 --> 00:13:48,000 of physics were created last Thursday, along with the universe, 270 00:13:48,320 --> 00:13:51,200 and their apparent past action like the thirteen point eight 271 00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:54,120 billion years of expansion, is merely an illusion. 272 00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:56,919 Speaker 1: So if the laws of physics aren't guaranteed to be uniform, 273 00:13:57,120 --> 00:13:59,919 then the whole edifice of science, which relies entirely on 274 00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:03,080 that uniformity, it becomes vulnerable. 275 00:14:03,159 --> 00:14:05,279 Speaker 2: It does, which brings us to the big takeaway for 276 00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:11,320 scientific methodology, the unfalsifiability of last thursdayism. If science, following 277 00:14:11,399 --> 00:14:14,639 Karl Pokers is about testing and falsifying theories, how do 278 00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:17,200 you deal with a theory that's just immune to evidence. 279 00:14:17,279 --> 00:14:19,840 Speaker 1: It sounds like the ultimate philosophical black box. 280 00:14:19,879 --> 00:14:24,279 Speaker 2: It is scientifically unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It's impossible to conclude 281 00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:27,639 its truth or falsehood. Because the hypothesis explicitly requires that 282 00:14:27,679 --> 00:14:30,639 the data itself was created to look old. It's logically 283 00:14:30,639 --> 00:14:33,440 designed to absorb any potential evidence that might contradict it. 284 00:14:33,679 --> 00:14:37,039 Speaker 1: So if a scientist discovers definitive evidence of an event 285 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:41,200 from before last Thursdays, say a quantum decay, residue that's 286 00:14:41,279 --> 00:14:44,799 demonstrably one hundred thousand years old. The Last Thursday is 287 00:14:44,879 --> 00:14:45,519 just shrugs. 288 00:14:45,639 --> 00:14:49,240 Speaker 2: They just say that decay residue was also created last Thursday. 289 00:14:49,519 --> 00:14:52,519 The creator engineered it to look exactly one hundred thousand 290 00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:53,080 years old. 291 00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,000 Speaker 1: This is why LTA is often dismissed as sterile. It 292 00:14:56,080 --> 00:14:59,000 offers no explanatory power and no testable predictions. 293 00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:01,159 Speaker 2: And we have to just distinguished this from the method 294 00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:03,879 science actually uses, which is uniformitarianism. 295 00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:08,000 Speaker 1: Right. Uniformitarianism is the essential working assumption that physics has 296 00:15:08,039 --> 00:15:11,639 been constant, that the processes we see now erosion, gravity, 297 00:15:11,639 --> 00:15:15,200 thermodynamics have always operated at roughly the same rate. Our 298 00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,799 sources argue there is no logically defensible, non arbitrary position 299 00:15:19,159 --> 00:15:23,639 between provisionally accepting uniformitarianism, which is justified by interlocking lines 300 00:15:23,639 --> 00:15:26,840 of evidence and collapsing entirely into Last thursdayism. 301 00:15:26,919 --> 00:15:29,360 Speaker 2: We use it because it works, not because it's logically 302 00:15:29,399 --> 00:15:30,279 certain exactly. 303 00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:32,879 Speaker 1: And to make this philosophical mess even worse, we have 304 00:15:32,919 --> 00:15:35,799 what's called the new riddle of induction from Nelson Goodman. 305 00:15:36,080 --> 00:15:38,759 He uses this concept of grew grew. 306 00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:42,080 Speaker 2: Spelled g r u E. That's the one The grew 307 00:15:42,159 --> 00:15:46,039 riddle shows how the same finite present evidence can support 308 00:15:46,120 --> 00:15:50,480 contradictory hypotheses about the future or past. Goodman defined grew 309 00:15:50,639 --> 00:15:54,720 to mean an object is green until some arbitrary future 310 00:15:54,759 --> 00:15:58,559 time delate. Let's say January first, twenty fifty, and it's 311 00:15:58,600 --> 00:16:01,879 blue thereafter. Okay, Now, if all the emeralds you've ever 312 00:16:01,919 --> 00:16:05,600 observed so far are green, that evidence also perfectly supports 313 00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:07,159 the hypothesis that they are. 314 00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:09,480 Speaker 1: Grow because up until now, a grew emerald and a 315 00:16:09,519 --> 00:16:12,559 green emerald are visually identical, so induction doesn't help us 316 00:16:12,639 --> 00:16:13,480 choose between. 