Speaker 1: And aside slavery, child sacrifice, women, a second class citizens,
Speaker 1: a global flood that never happened, power of Bible that
Speaker 1: never happened, in exodus that never happened. And that's just
Speaker 1: the first few books. If the Bible is a divine
Speaker 1: word of an all knowing God, it's the worst edited
Speaker 1: book in history. You believe the Bible is a good book,
Speaker 1: all in make the cads for it because the show
Speaker 1: it starts now. Hello, everybody. Today is August second of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six. It is not August second, it is
Speaker 1: August ninth of twenty twenty six. I'm sorry. We want
Speaker 1: to welcome you all to the atheist experience. Thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us today. I'm Jim Burrows, and joining me right
Speaker 1: now is Jamie the Blind lamey. Oh, I'm sorry, Kelly,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the wrong person.
Speaker 2: That's so great, Jamie, he's just their bank up push. Yes,
Speaker 2: Jamie is here. You're not hallucinating.
Speaker 3: I'm a professional. I know what I'm doing. So it
Speaker 3: has been a little while. What have you been up to?
Speaker 2: I you know, not much. I mean we just got
Speaker 2: to see each other about a week ago. So and Jim,
Speaker 2: I dude, I always look forward to hanging out with you.
Speaker 2: So I was, and I was supposed to just be
Speaker 2: the backup post.
Speaker 4: Today.
Speaker 2: When I found out that you did sell me to
Speaker 2: step up, I was like, yes, I get to work
Speaker 2: with Jim again.
Speaker 3: Awesome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well hopefully I get to stay the entire show.
Speaker 1: We do have storms in about an hour ago, my
Speaker 1: power went out for about two seconds.
Speaker 3: Oh that sucks. Well we got Jamie just in case. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so we'll see how it goes.
Speaker 1: Being out in you know, southern Alabama, out and the
Speaker 1: Sticks has its benefits, but it also has its drawbacks.
Speaker 3: I live in the Sticks too, so I totally get it.
Speaker 1: I totally yeah. And Alabama just there infrastructure sucks. So
Speaker 1: it is what it is us. Well, we are the
Speaker 1: Atheist Experience. It is a product of the Atheist Community
Speaker 1: of Boston, a five h one c three nonprofit organization
Speaker 1: dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
Speaker 1: and the.
Speaker 3: Segregation of religion and government.
Speaker 1: This means that you can give us a tax free
Speaker 1: donation as many as you want, the more of the marrier,
Speaker 1: and no not only is going to a good cause,
Speaker 1: but also that it helps you too. We are tri
Speaker 1: streaming tonight, So a big shout out to our viewers
Speaker 1: on TikTok and YouTube mobile. If you're watching on TikTok
Speaker 1: tonight and you'd like to talk to us, request to
Speaker 1: join and we'll bring you up on stage. Please make
Speaker 1: sure that you are over eighteen years of age before
Speaker 1: doing so, especially if you're coming from TikTok.
Speaker 3: Take some calls, Kelly, Yeah, eh, if we got calls,
Speaker 3: let's just jump right in. Alrighty, So our.
Speaker 1: First caller is Donald from either Louisiana or LA. So
Speaker 1: you want to talk about the unactualized actualizer and you're
Speaker 1: an atheist?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, I was invited here. I was previously on
Speaker 5: from the What is It talk? Even Yeah yeah, okay.
Speaker 5: So basically the argument would be, there is actuality, something exists.
Speaker 5: You can doubt almost anything. You can doubt your senses,
Speaker 5: you can doubt whether the world looks anything like how
Speaker 5: you perceive it. You can even entertain the possibility that
Speaker 5: you're dreaming or living in the simulation. But the information
Speaker 5: that distance exists cannot itself be eliminated by skepticism, like
Speaker 5: the stamente existence exists to exist, at least as on
Speaker 5: an informational level, and you could go so far as
Speaker 5: saying it's a thought or or proposition in order to
Speaker 5: even be considered. So as we begin with actuality, something
Speaker 5: is and one something is, we immediately have distinction between
Speaker 5: existence and non existence, and things being true and things
Speaker 5: being false, between a and not a, And distinction is
Speaker 5: important because without distinction we cannot have information. If for this,
Speaker 5: I'm going to define information at a fundamental level as
Speaker 5: structured distinction between possible states. If there is no difference whatsoever,
Speaker 5: there is nothing to distinguish, nothing to compare, and nothing
Speaker 5: to measure, and nothing to inform or give information. Now
Speaker 5: consider change. Suppose something is cool old and becomes hot
Speaker 5: or or late, and so heat moves moves into the object.
Speaker 5: Before the change, being hot was possible. Afterward hot is actual,
Speaker 5: So we moved from potentially hot to actually hot.
Speaker 1: So let me just center up here, as you started
Speaker 1: with a really really good topic, and energy, an energy
Speaker 1: be created or described?
Speaker 5: Can energy be ordered or described?
Speaker 3: And to be created or described?
Speaker 5: Well, the law of thermo dynamic says energy can either
Speaker 5: be created nor destroyed.
Speaker 1: So so I don't need anything more than energy to
Speaker 1: I mean energy is that on actualized, actualized. Right, it's
Speaker 1: the thing that, as far as we can tell, is
Speaker 1: responsible for the beginning the universe.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, okay, well I would argue before well I
Speaker 5: was going to get to this, but I would argue
Speaker 5: space and time is more fundamental than energy, and I
Speaker 5: would matter, and then I.
Speaker 1: I can is it? I can destroy matter. I mean
Speaker 1: that within a nuclear explosion. So it doesn't that doesn't
Speaker 1: get men. And you can't get any more basic than
Speaker 1: energy because energy equals MC squared. Yeah, energy is all
Speaker 1: I need.
Speaker 5: No, I think information is more fundamental than energy. Prove it.
Speaker 3: What what do you make with information without energy? Okay?
Speaker 5: Well, some rules like the fact that existence exists, or
Speaker 5: the logical rules like non contradiction, I would say, make
Speaker 5: energy possible, like energy and changing.
Speaker 3: Yeah much, sure, I'm not sure about that.
Speaker 1: And please the Yeah, the laws, the laws of logic
Speaker 1: require a mind to understand. Right, they are a way
Speaker 1: that we describe the universe. So it's math.
Speaker 3: So how how is that fundamental?
Speaker 5: Okay? Some of the rules of logic are you could say,
Speaker 5: or more concepts and there are approximations. But I I
Speaker 5: would say, some logical rules you are are are prior
Speaker 5: like the for energy to happen, for actions and energy
Speaker 5: to happen. You're saying, oh, there's a there's a higher
Speaker 5: energy state and then there's like a lower energy state. Well,
Speaker 5: that requires a distinction in space and time, Like.
Speaker 3: I don't think you said that.
Speaker 1: No, you don't need to say in space of time, right,
Speaker 1: and whether you need a distinction in space time or
Speaker 1: space and time depending on which the area of time
Speaker 1: you go with. Right, we don't even know that which
Speaker 1: are those two things are real?
Speaker 3: So to say that.
Speaker 1: There is a distinction or something like that, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: So what I don't see how you get to needing
Speaker 1: anything more than energy.