317 00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:17,159 Speaker 2: Them exactly the current evidence supports infinite possible future paths. 318 00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:20,879 LT eight is precisely this kind of grew like theory, 319 00:16:21,279 --> 00:16:24,879 but for time, the universe looks thirteen point eight billion 320 00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:27,679 years old right up until the specific moment of creation 321 00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:30,720 last Thursday. At that point it switches from the old 322 00:16:30,799 --> 00:16:33,960 hypothesis to the new one, while remaining empirically identical in 323 00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:36,559 the present. It just illustrates that our theories are fundamentally 324 00:16:36,679 --> 00:16:38,679 underdetermined by the evidence we have right now. 325 00:16:38,799 --> 00:16:42,919 Speaker 1: So last thursdayism is immune to Popper's falsification challenge because 326 00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:46,679 it absorbs all evidence and It highlights the weakness in 327 00:16:46,759 --> 00:16:49,639 Hume's problem of induction because it shows the uniformity of 328 00:16:49,720 --> 00:16:53,039 nature is an assumption, not a proof. That is, that 329 00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:57,879 is a formidable philosophical position. Last thursdayism is one vertex 330 00:16:57,919 --> 00:17:00,360 in what we could call this the skeptical trend that 331 00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:04,119 modern philosophers and physicists wrestle with. It sits alongside the 332 00:17:04,119 --> 00:17:08,279 simulation hypothesis and the truly unsettling concept of the Boltzmann brain. 333 00:17:08,559 --> 00:17:09,720 Let's look at how these compare. 334 00:17:09,839 --> 00:17:11,920 Speaker 2: They all present a challenge to the reliability of our 335 00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:15,240 perception and memory, for sure, but their mechanisms and implications 336 00:17:15,279 --> 00:17:18,519 are very different. Let's start with the simulation hypothesis SH, 337 00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:22,119 which posits that our reality is just a sophisticated computer 338 00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:26,279 generated construct, probably run by some advanced post human civilization. 339 00:17:26,519 --> 00:17:29,640 Speaker 1: And SH and LTA share that fundamental roadblock we talked 340 00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:32,480 about the theorem of indistinguishability. 341 00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:35,279 Speaker 2: Right if the simulation or the creation is perfect, if 342 00:17:35,319 --> 00:17:39,400 the programmer or creator is infinitely detailed, there's no internal 343 00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:42,160 test we can run that could reveal the underlying mechanism. 344 00:17:42,400 --> 00:17:44,759 We can't run a diagnostic that points that the hardware 345 00:17:44,799 --> 00:17:45,960 outside the system we're in. 346 00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:50,240 Speaker 1: But the mechanisms are fundamentally different. LT eight posits a 347 00:17:50,279 --> 00:17:54,119 divine or at least a powerful satirical act of instantaneous creation. 348 00:17:54,720 --> 00:17:58,759 It's basically magic. SH, though is often framed as a 349 00:17:58,839 --> 00:18:00,000 naturalistic possibility. 350 00:18:00,920 --> 00:18:04,599 Speaker 2: That is the critical distinction. The simulation hypothesis doesn't require 351 00:18:04,599 --> 00:18:08,160 a metaphysical jump. It rests on a probabilistic argument. The 352 00:18:08,359 --> 00:18:10,440 argument is that one of three things must be true. 353 00:18:11,160 --> 00:18:14,720 Either civilizations go extinct before they can run ancestor simulations, 354 00:18:14,799 --> 00:18:17,200 or they choose not to. Or this is the key. 355 00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:20,960 The number of simulated minds eventually vastly outnumbers the number 356 00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:22,640 of minds in base reality. 357 00:18:22,799 --> 00:18:25,160 Speaker 1: And if that last one is true, then statistically you 358 00:18:25,200 --> 00:18:27,480 are overwhelmingly likely to be in a simulation. 359 00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:32,880 Speaker 2: Exactly so, LTH is a philosophical thought experiment to critique theology, 360 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:38,079 whereas SH is a statistical extrapolation based on potential future 361 00:18:38,079 --> 00:18:44,160 technology and another thing. SH doesn't necessarily imply an omnipotent, omniscient, 362 00:18:44,559 --> 00:18:47,880 or singular creator, which is central to the theistic root 363 00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:48,680 of LTH. 364 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:51,400 Speaker 1: Right, the simulation could be run by some I don't know, 365 00:18:51,519 --> 00:18:55,359 some average Joe higher race for a class project. 366 00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:57,680 Speaker 2: Or it could be paused and restarted without our knowledge, 367 00:18:58,079 --> 00:19:00,480 or run on an infinite loop. It makes the creator 368 00:19:00,519 --> 00:19:03,079 far less predictable than a classically defined god. 369 00:19:03,240 --> 00:19:06,039 Speaker 1: You know, when we compare them. The simulation hypothesis almost 370 00:19:06,039 --> 00:19:08,920 seems tame. It operates within a high tech version of physics. 371 00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:12,440 But the third member of this trinity, the existential nightmare 372 00:19:12,480 --> 00:19:15,160 known as the Boltzmann brain, that completely breaks physics. 373 00:19:15,319 --> 00:19:19,640 Speaker 2: The Boltzmann Brain or BB, named after physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, 374 00:19:19,839 --> 00:19:23,240 it's arguably the most deeply unsettling of the three. A 375 00:19:23,240 --> 00:19:25,440 B B is a self aware entity, literally just a 376 00:19:25,480 --> 00:19:29,680 brain that arises spontaneously from random thermodynamic fluctuations in a 377 00:19:29,759 --> 00:19:32,480 high entropy universe, like in a vacuum or deep space. 378 00:19:32,880 --> 00:19:35,480 And worst of all, it comes complete with fully formed 379 00:19:35,519 --> 00:19:37,519 false memories of a past that never occurred. 380 00:19:37,680 --> 00:19:40,960 Speaker 1: I understand the mechanism is just sheer random statistical chance. 381 00:19:41,319 --> 00:19:43,319 How is this considered worse than LTA? 382 00:19:43,519 --> 00:19:47,079 Speaker 2: Well, LTCH is a parody of divine action. It requires 383 00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:51,960 a willful, external, deliberate deception a creator. The BB, however, 384 00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:55,400 is a probabilistic thread that arises within the accepted framework 385 00:19:55,440 --> 00:19:59,599 of naturalism and statistical mechanics. The core argument is based 386 00:19:59,599 --> 00:20:02,079 on prop ability in an infinite universe. 387 00:20:02,319 --> 00:20:05,400 Speaker 1: Run us through that probabilistic argument again. Why is just 388 00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:09,519 a brain more likely than a whole ordered cosmos In. 389 00:20:09,480 --> 00:20:12,480 Speaker 2: An infinite high entropy universe that lasts forever, like a 390 00:20:12,480 --> 00:20:16,319 heat death scenario, there will be random fluctuations. It is 391 00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:20,799 mathematically statistically more likely for a single, minimum viable conscious 392 00:20:20,839 --> 00:20:24,759 brain to spontaneously pop into existence with false memories than 393 00:20:24,799 --> 00:20:27,960 it is for an entire complex, low entropy universe like ours, 394 00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:30,200 to evolve through orderly natural processes. 395 00:20:30,319 --> 00:20:33,519 Speaker 1: That's horrifying. So the complexity we see, the stars, the planet, 396 00:20:33,559 --> 00:20:36,240 this conversation, it's not seen as evidence of a thirteen 397 00:20:36,279 --> 00:20:39,759 point eight billion year history, but rather as overwhelming proof 398 00:20:39,799 --> 00:20:42,319 that this entire complex picture is less likely than a 399 00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:44,599 single observer spontaneously hallucinating it. 400 00:20:44,839 --> 00:20:48,759 Speaker 2: Exactly. The lt Gock observer is often programmed alongside others, 401 00:20:49,079 --> 00:20:52,759 everyone shares the same false past. The Boltzmann brain, however, 402 00:20:52,839 --> 00:20:57,119 is utterly alone. It is a completely solipsistic experience. The 403 00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:01,440 BB is hallucinating its entire social and physical reality, and 404 00:21:01,440 --> 00:21:04,359 this is why physicists find it so troublesome. If the 405 00:21:04,359 --> 00:21:08,920 BB scenario is true, our observed reality is statistically highly unlikely, 406 00:21:09,160 --> 00:21:11,519 and we have to abandon the statistical methods we use 407 00:21:11,559 --> 00:21:12,720 to study cosmology. 408 00:21:12,880 --> 00:21:15,839 Speaker 1: So this shared skeptical thrust, whether it's a divine trickery, 409 00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:19,680 technological simulation, or statistical chaos, it brings us right back 410 00:21:19,680 --> 00:21:21,160 to the problem of solypsism. 