Speaker 5: Well, there's the information of the distinction between being in
Speaker 5: this position and this time and being in this position
Speaker 5: and time and going from one state to another. There's
Speaker 5: information there, Okay, in those two states. That's information.
Speaker 2: Okay, And what and what what is? What is your
Speaker 2: point that there's information there?
Speaker 3: I'm a little.
Speaker 5: Confused for for energy to exist in different states to exist,
Speaker 5: there's thermodynamically, there's information.
Speaker 2: No, we don't need information is something that like we
Speaker 2: consciously have in our brain. Right, something can change its
Speaker 2: state from one physical state to another using energy and
Speaker 2: we never have to know that. So what I don't
Speaker 2: understand the information connection here.
Speaker 5: Okay, there's information that's just conceptual information in the mind,
Speaker 5: but there's also information like information properties like something's average
Speaker 5: kinetic energy.
Speaker 3: Or Yes, but you have to have them. Yeah, that's information.
Speaker 1: Those are just those are those are descriptions of things,
Speaker 1: and you have to.
Speaker 3: Have a mind. You have to have a mind for that.
Speaker 1: To in order to exactly you have a mind to
Speaker 1: describe something.
Speaker 2: So if you don't have a mind to observe it,
Speaker 2: then then the information doesn't matter that you don't need
Speaker 2: the information for that transformation to happen.
Speaker 5: No, No, you would need a mind to perceive it
Speaker 5: and then describe it. But the information of that still exists.
Speaker 1: Like something happening exist without a mind, right, things exist
Speaker 1: without a mind. But information is how we disc I
Speaker 1: have those things because the difference you're you're confusing the
Speaker 1: map for the territory.
Speaker 5: No, the information like quantum information isn't that's not just perception.
Speaker 5: Those those are states that can be entangled and give
Speaker 5: distinction between.
Speaker 3: All those things exist.
Speaker 1: Yes, but in order for it to be information, right,
Speaker 1: it needs to be perceived by mind. Otherwise it's just
Speaker 1: the state of things and there's no description of it. Right,
Speaker 1: it is right, just like the territory is. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what the MOPS has.
Speaker 5: No, there's the math implies an ontological distinction between states,
Speaker 5: whether or not it doesn't.
Speaker 2: No, you're you're I think you're donald, You're you're you're
Speaker 2: confusing the fact that when something happens that that creates information, right,
Speaker 2: But it's not creating information if there's nobody there to
Speaker 2: perceive the.
Speaker 3: Information, right.
Speaker 2: I don't know how you're I don't know how you're
Speaker 2: defining information if you if that's not something you agree to,
Speaker 2: and if that's and if you are defining information differently,
Speaker 2: I think I would love it if you would clarify
Speaker 2: what you mean.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'll repeat the definition I stated before. Information is
Speaker 5: a structured distinction between possible states.
Speaker 2: Okay, And how do we know that that's information without
Speaker 2: presenting that?
Speaker 3: Well, that also sounds like a description to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, that's that doesn't sound Yeah like I'm understood
Speaker 2: that these states, right that you're describing, how are they
Speaker 2: information without something to perceive the information? I mean, like
Speaker 2: information is just our ore is us having the ability
Speaker 2: to perceive the thing and and process it within our brain.
Speaker 2: So when you say that that's information, you're you're describing
Speaker 2: a state of things, but there's no information because there's
Speaker 2: nothing nobody there to perceive that information.
Speaker 3: Do you understand you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: No? Not, This is okay. There is a difference between
Speaker 5: conceptual information and quantum information.
Speaker 2: I understand that, Donald, I understand that. But it's still
Speaker 2: you still need a mind to perceive the information, whether
Speaker 2: it's conceptual or not. If it's conceptual, then you need
Speaker 2: a mind to conceive it, right, Yes, if the conceptual okay.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: So if you have no mind to conceive it, there
Speaker 2: is no information at all.
Speaker 5: No, No, there's information in this without a perceiver.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the problem is that you're redefining information in a
Speaker 1: way that isn't actually useful, right, because you are still
Speaker 1: attempting to say that there is a state of things,
Speaker 1: and things and states change. I'm agreeing with that or
Speaker 1: or we're disagreeing is with your is You're trying to
Speaker 1: say that information is that change, and that is not
Speaker 1: the case, right, Because you're redefining information in a way
Speaker 1: that is not useful because.
Speaker 5: It's not if you want to taking this from physics.
Speaker 1: Uh, information theory is a mathematical branch or probability and
Speaker 1: statistics and studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information.
Speaker 1: Let's see if there is an information information definition physics,
Speaker 1: it's a measurable physical property of a system. Yes, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what you're saying, and we're saying yes. But just
Speaker 1: because just because there's a system and it can be measured,
Speaker 1: there's no measurement. You can't measure it without a mind.
Speaker 1: A mind has to measure it. Otherwise the system just is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's something without somebody to measure and perceive it.
Speaker 5: It just is.
Speaker 3: It's not information.
Speaker 2: It's like the way you're describing it, Donald, it sounds
Speaker 2: like you're saying that we need to have the information
Speaker 2: to make the change happen.
Speaker 5: Yes, and that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: There's a different and that's what and that's what Jim
Speaker 2: and I are are fundamental that's what Jim and I
Speaker 2: are fundamentally disagreeing with.
Speaker 3: We don't think you're correct on.
Speaker 5: That, Okay, I'm we don't.
Speaker 3: Think the information necessary for energy to exist.
Speaker 1: Yes, no mind is necessary for energy to change state exactly.
Speaker 5: No, there is there is a distinction between states that.
Speaker 3: Isn't just how was that distinction made?
Speaker 5: Donald, Well, I was going to try to get into
Speaker 5: that between the unactual lives actualizer and.
Speaker 2: Then well, well just just just it's an easy just
Speaker 2: how do you make that distinction that you're talking about?
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, we use our perception to find it.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, that's what we've been saying. Now you're now
Speaker 2: that's exactly what Jim and I have been saying that
Speaker 2: that But that didn't That didn't happen until you perceived it.
Speaker 2: And I don't think your understanding is it's like it's
Speaker 2: going right over your head.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I understand, I know, I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 5: This is going over your.
Speaker 2: Head of No, I understand, I completely understand what you're saying.
Speaker 3: I just disagree with it.
Speaker 5: Is the distinction still exists on some fundamental level.
Speaker 2: Yes, but the distinction isn't information. The distinction is just
Speaker 2: two states of being and they don't become information until
Speaker 2: somebody perceives them as information.
Speaker 5: No, that makes them a thought, That doesn't make the
Speaker 5: that that makes some conceptual information.
Speaker 3: What do you think information is? Is an information?
Speaker 5: Thoughts, that's conceptual information. That's not the information of charge
Speaker 5: and kinetic energy and.
Speaker 2: And those things aren't information. Those are charges in kinetic energy.
Speaker 2: That's not information. You just describe them as what they
Speaker 2: were not, you know. And then you were saying, well,
Speaker 2: this is esthetic energy is I don't understand what you're where?
Speaker 2: You're where you think kinetic energy is information?
Speaker 5: Explain that become then how can they then become entangled
Speaker 5: and pass and passed?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't need they don't need to know what's
Speaker 2: happening to have that.