411 00:21:21,599 --> 00:21:24,240 Speaker 2: Right. Sollpsism is the belief that only one's own mind 412 00:21:24,359 --> 00:21:28,720 is certain to exist. Ltaight is sometimes viewed as temporal solypsism, 413 00:21:28,759 --> 00:21:32,359 the denial of reality outside the immediate present moment. If 414 00:21:32,400 --> 00:21:34,960 you take the satirical interpretation of LT, where the world 415 00:21:35,039 --> 00:21:37,480 was created solely for you, then everyone else is just 416 00:21:37,519 --> 00:21:40,759 an MPC, a non player character, a pre programmed part 417 00:21:40,799 --> 00:21:41,440 of your environment. 418 00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:45,000 Speaker 1: The beauty and the danger of this skeptical trinity is 419 00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:48,480 that it isolates the self and asks one ruthless question, 420 00:21:49,039 --> 00:21:52,359 what definitive proof do you have that anything external to 421 00:21:52,400 --> 00:21:55,759 your present consciousness is real? When we circle back to 422 00:21:55,759 --> 00:22:00,039 the theological roots of this, specifically the Enfhlowes hypothesis, the 423 00:22:00,079 --> 00:22:05,039 philosophical critique turns into a profound ethical and theological crisis. 424 00:22:05,319 --> 00:22:07,880 It's about the character of a supposed creator. 425 00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:11,720 Speaker 2: Absolutely, if a creator went to this incredible trouble of 426 00:22:11,759 --> 00:22:15,279 manufacturing a world that looks thirteen point eight billion years 427 00:22:15,279 --> 00:22:18,599 old when it's only a week old. Then that creator is, 428 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:22,680 by any reasonable definition, an ultimate deceiver, and that directly 429 00:22:22,759 --> 00:22:26,000 challenges the notion of a benevolent, honest, or truthful deity 430 00:22:26,160 --> 00:22:27,319 that many traditions assume. 431 00:22:27,519 --> 00:22:29,960 Speaker 1: This is often framed as the problem of the two books, right, 432 00:22:30,079 --> 00:22:33,319 the idea that God writes two simultaneous conflicting narratives. 433 00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:35,359 Speaker 2: Precisely, you have the Book of Nature, which is all 434 00:22:35,400 --> 00:22:39,759 scientific evidence deep time, from geology, evolution, cosmic expansion. Then 435 00:22:39,799 --> 00:22:42,680 you have the Book of Revelation, which scriptural interpretations often 436 00:22:42,759 --> 00:22:45,119 use to claim a recent creation. If God is truthful, 437 00:22:45,359 --> 00:22:47,160 these books have to reconcile somehow. 438 00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:49,640 Speaker 1: But the crisis is that LTAH makes the Book of 439 00:22:49,759 --> 00:22:54,599 Nature essentially a massive cosmic lie. Why would a truthful, 440 00:22:54,640 --> 00:22:59,799 benevolent God provide physical evidence fossils, starlight, radioactive decay that 441 00:23:00,119 --> 00:23:03,759 systematically and flawlessly leads to a scientific conclusion he knows 442 00:23:03,799 --> 00:23:07,200 to be false? Why provide nature as a deceptive trail? 443 00:23:07,640 --> 00:23:10,640 Speaker 2: The theological retort which our sources off in site, tries 444 00:23:10,680 --> 00:23:13,559 to shift the moral burden It says, you are assuming 445 00:23:13,559 --> 00:23:15,960 that God owes creatures the full story, and that is 446 00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:19,680 an assumption, the idea being that God is transcendent and 447 00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:23,359 we can't impose human moral categories like deception on divine action. 448 00:23:23,680 --> 00:23:26,279 Speaker 1: But the powerful counter reply, also in our sources, brings 449 00:23:26,279 --> 00:23:29,279 it back to the concept of love and parental duty. 450 00:23:29,599 --> 00:23:31,839 It says, I am assuming that love has something to 451 00:23:31,839 --> 00:23:34,039 do with not letting your children walk blind into the 452 00:23:34,079 --> 00:23:34,720 same fire. 453 00:23:36,000 --> 00:23:39,519 Speaker 2: If a second creation QO is given absolutely no hint 454 00:23:39,559 --> 00:23:42,720 of the previous creation q no scars, no warnings, no 455 00:23:42,799 --> 00:23:45,759 lessons learned, then the creator is essentially hiding history that 456 00:23:45,880 --> 00:23:48,000 might be vital for the moral and spiritual development of 457 00:23:48,039 --> 00:23:48,559 the new world. 458 00:23:48,799 --> 00:23:51,799 Speaker 1: This whole dilemma then crystallizes into the question of trust, 459 00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:55,000 which philosophers denote with the symbol for tao. 460 00:23:55,640 --> 00:24:00,759 Speaker 2: Yes, if the new creation QIRO doesn't disclose the existence 461 00:24:00,799 --> 00:24:04,240 of previous creations, then our belief about our own age 462 00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:07,519 is not an empirical conclusion drawn from data. It becomes 463 00:24:07,559 --> 00:24:09,920 an act of trust in the creator's character. 