Speaker 6: I didn't finish.
Speaker 5: I didn't finish. All right, Okay, If they're able to
Speaker 5: be entangled, and they're able to be transferred from one
Speaker 5: particle to another without with uh, and they're able to
Speaker 5: reach from a one position to another faster than the
Speaker 5: speed of light, then they are materially transfer Then they
Speaker 5: are transferring to something that isn't that isn't material.
Speaker 1: Okay, energy is a material or do you mean it does?
Speaker 1: It's not energy.
Speaker 5: It's not just the energy, it's you're you're.
Speaker 2: You're you're just taking that immatory material thing that you're
Speaker 2: talking about and you're plugging the word information into it
Speaker 2: without having a direct correlation, is what I'm seeing. Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: it's like you're using information, the word information to describe
Speaker 2: that when it doesn't really fit what you're describing.
Speaker 3: Well, and that's why I think Jim and I are confused.
Speaker 5: Fine, I can use a different word. Uh. But but
Speaker 5: physicists use the word quantum information to describe this, So
Speaker 5: it's not me doing it.
Speaker 2: I'm not a physicist. I'm not a quantum physicist. So
Speaker 2: you got to dumb it down for me.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, then what do you want to call it?
Speaker 2: I would rather have something that's more indicative of what
Speaker 2: it's actually what it actually is. And to me, to
Speaker 2: me that we've been talking about states of being, that
Speaker 2: seems to be what we're doing. We're not talking about information.
Speaker 2: We're just talking about states of being and those states changing.
Speaker 2: I thought we had already kind of defined it already
Speaker 2: without using the lot information.
Speaker 5: But it's not energy. It's more fundamental than energy and masses.
Speaker 3: How does a state change from one thing to another
Speaker 3: thing without energy?
Speaker 5: Okay, thermodynamic states require energy, but and okay, if you
Speaker 5: have okay, but if you have entropy and you have
Speaker 5: let's say a black.
Speaker 1: Hole takes into measures of energy, a measure of the
Speaker 1: energy of the state of energy.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's been you.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: The early definitions of entropy were a description of usable energy,
Speaker 5: but later but later descriptions like Shannon entropy and Noyman
Speaker 5: entropy talk about the the information density impossible states.
Speaker 3: Okay, so it's still energy.
Speaker 5: It's not. And there's a difference between the information of
Speaker 5: possible states and energy.
Speaker 3: It's what's the difference.
Speaker 5: The difference is that there are all of these possible
Speaker 5: there's all of these possibilities that are in that are
Speaker 5: in like a wave function that that can that information
Speaker 5: passes and shares between them. Energy is bound by the
Speaker 5: speed of light. This information, uh, this what they call
Speaker 5: quantum information. We haven't determined a different word for it
Speaker 5: can be transferred through entanglement faster than the speed of light.
Speaker 5: It's not bound.
Speaker 1: So quantum mechanics isn't also energy. I mean, the quantum
Speaker 1: aren't also energy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, but I'm wondering what it's like. You're saying
Speaker 2: that these quanta, that this quantum movement isn't energy.
Speaker 5: Okay, the force carrier particles do carry energy to carry
Speaker 5: the carry information that changes the field, and the change
Speaker 5: in the field is the energy. But the energy is
Speaker 5: emergent of these particle interactions and all of these possibilities
Speaker 5: in the wave function. The information in that is more
Speaker 5: fundamental than the then the energy transfer, the energy transfer
Speaker 5: is emergent from these interactions.
Speaker 3: We didn't say.
Speaker 2: We didn't say that the energy transfer wasn't pertinent, you know,
Speaker 2: but we're what we're saying is it has.
Speaker 3: To be there. Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean it's like you were describing this thing. You
Speaker 2: were describing it as if there was no energy there. Well,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter if the energy is the pertinent thing there.
Speaker 2: It's still there making the movement happen, right, making there
Speaker 2: are that the state's changed.
Speaker 5: There are some systems where information is only transferred, like
Speaker 5: in a black hole. It absorbs all of this, all
Speaker 5: of all of this matter.
Speaker 3: I don't think we know the inside of the black hole,
Speaker 3: do we.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, I'm trying to get on the event horizon.
Speaker 5: On the event horizon, the information is preserved on the
Speaker 5: event horizon and it's entangled with the things in the
Speaker 5: black hole. But the information has been separated from the
Speaker 5: matter and the energy.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me let me just ask this something more fundamental.
Speaker 1: Is your unactualized actualizer natural or is it a mind?
Speaker 5: Oh no, it's it's not a it's not a mind.
Speaker 3: I get.
Speaker 5: I get from the unactualized the actualizer to Plotinus, is
Speaker 5: the one and the one is not a mind because
Speaker 5: consciousness is a change, is a changing process, and it
Speaker 5: can I don't believe consciousness can occur before time and
Speaker 5: the one being an unchanging thing. H I don't think
Speaker 5: it can have it can be conscious because consciousness is
Speaker 5: itself changing and the one is chang. Okay, it is okay,
Speaker 5: the one, Okay. The unactualized actualizer is pure actuality. All
Speaker 5: the things with potent parts, potential and actual emerge from it.
Speaker 5: So it's it's it could, it could. It's pure actuality.
Speaker 5: That is like an ontological ground that makes that makes
Speaker 5: it to where all of these things with potential can happen.
Speaker 5: It's it's like it's like the unity between things. It
Speaker 5: makes it makes it to where measurement and distinction can exist.
Speaker 5: But it's not like made.
Speaker 1: Yeah, measurement and extension are require a change. And you're
Speaker 1: saying that all changes in this thing. Therefore it's one
Speaker 1: thing that doesn't make any sense either, right.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, it's it's okay. If you have a plant
Speaker 5: and it grows out of the ground, it grew from
Speaker 5: the ground and absorb orbs light and water and nutrients
Speaker 5: from the ground. But it isn't But the ground itself
Speaker 5: is not alive, but life is able to emerge from it.
Speaker 6: It's it's like the set.
Speaker 5: That contains all sets. It's it contains everything within it,
Speaker 5: and it's omnipresent, and it's beyond time and space. But
Speaker 5: but it's like it's like logic or maths. It's more
Speaker 5: fundamental than logical masks. But it's think of it like that.
Speaker 6: It's like it.
Speaker 5: It has the rules from which everything can emerge from it,
Speaker 5: just like a life emerging from the ground. It makes
Speaker 5: life possible, but it itself is not alive. It has
Speaker 5: living things growing from it and within it.
Speaker 3: And how did you figure all this out?
Speaker 5: Well, well, it's not me. I'm taking arguments from like
Speaker 5: Plato and Blondness and Aristotle.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I think you're from Plato that involves physics
Speaker 1: and quantum mechanics.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm extending those ideas, and.
Speaker 2: Right, that's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking. That's
Speaker 2: what I'm asking. Donald got You took this idea and
Speaker 2: this idea and this idea and this idea, and you
Speaker 2: mashed them all together. Right, But what makes you think
Speaker 2: that when you matched all these things together that this
Speaker 2: was correct?
Speaker 5: Well, I examined the premises from many philosophers.
Speaker 2: Okay, I've done the same thing. I'm asking you what
Speaker 2: made you think that you particularly were correct?
Speaker 3: What is it that you know?
Speaker 2: I understand the process you talk, but what is it
Speaker 2: in that process that made you figure it out?
Speaker 3: What was the straw that broke the camel's back for you?
Speaker 5: I used logic to try to figure out what premises
Speaker 5: work and what premises don't work and don't contradict each other,
Speaker 5: and what fits all the knowledge and inform and evidence
Speaker 5: and information I know, with having the least assumptions possible,
Speaker 5: and decided that this is the most probabilistically true thing.
Speaker 3: So you just thought it up on your own, basically,
Speaker 3: well by a physicistist.
Speaker 5: I have a bachelor's in physics and I'm working toward
Speaker 5: or the PhD. But I mean, I've talked to other
Speaker 5: physicists about this, but they they usually come to the
Speaker 5: point where I'm talking. I'm talking about metaphysics and ontological things.
Speaker 5: They which is beyond the realm of science because you
Speaker 5: can't examine lots of the concepts I'm talking about empirically.
Speaker 5: But a lot of them take the thing of oh well,
Speaker 5: I they take materialism, but I don't think materialism describes everything.
Speaker 3: Most so you're just making stuff.
Speaker 5: No I have I have no I know.
Speaker 3: Don't hear me out for a minute.
Speaker 2: I understand you've got a bunch of things that you
Speaker 2: are using evidence, but you put it all together and
Speaker 2: you made up what you believe right.
Speaker 5: Now using logic. Yes, but that's no, I didn't know.
Speaker 2: I just that's using your logic, yes, right, using your logic.
Speaker 2: You took information that you found and you came up
Speaker 2: with your own idea correct.
Speaker 5: Uh, yes, but taking from.
Speaker 2: Okay, now, how do you know that your idea, especially
Speaker 2: about metaphysics, How do you know that this is true?
Speaker 5: I don't know for sure. I just think if fits
Speaker 5: all the evidence with as little assumptions as possible.
Speaker 1: I don't have a Do you have a do you
Speaker 1: have a formal metaphysical have you made a formal metaphysical
Speaker 1: argument out of your thoughts and ideas?
Speaker 5: Yes, I have a formal metaphysical argument.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: I was reading off of a script I had wrote
Speaker 5: in prepared for the show. But I haven't published a
Speaker 5: book or a paper on it.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been here, Retten. Yeah, I didn't ask that.
Speaker 1: I asked if you'd actually put this into a formal argument.
Speaker 1: All right, So it's your first premise, okay.
Speaker 5: My first premise was that there is actuality that uh,
Speaker 5: that's something exists and beyond beyond skepticism.
Speaker 1: The information beyond skepticism even means yeah, I don't either. Okay,
Speaker 1: You've got beyond which indicates some sort of property being
Speaker 1: beyond something that is a concept called skepticism or a
Speaker 1: process or whatever you want to say.
Speaker 3: It beyond skepticism makes no sense. Okay.
Speaker 5: Well I'm I'm saying, if you doubt something existing, I
Speaker 5: think there is one thing that is beyond any doubt
Speaker 5: of existing, because any attempt to doubt it, for pre
Speaker 5: presupposes that it exists. The idea, the information that exists.
Speaker 1: There's no If you doubt something, there's no presupposition, then
Speaker 1: you doubt exists.
Speaker 5: You're doubting is false.
Speaker 3: I doubt Does that mean it? Does?
Speaker 1: I doubt you're made of chocolate? Are you actually made
Speaker 1: of chocolate? Do we have an actual chocolate statue talking
Speaker 1: to us? Because I doubt you're made of chocolate?
Speaker 2: Thank you for taking that to the total absurd term.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. That's awesome.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, no no. If you what I'm saying
Speaker 5: is if you doubt the the that the distinction that
Speaker 5: between existence and non existence, you say, oh, I doubt
Speaker 5: that you're you're saying I think that's not true. But
Speaker 5: thinking that's not true, who relies on the.
Speaker 7: Assumption I know?
Speaker 3: So you forget you forget that.
Speaker 1: In philosophy, there while it is true that any proposition
Speaker 1: is either true or false, there are three positions you
Speaker 1: can take. You can accept the proposition is true, you
Speaker 1: can reject it as false. And you can also say
Speaker 1: I don't know. If I say I don't know, I
Speaker 1: have not taken a position on a proposition being true
Speaker 1: or false.
Speaker 5: Okay, but fine, But if you're saying you don't know,
Speaker 5: doubt arguments.
Speaker 3: Only if I say it.
Speaker 1: Only if I say the proposition is false, or if
Speaker 1: I say the proposition is true.
Speaker 3: Do I need to provide argument for either of these things?
Speaker 1: If I say I don't know, I'm asking for an
Speaker 1: argument to or evidence to prove that something is true
Speaker 1: or false, to prove that the proposition is true or false.
Speaker 3: I can doubt all I want.
Speaker 5: Yes, you can be like, I don't know, but fine,
Speaker 5: then you have him brought a counter argument to.
Speaker 1: I don't need a counter argument I'm not making. I'm
Speaker 1: not making a clam I'm not claiming the proposition is true.
Speaker 1: I'm not claiming the proposition is false. Only when I
Speaker 1: make either of those claims, do I actually have to
Speaker 1: provide an argument?
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, then then I would say there's no there's
Speaker 5: no way to bring a counter I haven't. I don't
Speaker 5: see a way to bring a counter argument against what
Speaker 5: policy is that it doesn't contradict itself?
Speaker 3: And what policy is that? Hey, you can't think of one.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's only a fallacy if I'm saying that proves
Speaker 5: it that doesn't I could I couuld be. It could
Speaker 5: be beyond my perception, and I'm not able to see that.
Speaker 5: I'm not saying this is one hundred percent certainty. But
Speaker 5: I've said, it's beyond skepticism.
Speaker 1: But sane, I don't know peven that man has no meaning,
Speaker 1: that that literally has no meaning.
Speaker 3: No, those two words together don't mean anything.
Speaker 5: It's not.
Speaker 6: You're going to say, I don't because I can.
Speaker 1: Take the client. I can take the stand that I
Speaker 1: don't know. Right, that's not beyond skepticism.
Speaker 5: Oh but you're not. Really, you're not presenting a counter argument.
Speaker 1: I don't have to.
Speaker 3: I don't have to.
Speaker 1: I've got a Let's say I got a thing full
Speaker 1: of pens here. You know what, if I say I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're odd or even, does that mean
Speaker 1: they're odder or are they even? Have I made a
Speaker 1: claim to whether they're even? There's an odd or even
Speaker 1: number of pens in my pen?
Speaker 3: Cut?
Speaker 1: Have I made a claim as to that? If I
Speaker 1: say I don't know if it's odd or even, which claim?
Speaker 1: If I meant you haven't made a claim, You're right.
Speaker 3: That's my point exactly.
Speaker 1: So there's no such thing as beyond skepticism, because in
Speaker 1: order for that to happen, that means that you have
Speaker 1: to make a claim about a proposition, either claim that
Speaker 1: it is true or that it is false, and you
Speaker 1: don't have to. You can simply say I'm waiting further information.