464 00:24:10,000 --> 00:24:13,079 Speaker 1: In chow, and if that creator is demonstrably willing to 465 00:24:13,079 --> 00:24:17,599 commit planetary skill fraud, that trust seems well immediately undermined. 466 00:24:17,799 --> 00:24:20,400 Speaker 2: That is the crux of the moral objection. Our sources 467 00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:23,160 point out that if a mortal human, say a master 468 00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:27,720 art forger, when to this much trouble meticulously faking brushstrokes 469 00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:30,480 and aging paper to deceive a museum, we would accuse 470 00:24:30,559 --> 00:24:34,440 him of criminal fraud, malicious manipulation, profound dishonesty. 471 00:24:34,839 --> 00:24:38,079 Speaker 1: So why does a deity who claims perfection and goodness 472 00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:40,599 get a moral pass on this cosmic deception? 473 00:24:40,799 --> 00:24:43,559 Speaker 2: Well, the counter argument is that benevolence can include deception. 474 00:24:43,880 --> 00:24:46,079 Some argue that God might have to hide his presence 475 00:24:46,200 --> 00:24:48,960 or deceive us about the universe's true age if the 476 00:24:48,960 --> 00:24:52,200 full raw truth would do more harm than good, maybe. 477 00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:55,440 Speaker 1: To ensure free will remains uncompromised, or to achieve some 478 00:24:55,559 --> 00:24:57,839 higher good we can't comprehend exactly. 479 00:24:58,279 --> 00:25:02,559 Speaker 2: But this defense immediately makes God's existence a less parsimonious claim, 480 00:25:03,000 --> 00:25:06,200 a less probable claim, because LT eight requires that we 481 00:25:06,240 --> 00:25:11,440 constantly pile on numerous unevidenced excuses free will higher ends 482 00:25:11,839 --> 00:25:15,680 incomprehensible benevolence to make the physical evidence fit the claim 483 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:16,559 of recent creation. 484 00:25:16,880 --> 00:25:19,119 Speaker 1: And this is where the philosophical tools we use to 485 00:25:19,119 --> 00:25:22,720 dismantle LT eight overlap with how we assess any extraordinary 486 00:25:22,960 --> 00:25:27,359 historical claim like claims of miracles or resurrection, which require 487 00:25:27,440 --> 00:25:29,319 violations of the uniformity of nature. 488 00:25:29,440 --> 00:25:33,039 Speaker 2: Absolutely, we move from the theological crisis into pure epistemology 489 00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:36,559 by using Beaesian reasoning to assess the probability of these claims. 490 00:25:36,799 --> 00:25:40,440 The skepticism in lth is the exact same skepticism required 491 00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:41,599 to analyze miracles. 492 00:25:41,920 --> 00:25:44,480 Speaker 1: Let's break down the Beaesan argument slowly, because this is 493 00:25:44,519 --> 00:25:47,759 a mathematically crucial point. It forces us to consider the 494 00:25:47,759 --> 00:25:50,160 prior probability of an event before we even look at 495 00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:50,720 the evidence. 496 00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:53,799 Speaker 2: Right. Think of it like a crime. If we hear 497 00:25:53,839 --> 00:25:56,240 a rumor a local baker stole a loaf of bread, 498 00:25:56,440 --> 00:26:00,640 the prior probability is relatively high. Baker sometimes steel. If 499 00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:02,880 we hear a rumor the local baker transformed into a 500 00:26:02,960 --> 00:26:05,519 dragon and flew away with the bank vault, the prior 501 00:26:05,559 --> 00:26:09,720 probability is astronomically low. The lower the prior, the higher 502 00:26:09,759 --> 00:26:10,839 the burden of evidence. 503 00:26:11,039 --> 00:26:13,039 Speaker 1: Okay, so now let's apply that to the resurrection. We 504 00:26:13,079 --> 00:26:16,240 start with the prior probability pr what's the chance that 505 00:26:16,319 --> 00:26:19,519 any arbitrary person in history resurrects. 506 00:26:19,319 --> 00:26:22,119 Speaker 2: Our sources stressed that pr has to be calculated based 507 00:26:22,160 --> 00:26:25,039 on the sheer overwhelming amount of data we have, and 508 00:26:25,079 --> 00:26:28,960 the probability that any arbitrary person in history resurrected is 509 00:26:29,400 --> 00:26:32,480 really really low, maybe one in a billion, because nearly 510 00:26:32,519 --> 00:26:35,400 all dead people do not, in fact resurrect The laws 511 00:26:35,400 --> 00:26:37,720 of biology are overwhelmingly uniform on. 512 00:26:37,680 --> 00:26:41,000 Speaker 1: This point, So that initial extremely low prior probability is 513 00:26:41,000 --> 00:26:43,880 our logical anchor. Now we factor in the historical evidence, 514 00:26:43,920 --> 00:26:45,880 the testimony of witnesses, the written accounts. 