Speaker 2: Okay, but or are you Are you equating skepticism with cynicism?
Speaker 5: Okay, fine, I get I think I was equating skepticism
Speaker 5: with cynicism because saying I don't know is skepticism.
Speaker 1: But yeah, waiting for evidence before making a decision is
Speaker 1: also skepticism.
Speaker 2: I really want to understand you, Donald, I really do,
Speaker 2: but I'm not sure that you have the language that
Speaker 2: you need to communicate it.
Speaker 3: In a viable way.
Speaker 2: And it's just not it's not just Jemini that don't understand.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at the people in the text chat. Nobody
Speaker 2: really understands what you're trying to get at. Nobody's really
Speaker 2: sure what your point has been through this whole a whole.
Speaker 5: Argument in a whole script, and it doesn't make sense
Speaker 5: if you cut off like near the beginning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but we asked, we asked you for premise one,
Speaker 1: and your premise one makes no sense and has nothing
Speaker 1: nothing to agree.
Speaker 3: It says nothing.
Speaker 2: And we're not going to sit here while you read
Speaker 2: your script for twenty minutes either.
Speaker 3: That's just not going to en No.
Speaker 1: I mean and premise so we don't even so we
Speaker 1: don't even have to go past promise one because it
Speaker 1: makes no sense. I wing to rejected premise one is nonsensical,
Speaker 1: and the rest of the argument follows, right, because your
Speaker 1: argument depends on premise one, just like it depends on
Speaker 1: all your other premises to get to your conclusion. Right, Okay,
Speaker 1: we've rejected premise one is being nonsensical, so why would
Speaker 1: we accept your conclusion?
Speaker 5: Okay, fine, going back to premise one. Okay, you're able
Speaker 5: to say, I don't know, but we're but I'm trying
Speaker 5: to figure out a base like how a native car goes.
Speaker 5: I think therefore, I am. I'm trying to make a
Speaker 5: more foundational base for which you can from which you
Speaker 5: can build things off of. And if you are not
Speaker 5: able to provide a counter argument, well I can. Well
Speaker 5: there can be made a counter argument for pretty much
Speaker 5: every other base. I would argue that this base is
Speaker 5: better than the other ones.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're gonna make You're gonna make that argument, make
Speaker 1: the argument. Give me your first premise for that argument.
Speaker 5: Okay, Okay, I but I okay, this.
Speaker 3: Will make an argument. You're no longer in science, You're
Speaker 3: in philosophy.
Speaker 1: When you're talking about metaphysics and things like that, you
Speaker 1: are also in philosophy. I don't think you've got the
Speaker 1: philosophical grounding, given how bad your first premise is that
Speaker 1: you gave us is to actually do this.
Speaker 5: Okay, I don't. I don't that.
Speaker 3: I'm still not sure what the first premise was.
Speaker 5: Okay, the first premise is the information that existence exists.
Speaker 5: Is can be given a counter argument too, because you know,
Speaker 5: because in trying to say that's false assumes distinction between
Speaker 5: true and false and assumes there is a distinction.
Speaker 3: No way, don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that, And Jim, that's not something
Speaker 2: we can agree with because that's.
Speaker 1: Because there's a there's a third position. The default position
Speaker 1: is I don't know. It's I am right, or we
Speaker 1: agree with the proposition that there's either existence or non existence.
Speaker 1: We agree with that, right, those those two things are true.
Speaker 1: Now I exist, so I'll beg the claim that because
Speaker 1: I exist, there is something that exists.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: What right? And so what something exists?
Speaker 5: So what? Okay, that's the first premise that something exist.
Speaker 3: Okay, you could have just said that it would have
Speaker 3: made a little bit. This is true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 3: Number one the things number one? Things exist? What's number two?
Speaker 5: Now if I say existence is true, that's different from
Speaker 5: saying exists.
Speaker 6: The information of existence exists.
Speaker 5: Those are two separate things. Because now you're gaining the abstract.
Speaker 3: Which one, which one is your which one is your friend?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I thought too, and you even agreed
Speaker 2: to that. So what actually is your first premise? And
Speaker 2: can you please put it down the one simple sentence
Speaker 2: act like Jimini are five year olds.
Speaker 5: The information that existence exists exists.
Speaker 3: So information exists? Is that? Which is that it? And
Speaker 3: information exists?
Speaker 2: Or are you saying that because because information Because what
Speaker 2: it sounds like you said was because information exists, it exists,
Speaker 2: which is atality.
Speaker 5: I said existence, the information of existence exists. And in
Speaker 5: this information is a structured distinction between possible states.
Speaker 2: That you're just added stuff on that you didn't have
Speaker 2: on there, but you're just added a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: other stuff that wasn't there before.
Speaker 5: I have to use language, and I have to define
Speaker 5: my time.
Speaker 3: I get it.
Speaker 2: I get it, Donald, I understand you need to use language,
Speaker 2: but we've Jim and I have asked you for your
Speaker 2: first premise like six times, and every time you have
Speaker 2: given us a different thing.
Speaker 5: So we don't know what that existence exists.
Speaker 3: Okay, information that exists exists. That's a toutology.
Speaker 6: No no, no, no, no no no no no no.
Speaker 5: The information of exist.
Speaker 1: Exists, okay, information of exist?
Speaker 3: Yeah, information that things exist exists, do not. You're at
Speaker 3: anything topology. You see how bad you're doing at this
Speaker 3: first premise.
Speaker 2: I don't think you're I think you need to get
Speaker 2: better at the communication part.
Speaker 1: I think you need to get better at your at
Speaker 1: your definition too, because if you define information in a
Speaker 1: way that that physicists define it a measurable property or
Speaker 1: a measurable physical property of a system, right, then then
Speaker 1: you're saying that a measurable physical property of a system exists. Okay.
Speaker 5: No, that that's another that's another layer of measurement. That's
Speaker 5: that that's not as fundamental as this.
Speaker 1: A measurable physical property is not fundamental because you.
Speaker 5: Can have information that isn't measurable. There is truth that
Speaker 5: is that can be beyond the ability to test and
Speaker 5: observe and falsify.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure there's a claim.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how to measure information to begin with.
Speaker 2: You can measure the veracity of information, but how do
Speaker 2: you measure information?
Speaker 1: Yeah, now you just made an even bigger claim that
Speaker 1: makes absolutely no sense, because I mean information is the
Speaker 1: measurement this. I think you've got a problem with your definition,
Speaker 1: and I think you don't have enough philosophy background because
Speaker 1: I am not, by any means a philosopher, and we
Speaker 1: can't get past your your first premise and figure out
Speaker 1: what the heck you even mean by it, because it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to mean anything. You're redefining information in a
Speaker 1: way that makes absolutely zero sense, and so I think
Speaker 1: that's where you need to start. But this is this
Speaker 1: is just I think as a fundamental probably not understanding philosophy,
Speaker 1: much less any type of metaphysics.
Speaker 5: I have many a lot of metaphysics and I have.
Speaker 1: I don't know why you're so bad at this, Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: I don't understand why you're so bad at it, right,
Speaker 1: And that's that's my point.
Speaker 3: You're bad at it. I think rather than read, you
Speaker 3: may need to go.
Speaker 1: And run some of this through a philosophy you know,
Speaker 1: get a physics professor, Get someone who's got at least
Speaker 1: a PhD a quantum physics and a pH stein philosophy,
Speaker 1: and how and run this by them and see if
Speaker 1: it makes sense to them.
Speaker 3: I think I think they will. I think they will
Speaker 3: buzz saw.
Speaker 1: You into in and non existence on this because this
Speaker 1: makes zero sense.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, it could just happen I'm bad at explaining,
Speaker 5: or you don't understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, so the problem is that in communication,
Speaker 1: the sender is responsible for making sure they're understoody okay, Well.
Speaker 2: Like I like, I'll often go to like a classroom
Speaker 2: of third or fourth graders, and I'll explain geological concepts
Speaker 2: to them so that they can understand it. Right, you know,
Speaker 2: I could understand. I could teach them about plate tectonics
Speaker 2: and and different types of erosion, right, and they're they're
Speaker 2: pretty pretty intense concepts, but I can explain it to
Speaker 2: a five year old. And I think that's when of
Speaker 2: the problems we're having is they're not You're not able
Speaker 2: to vocalize the concept that you're thinking of in a
Speaker 2: way that's understandable by others, at least by us and
Speaker 2: the people who are watching the show.
Speaker 6: Okay, Okay, let me try it a different way.
Speaker 5: Okay, you're familiar with the term I think, therefore I
Speaker 5: am right. But yes, okay, phrase okay, in that he's assuming, Uh,
Speaker 5: he's assuming things about what I what I is, and
Speaker 5: he's assuming and things about about his memory being accurate
Speaker 5: of remembering his thoughts and uh, and he's assuming thought
Speaker 5: and he's assuming thought. If you strip away memory, you
Speaker 5: strip away time, you strip away the concept of I,
Speaker 5: you get down to uh, you get down to uh,
Speaker 5: there's exists and there's not exist. Even when even when
Speaker 5: trying to think about it, strip away even the concept
Speaker 5: of thought and you memory in your memorizing thought. There
Speaker 5: is a distinction of exists versus non exist. There is
Speaker 5: the information.
Speaker 3: Of exist, the information of exist.
Speaker 2: I don't think that that that that's what we're that's
Speaker 2: what we're having a fundamental problem when you say the
Speaker 2: information of exist. That makes absolutely no fucking sense to us.
Speaker 5: Okay, there is a distinction between exists and non exists,
Speaker 5: that distinction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we did that, but we're trying to Yes, we're
Speaker 2: trying to explain to you that when you say information
Speaker 2: and you put it in that slot, that's the part
Speaker 2: that's not making sense. What you said up until that
Speaker 2: point totally made sense.
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, fine, I won't say information. I'll say the structure,
Speaker 5: the distinction between exists and non exists exists.
Speaker 3: That's a tautology, I agree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that you're eximply saying is either true or not true.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, yeah, things, Yeah, things are aren't Okay, we
Speaker 2: all know that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: That's like that's like.
Speaker 2: The first law of logic, right, the law of identity,
Speaker 2: basically just in different words. Okay, okay, okay, So that's
Speaker 2: your first premise, the law of identity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, first promise the law of identity is true. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: we kind of assume that, but you know, it's.
Speaker 5: Okay, there's there's a difference between this and the law
Speaker 5: of identity.
Speaker 1: Okay, there is because if I remember the law of
Speaker 1: I do a lot of identity is is a non contradiction?
Speaker 3: Is A or not a? So yeah, it's it's the
Speaker 3: law of non contradiction. We have the wrong law.
Speaker 1: The law of non contradiction is true. Yes, we assume, yes,
Speaker 1: that the laws of lot. When we're making philosophical arguments
Speaker 1: like you're attempting to do, we assume that laws of
Speaker 1: logic apply.
Speaker 3: So okay, so what Okay, I.
Speaker 5: Want to be clear. The law of identity isn't always true,
Speaker 5: like not all of these laws are always true, but the.
Speaker 3: Law when is the law of identity not true? Okay?
Speaker 5: Well, if someone says an apple is an apple, you
Speaker 5: they're they have a concept of an apple. But those
Speaker 5: two apples aren't identical.
Speaker 3: Two apples we're talking.
Speaker 1: You're talking about one apple, but you're also talking about
Speaker 1: the physical thing that is an apple that has physical
Speaker 1: properties and the person's concept of an apple.
Speaker 3: And you are correct, the person's concept of that apple
Speaker 3: is not the apple.
Speaker 1: Like I have been saying, you have been confusing the
Speaker 1: map for the territory. The map is the person's concept
Speaker 1: of an apple. Yes, you are correct. There is the
Speaker 1: difference between those two things.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: And when people use the law of identity to take
Speaker 5: a concept and it's a it's a it's an abstruction.
Speaker 1: You're talking about two different a's, right, A prime the
Speaker 1: apple itself A second. Yeah, that is the thought. Those
Speaker 1: are two different a's. They are not the same thing.
Speaker 1: You have an A. You have an A and the
Speaker 1: B and A is not equal B. They're not the
Speaker 1: same thing. We've already agreed that the apple, the physical apple,
Speaker 1: is a different thing than the conception, the concept of
Speaker 1: the apple that is in someone's head. Those are not
Speaker 1: both a's They can't because they're two different things.
Speaker 5: Okay, but okay, well this is game tangential to the argument.
Speaker 3: But no, it's not. It's fundamental to the argument. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it totally is.
Speaker 2: And I think that's what we're having a problem is
Speaker 2: that you don't understand that, babe.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure, Donald, I'm not sure you have this
Speaker 2: whole argument fully put together, step to step to step
Speaker 2: to step. And it might be just because you're communicating
Speaker 2: it badly, but it doesn't. It just doesn't seem like it. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying you have a bad argument. I'm just
Speaker 2: saying the way you're communicating isn't working out, man, because
Speaker 2: I because I honestly I really don't understand what it
Speaker 2: is you're trying to communicate.
Speaker 5: Well, I was going, I was going from things have
Speaker 5: potentials and then they're actualized, and I was trying to
Speaker 5: get to an argument to uh, giving to try to
Speaker 5: to try to establish the unactualized actualizer.
Speaker 3: Right, and we can't get past promise one. Yeah, so
Speaker 3: how yeah, we can't get that get there unless we
Speaker 3: get passed.
Speaker 5: You just agree to You just agreed to it as
Speaker 5: a You just.
Speaker 1: Agree You said that, wasn't it when we when we
Speaker 1: said that the concept of the apple is B and
Speaker 1: the apple itself is A, and those two things are
Speaker 1: not the same thing.
Speaker 5: You said, no, No, okay, I am agreeing to the
Speaker 5: law of non contradiction. But I was some people if
Speaker 5: you do the law of identity outside of mathematics, there's
Speaker 5: not there's not a perfect A and this.
Speaker 3: A because you doesn't need to be able to tru one.
Speaker 3: We're not saying there is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was going there as a concept of an apple,
Speaker 1: those are A N B, not A and A.
Speaker 7: I'm trying.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to say the law of identity is is
Speaker 5: an approximate law. It's an abstract in mathematics to to
Speaker 5: where we limit, to where we eliminate.