515 00:26:46,279 --> 00:26:49,079 Speaker 2: Even if we are absurdly generous and assume we have 516 00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:53,119 extremely strong historical evidence, Let's say the probability of the 517 00:26:53,160 --> 00:26:57,640 evidence given the resurrection is one. Even then the resulting 518 00:26:57,680 --> 00:27:01,200 posterior probability, the probability of the resurreme direction actually happened, 519 00:27:01,279 --> 00:27:05,559 given the evidence remains astronomically low, perhaps one in a million. 520 00:27:05,680 --> 00:27:08,880 Speaker 1: Why does it stay so low even with perfect historical evidence. 521 00:27:09,359 --> 00:27:12,880 Speaker 2: Because the claim is so extraordinary that the initial low 522 00:27:13,039 --> 00:27:17,400 prior probability is almost impossible to overcome with evidence that is, 523 00:27:17,839 --> 00:27:22,079 by its nature subject to error, bias, or hallucination. It's 524 00:27:22,200 --> 00:27:25,799 just much more probable that the witnesses were mistaken or deceived. 525 00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:28,799 Than it is that the laws of biology were fundamentally violated. 526 00:27:28,839 --> 00:27:32,079 Speaker 1: So the conclusion is that extraordinary claims require much stronger 527 00:27:32,119 --> 00:27:34,599 evidence than what you can get from historical records alone. 528 00:27:34,640 --> 00:27:39,440 Speaker 2: Precisely, today, we demand DNA tests, continuous video footage, extensive 529 00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:43,559 medical examination by multiple independent doctors. Those channels of evidence 530 00:27:43,559 --> 00:27:45,880 aren't accessible in ancient history. So we have to choose 531 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:48,920 between the uniformity of nature a dead body stays dead, 532 00:27:49,240 --> 00:27:51,160 and the veracity of the historical testimony. 533 00:27:51,319 --> 00:27:54,240 Speaker 1: And this ties right back to physics and biology, which 534 00:27:54,359 --> 00:27:58,240 lth also challenges. A resurrection isn't just a historical oddity, 535 00:27:58,319 --> 00:28:01,400 it's a violation of physical law, an absolute violation. 536 00:28:01,680 --> 00:28:04,839 Speaker 2: Our sources detail the process. Within twenty four to seventy 537 00:28:04,839 --> 00:28:09,319 two hours after death, decomposition begins driven biotolysis, the rupture 538 00:28:09,319 --> 00:28:12,200 of cell membranes by their own enzymes. The brain, which 539 00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:16,039 is eighty percent water, rapidly liquefies. To reverse that after 540 00:28:16,079 --> 00:28:19,160 three days requires what our sources call external mettling at 541 00:28:19,160 --> 00:28:23,960 the molecular level, a massive, active violation of thermodynamics and biology. 542 00:28:24,160 --> 00:28:27,160 Speaker 1: So, whether we're talking about ltaight or miracles, the philosophical 543 00:28:27,240 --> 00:28:30,440 challenge is identical. Both require us to accept a massive, 544 00:28:30,640 --> 00:28:35,559 unprovable and unfalsifiable violation of established physics, and uniformity both 545 00:28:35,599 --> 00:28:38,119 expose our deep reliance on the assumption that nature just 546 00:28:38,160 --> 00:28:42,640 operates consistently. This whole philosophical rabbit hole from last Thursdayism 547 00:28:42,640 --> 00:28:44,599 to the Boltzmann brain and can quickly lead to global 548 00:28:44,640 --> 00:28:47,480 skepticism where you doubt everything. But obviously we have to 549 00:28:47,480 --> 00:28:49,519 find a way to live right to do science. 550 00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:53,160 Speaker 2: That is the ultimate pragmatic dilemma. If we follow this 551 00:28:53,240 --> 00:28:56,160 thread to its logical end, we just descend into a 552 00:28:56,160 --> 00:29:01,839 philosophical stalemate that's useless. The paradox is stark to deny 553 00:29:01,960 --> 00:29:05,119 we can know the past while using technology like computers 554 00:29:05,160 --> 00:29:09,160 and telecommunications, all built on accurate historical modeling, and the 555 00:29:09,160 --> 00:29:12,680 assumption of physical uniformity is fundamentally contradictory. 556 00:29:12,759 --> 00:29:15,519 Speaker 1: It's the ultimate logical trap. If you claim to know 557 00:29:15,599 --> 00:29:18,559 you're being deceived by lts, you have to rely on 558 00:29:18,599 --> 00:29:20,759 the premise that you're not being deceived, and the mechanism 559 00:29:20,839 --> 00:29:24,079 you're using to judge that the whole thing collaxes it does. 560 00:29:24,359 --> 00:29:26,720 Speaker 2: We need a foundation for our knowledge, even if that 561 00:29:26,759 --> 00:29:30,240 foundation isn't logically secured by induction, and this is where 562 00:29:30,240 --> 00:29:34,440 philosophers make the pragmatic pivot and embrace the concept of fallibilism. 563 00:29:34,640 --> 00:29:38,279 Speaker 1: How does pragmatism save us from the logical onslaught of lts, 564 00:29:38,319 --> 00:29:40,839 which we've established is logically tenable. 