Speaker 3: Hown't demonstrated that fact at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, because you continually confuse the map for the territory.
Speaker 1: The map is a thing, the territory is another thing,
Speaker 1: and they are not the same.
Speaker 3: Thing.
Speaker 1: Therefore, the law of identity still holds. You haven't demonstrated
Speaker 1: that the law of identity doesn't hold because you're confusing
Speaker 1: two things that are distinct.
Speaker 3: The map and the territory are distinct. Okay, do you.
Speaker 2: Understand what Jim means by the map and that map
Speaker 2: is not the territory.
Speaker 5: Yes, your your perception and thoughts and conception of reality
Speaker 5: isn't the same thing as reality. The right's phenomena and
Speaker 5: there's numena.
Speaker 3: I understand different and they're not the same thing.
Speaker 1: So you by by saying that you haven't proven that
Speaker 1: the law of identity is not always true.
Speaker 3: Okay, because.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay. The simple syllogism uh starts with the proposition
Speaker 5: that A is equal to A. This postulate is accepted
Speaker 5: as an axiom and but but in reality, outside of mathematics,
Speaker 5: outside of our conception in the in a.
Speaker 2: Is well, Kenny, wait a minute before we go any further, Donald,
Speaker 2: why do we need mathematics to see that A equals A?
Speaker 2: Why do we need mathematics to see the two things
Speaker 2: are the same.
Speaker 5: So we can do things like algebra?
Speaker 2: And why do we why do we need to do
Speaker 2: algebra between two things that are the same. I don't
Speaker 2: understand why you're putting mathematics into this. A equals a
Speaker 2: what it's It's like you're complicating it by adding something
Speaker 2: into it.
Speaker 3: Just dude, the thing is the thing.
Speaker 5: Well, actually that mathematics needs to work.
Speaker 2: That's fine, that's fine, that's fine. Mathematics needs that, right,
Speaker 2: But it doesn't need the mathematics. That's what I'm trying
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 1: Is it ever possible for this pen ever be not
Speaker 1: this or for this pen do not be itself? Not
Speaker 1: the concept of the pen, the pen, the physical pen itself.
Speaker 1: Is it possible for that to happen?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 5: If it depends on how you're defining the pen, because
Speaker 5: a part of the pen could be replaced, And then
Speaker 5: is that the same pen?
Speaker 1: We're not getting into the ship of theseus?
Speaker 3: We're not doing the ship of theseus? Is it okay?
Speaker 3: And kill doing that?
Speaker 1: That's a whole different thing. This pen as it exists
Speaker 1: right now, with this amount of ink in it, Can
Speaker 1: it ever not be this thing?
Speaker 5: It changes when it loses ink, yes.
Speaker 3: But it's still this thing.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: But we could say that, we could say that that
Speaker 1: it has a state of the is full of ink
Speaker 1: and when say it has a state of not full
Speaker 1: of ink.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but fundamentally that connect, that connection you're making, that
Speaker 5: link is that's.
Speaker 1: A property of the pen. That can change. Is the
Speaker 1: property of the pen.
Speaker 5: The pen you're making an abstraction of a pen. The
Speaker 5: idea of the pen itself isn't the most fundamental thing.
Speaker 5: It is an abstraction, an abstraction the thing and.
Speaker 3: Is not themental thing we're talking about.
Speaker 5: Ah, I'm I'm saying it's how it depends on how
Speaker 5: you're defining the pen, because there are.
Speaker 1: Depend right here is what I see, what I feel,
Speaker 1: this whole thing, all the properties of this pen or
Speaker 1: the pen we're talking about.
Speaker 3: That's how I'm defining this.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, then yes, the pen can change because the
Speaker 5: pen can change states, or your senses of the pen
Speaker 5: can change.
Speaker 3: Right. Is it still the same pen?
Speaker 5: I okay, there's still the.
Speaker 1: If this pen is if I write until there's no
Speaker 1: more incoing this pen?
Speaker 3: Is that a different pen? Or is it the same pen.
Speaker 5: In some sense of the word. Yes, it is a
Speaker 5: different it's different. It's not the same. It has changed.
Speaker 3: State right if? Right?
Speaker 1: And that's the problem that is a problem. Right, but
Speaker 1: it is still the same pen, right.
Speaker 5: There is a there is It came from the previous pen,
Speaker 5: and there is a and you have a unifying concept
Speaker 5: between the previous pen and this pen. So some things
Speaker 5: did stay the same and some things changed.
Speaker 1: Okay, do those properties mean as the thing they're describing
Speaker 1: is different, is a different thing?
Speaker 5: Yes, there, it is a different thing on some level.
Speaker 5: There's parts that changed.
Speaker 1: So it's a every time a property on this pen changes.
Speaker 1: Every time I write with this pen, it becomes a
Speaker 1: different pen than the one I'm holding.
Speaker 3: How does that happen?
Speaker 5: It's changing its state and it's in it branches and
Speaker 5: becomes the other pen through the action. But some of
Speaker 5: its potential potential becomes became actual and it changes and
Speaker 5: some of the ink went from the pin onto the paper.
Speaker 1: And you, yes, I'm agreeing with that. I don't like
Speaker 1: that was my description, right, you haven't answered the question.
Speaker 1: You would just read stated my description.
Speaker 5: Well, you're asking how it happens? Do you want me to.
Speaker 1: Describe how does this become a different pen when I
Speaker 1: write with it?
Speaker 5: Okay? The point on the pen interacts with the paper
Speaker 5: and releases some of the ink and some.
Speaker 1: There are all properties of writing, and there are all
Speaker 1: properties of the pen. Yes, you asked me how did
Speaker 1: it describe? How how does it write? And you basically
Speaker 1: described the process of writing. What you haven't described is
Speaker 1: how this becomes a different pen.
Speaker 5: It lost some of its atoms and it has a
Speaker 5: slightly different property some of it. It became different, it changed.
Speaker 1: Okay, but that doesn't mean it's a new pen.
Speaker 5: You Your abstract concept of the pen and it being
Speaker 5: the same thing is is an approximation. It's it's it's perception.
Speaker 3: It's I'm not talking.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about my perception of the pen. Talking
Speaker 1: about the pen it's off and what it's actually doing,
Speaker 1: not my concept of it.
Speaker 2: It's the concept, No, not itself is the pen?
Speaker 3: You are.
Speaker 2: The concept comes from a brain. The concept doesn't come
Speaker 2: from the pen. The concept comes from a brain. You
Speaker 2: ever see that painting that's a pipe and it says
Speaker 2: this is not a pipe in French?
Speaker 1: You should go look at it for a while. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a fun one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're trying to make something of illusions.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: This is the fundamental problem that I think you're having
Speaker 1: is I don't think you under you're you're trying to
Speaker 1: make the first law of logic not be true. And
Speaker 1: I think the other fundamental problem is is what is
Speaker 1: the identity right the ship of theseus? And is this
Speaker 1: problem is why? I really, I mean, it's still the
Speaker 1: ship of theseus. And I can give you a better example,
Speaker 1: just because I'm a software engineer. When we want to
Speaker 1: define what a record is, we use a field that
Speaker 1: has absolutely nothing to do with the record, and if
Speaker 1: that field is different, it is a different object and
Speaker 1: have the exact same properties. But if that id field
Speaker 1: is different, few different objects. But if you're the same,
Speaker 1: the alls they've done is change state, and we need
Speaker 1: to track that state.