565 00:29:41,039 --> 00:29:43,839 Speaker 2: Well, philosophers like Hans Reichenbach argued for what's called the 566 00:29:43,880 --> 00:29:49,599 pragmatic justification, induction is simply a best bet. Rickenbox's argument 567 00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:52,720 is basically a forced choice. If the world is orderly 568 00:29:52,759 --> 00:29:56,440 in uniform then induction works. It's the only tool that 569 00:29:56,480 --> 00:29:59,559 will let us predict things and build knowledge. But if 570 00:29:59,599 --> 00:30:03,279 the world is unordered, chaotic, or governed by LT style deception, 571 00:30:03,799 --> 00:30:07,920 then nothing will work and all knowledge fails anyway. 572 00:30:07,200 --> 00:30:09,960 Speaker 1: So we have two possibilities. If the world is ordered, 573 00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:12,920 we win by using induction. If the world is unordered, 574 00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:15,279 we lose no matter what we do. So we should 575 00:30:15,359 --> 00:30:18,240 rationally choose the orderly path because it's the only one 576 00:30:18,240 --> 00:30:19,920 with a chance of success. Right. 577 00:30:20,160 --> 00:30:22,799 Speaker 2: We are compelled to believe in the uniformity of nature, 578 00:30:22,880 --> 00:30:26,519 as Hume argued, because of our cognitive structure, but Weickenbach 579 00:30:26,559 --> 00:30:29,200 gives us a pragmatic reason for adopting that belief as 580 00:30:29,240 --> 00:30:33,400 a working hypothesis. It's not proven, but it's necessary for progress. 581 00:30:33,559 --> 00:30:36,599 Speaker 1: And Charles Pierce deepened this by arguing that knowledge is 582 00:30:36,599 --> 00:30:39,720 what is faded to be ultimately agreed to by all 583 00:30:39,720 --> 00:30:40,519 who investigate. 584 00:30:40,880 --> 00:30:44,839 Speaker 2: Pierce argued the truth is fundamentally intersubjective and provisional. It 585 00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:48,319 requires sufficient time and the research community to converge on 586 00:30:48,359 --> 00:30:51,960 the most very similar theory, discarding rivals that are logically 587 00:30:52,000 --> 00:30:55,440 equivalent but well explanatorily inferior. 588 00:30:55,519 --> 00:30:58,039 Speaker 1: We see this in the history of science. For a time, 589 00:30:58,119 --> 00:31:01,880 the fleagistan theory of combustion was empirically competitive with early 590 00:31:01,960 --> 00:31:03,119 ideas about oxygen. 591 00:31:03,279 --> 00:31:06,640 Speaker 2: That's a perfect example. The flogistin theory explained burning as 592 00:31:06,759 --> 00:31:10,599 releasing a substance called phlogistin into the air. It worked 593 00:31:10,599 --> 00:31:14,880 for centuries, but scientists observed anomalies like metals gaining weight 594 00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:18,039 when burned, which would imply flogistint had negative weight. That's 595 00:31:18,039 --> 00:31:18,559 a problem. 596 00:31:18,599 --> 00:31:21,680 Speaker 1: And then Lavoisier and others came along isolated oxygen and 597 00:31:21,759 --> 00:31:25,480 offered a superior theory. Burning was about combining with oxygen, 598 00:31:25,559 --> 00:31:26,680 not releasing flogistin. 599 00:31:27,119 --> 00:31:31,960 Speaker 2: Right, the oxygen theory eventually displaced flogiston not because flogistm 600 00:31:32,039 --> 00:31:36,279 was illogical, but because technology better scales gas analysis allowed 601 00:31:36,279 --> 00:31:39,440 researchers to perform crucial tests and see which theory had 602 00:31:39,440 --> 00:31:44,119 more explanatory power. The two theories were transiently underdetermined by 603 00:31:44,119 --> 00:31:46,480 the data at one point in time, but given more 604 00:31:46,480 --> 00:31:49,759 time and investigation, the community converged on the better answer. 605 00:31:50,279 --> 00:31:53,200 Speaker 1: So even if the last Thursday claims the world was 606 00:31:53,240 --> 00:31:56,200 created last Thursday and we claim it's thirteen point eight 607 00:31:56,319 --> 00:31:59,559 billion years old, given enough time, the thirteen point eight 608 00:31:59,559 --> 00:32:03,279 billion US theory just keeps getting reinforced by convergence. In 609 00:32:03,440 --> 00:32:07,640 every field geology, physics, biology, the lt theory produces nothing good, 610 00:32:07,720 --> 00:32:09,279 only excuses, and this. 611 00:32:09,359 --> 00:32:12,039 Speaker 2: Is the core of the fallibilist stance. We acknowledge that 612 00:32:12,079 --> 00:32:15,480 mistakes in our scientific models are inevitable, but they're correctible 613 00:32:15,519 --> 00:32:19,119 through testing and community consensus. The rejection of lts and 614 00:32:19,160 --> 00:32:23,319 other hyper skeptical hypotheses is ultimately a pragmatic commitment, a 615 00:32:23,400 --> 00:32:27,039 choice to move forward, not a logical certainty. Objective knowledge 616 00:32:27,079 --> 00:32:29,839 for the fallibilist is still possible despite the absence of 617 00:32:29,880 --> 00:32:30,960 an infallible foundation. 618 00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:34,720 Speaker 1: So the ultimate lesson is that while LTCH is logically tenable, 619 00:32:34,839 --> 00:32:39,880 as Russell concluded a century ago, it's ultimately uninteresting because 620 00:32:39,880 --> 00:32:41,680 it leads to intellectual paralysis. 621 00:32:41,720 --> 00:32:45,599 Speaker 2: It's completely unproductive whether the universe began thirteen point eight 622 00:32:45,599 --> 00:32:48,640 billion years ago or last Thursday. The laws of physics 623 00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:51,440 we observe today, the laws that let us build phones 624 00:32:51,480 --> 00:32:55,039 and understand chemistry, remain the only reliable guide we have. 625 00:32:55,319 --> 00:32:57,559 We are compelled to live as if the past is real, 626 00:32:57,759 --> 00:33:01,839 because to do otherwise render science, technologlogy, and conscious life impossible. 627 00:33:02,440 --> 00:33:05,200 We have to choose to rely on the uniformity of nature. 628 00:33:05,559 --> 00:33:07,400 It's the only rope we have to climb. 629 00:33:07,559 --> 00:33:10,079 Speaker 1: The stars are still there, you are still here, and 630 00:33:10,160 --> 00:33:14,400 this present moment, with all its verifiable, interlocking evidence, it's 631 00:33:14,480 --> 00:33:16,599 already more mystery than we know what to do with. 632 00:33:17,160 --> 00:33:19,160 We have to trust our nature that compels us to 633 00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:22,480 believe in that uniformity, even if we can't rationally prove it. 634 00:33:22,599 --> 00:33:24,960 Speaker 2: The moment, we choose to trust the evidence, even while 635 00:33:24,960 --> 00:33:27,519 recognizing we might be wrong, we step out of the 636 00:33:27,519 --> 00:33:30,480 logical trap and into the realm of actionable knowledge. 637 00:33:30,680 --> 00:33:34,400 Speaker 1: We began this thrilling deep dive into Last thursdaism by 638 00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:38,200 analyzing the possibility that your most cherished, memories are forged, 639 00:33:38,480 --> 00:33:40,519 and the universe is merely a week old. 640 00:33:40,960 --> 00:33:44,680 Speaker 2: We trace the concept from Goss's nineteenth century theological dilemma 641 00:33:44,839 --> 00:33:48,359 with Adam's naval and tree rings through Russell's purely skeptical 642 00:33:48,440 --> 00:33:51,559 five minute hypothesis, and we concluded that the fear of 643 00:33:51,839 --> 00:33:56,000 indistinguishability means a real history and an apparent history are 644 00:33:56,039 --> 00:33:57,119 empirically identical. 645 00:33:57,279 --> 00:34:01,960 Speaker 1: We explored how LTA is scientifically un falsifiable, exploiting David 646 00:34:02,039 --> 00:34:05,359 Hume's problem of induction, and we noted how this philosophical 647 00:34:05,440 --> 00:34:09,480 vulnerability is mirrored in the simulation hypothesis and the terrifying 648 00:34:09,599 --> 00:34:11,800 naturalistic possibility of the Boltzmann brain. 649 00:34:12,239 --> 00:34:15,480 Speaker 2: We saw that this skeptical trinity ultimately exposes the fragility 650 00:34:15,559 --> 00:34:18,440 of our knowledge of history, memory, and even the trustworthiness 651 00:34:18,440 --> 00:34:21,159 of reality itself. It forces us to make a choice. 652 00:34:21,239 --> 00:34:24,320 We discussed the theological crisis and how Baesian analysis suggests 653 00:34:24,320 --> 00:34:28,719 that accepting extraordinary claims like miracles requires overcoming impossibly low 654 00:34:28,719 --> 00:34:29,760 prior probabilities. 655 00:34:29,920 --> 00:34:32,239 Speaker 1: Our sources noted that the concept of a second creation 656 00:34:32,320 --> 00:34:34,920 suggests a new world might be given no hint of 657 00:34:34,920 --> 00:34:38,840 what came before, no scars, no warnings. And while the 658 00:34:38,880 --> 00:34:41,280 logical door remains open to the idea that this world 659 00:34:41,400 --> 00:34:45,440 is just an expendable experiment, the sheer richness and constancy 660 00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:48,960 we observe compels us toward a pragmatic commitment to reality. 661 00:34:49,519 --> 00:34:52,119 Speaker 2: So we leave you with this final provocative question them 662 00:34:52,119 --> 00:34:55,000 all over. If you realize right now that your memory 663 00:34:55,039 --> 00:34:57,679 of the past was entirely false and the world began 664 00:34:57,800 --> 00:35:01,000 last Thursday, would you choose to believe the intricate, comforting 665 00:35:01,039 --> 00:35:04,679 falsehood that upholds science and society, or would you try 666 00:35:04,679 --> 00:35:08,079 to find the hidden, unknowable truth behind the cosmic curtain. 667 00:35:08,760 --> 00:35:11,039 Is your belief in yesterday a logical certainty or an 668 00:35:11,159 --> 00:35:13,400 essential act of trust? Leave us a comment and let 669 00:35:13,480 --> 00:35:14,119 us know what you think.