Speaker 3: But that doesn't mean it's a different thing. And this
Speaker 3: is the problem.
Speaker 1: Right, the pen can lose ink, it's still the pen
Speaker 1: is It's a property that doesn't make it unique or different.
Speaker 5: Okay, you can define the atoms taking that form in
Speaker 5: it having the utility of writing to still be a pen.
Speaker 5: But again I'm saying that that is an abstraction. It's
Speaker 5: a useful abstraction, which is close to the truth, but
Speaker 5: it's not fundamentally.
Speaker 1: Fully, you're saying that this pen has stopped being a pen,
Speaker 1: and I have a new different pen when I drive ink.
Speaker 1: And this is an actual, real thing that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about the concept of it. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the real thing. And my question is is how
Speaker 1: does this become a different pen in my hand than
Speaker 1: the one that I have in my hand.
Speaker 3: If just the ink goes out.
Speaker 5: It still is a pen. It's still can uh, it
Speaker 5: still has ink and you can still right with it,
Speaker 5: and it still the pen.
Speaker 1: Yes, but you're saying it's not still the pen when
Speaker 1: ink comes out of it.
Speaker 5: It has changed. It has lost some atoms, so I
Speaker 5: so it's not exactly the same. It is largely the same.
Speaker 6: It's mostly the same.
Speaker 5: But but it's not. I'm not they're not equal. They aren't.
Speaker 5: They're approximately equal, but they're not equal.
Speaker 1: We're still talking about the pen, right, Yes, we're still
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 3: The physical object at some of its atoms.
Speaker 5: So it's not exactly the same physical object.
Speaker 1: It's how is it not the same physical object.
Speaker 5: Because it lost some of its matter, it changed, It's
Speaker 5: not all of the atoms are in the same place
Speaker 5: that it was.
Speaker 1: Okay, doesn't mean it's a different pen.
Speaker 5: The pen from before became that pen.
Speaker 1: I agree, doesn't mean it's a different pen, and that's
Speaker 1: what you've got. That's what you're trying to prove right now.
Speaker 1: And you can't really do that with this, right because
Speaker 1: there are some properties of things that can change. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that the thing has stopped being the thing.
Speaker 5: No, you still have the conception of it as being
Speaker 5: the pen. But that conception that abstraction is fundamental.
Speaker 1: You haven't proven that the pen becomes a different pen
Speaker 1: just because some of its properties change, especially properties that
Speaker 1: are designed to change. Right anyway, this is just we're
Speaker 1: going over the same ground. Please, God, you some more
Speaker 1: study of flow so we try and get your first
Speaker 1: promise at least makes sense.
Speaker 3: It would be nice. This has been a little bit
Speaker 3: of fun, all right.
Speaker 2: I think there was just a fundamental problem with communication there.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to do the Ship of Thesius. We
Speaker 1: ended up doing it anyway, Although I think the ship
Speaker 1: of Theseus is slightly different because that's replacing every part.
Speaker 3: Is it still the same ship? And the answer is this,
Speaker 3: we actually have a real ship like that right now?
Speaker 3: M uss constitution, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, some properties are are are supposed to change. Does
Speaker 1: it mean it' stop being a thing. I think the
Speaker 1: more fun one than theis is the statue. Bronze statue, David,
Speaker 1: when you melt the statue down, I go from that.
Speaker 3: I think that that that is still a equals a.
Speaker 1: The problem is that we are describing the same blob
Speaker 1: of bronze in.
Speaker 8: Just two different states, two different that's the And if
Speaker 8: you had more bronze, you still have it. Blaba bronze,
Speaker 8: take less, you still have. Size can change. It's veryable anyway,
Speaker 8: life gus On.
Speaker 3: Yeah, did we do all of our announcements? I don't remember.
Speaker 1: Oh, we do have announcements. I have not done any
Speaker 1: of those.
Speaker 3: I honestly didn't remember. I'm not trying to remind you.
Speaker 3: I completely forgot. I'm on my shirt show today, so
Speaker 3: I'm kind of lost. I would like to do that.
Speaker 3: I've done three shows a day before. That's always fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah, turns your brain damash, but you can do it
Speaker 1: all right.
Speaker 3: So some announcements.
Speaker 1: We're excited to announce the launch of our twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six back crews August fifteenth at seven pm next weekend.
Speaker 1: Tickets are on sale now and yeah, they are going fast.
Speaker 1: Get yours before they're all sold out. Going to be
Speaker 1: exciting events all weekend, so you don't just need to
Speaker 1: show up for the bat Cruise. You can show up
Speaker 1: on Friday where there's going to be a special guest lecture.
Speaker 1: Uh there's a community outing and activity during the day
Speaker 1: on Saturday, followed by our annual members town Hall and
Speaker 1: then your favorite ACA shows film live from the three
Speaker 1: Free Thought Library is about to say three Thought.
Speaker 3: It's like we've got more than three.
Speaker 1: Library on Sunday. Confirmed featured guests include genetically Modified Skeptic,
Speaker 1: the Antibot Thinker, Godless Engineer, Objectively Dan, Secular Rarity, Jamie
Speaker 1: the Blind, Limey, Christy Powell and uh Yeah, Loglin, her
Speaker 1: Veria and Kelly Laughlin. And you can get tickets at
Speaker 1: ACA dot Shows Slash Back Cruise and folks. It is
Speaker 1: a fun time. You can hang out with other atheist,
Speaker 1: lect your hair down, and just be an a theist.
Speaker 1: And if you haven't ever had the opportunity to do that,
Speaker 1: I strongly encourage you to do that as soon as
Speaker 1: you can.
Speaker 3: Either this year's back Cruise or next year's back Cruise.
Speaker 1: Would be really really good to do that. And you
Speaker 1: also get to hang out at the Free Thought Library
Speaker 1: and do some other fun stuff.
Speaker 3: And Austin is a blast.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as so come in on Thursday and go check
Speaker 1: Austin out because Austin has a lot of fun. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of really cool stuff. It is a beautiful,
Speaker 1: beautiful city. Just don't go north or south in the
Speaker 1: freeway during rush hour because you will not go north
Speaker 1: or south East West is okay nor south.
Speaker 3: That's so much.
Speaker 1: And folks, there are some folks that are literally behind
Speaker 1: the scenes doing stuff for us that honestly, this show
Speaker 1: would go much much worse without because it would require
Speaker 1: me to be more of a professional than I already am.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying I'm a professional. And that is
Speaker 1: the one the only the crew are video operators, audio
Speaker 1: app writers, note takers, call screeners, chat moderators.
Speaker 3: All those people waving at you.
Speaker 1: And their cats and their dogs or small farm animals
Speaker 1: and children in cages. I mean, I'm sorry, No, they're
Speaker 1: not in cagous They're all free ranged children.
Speaker 3: That's why they're tasty.
Speaker 1: By the way, you too can be if you want
Speaker 1: a crew member.
Speaker 3: You can be a guest on one of our shows.
Speaker 1: Or baby even somehow if you want to I don't
Speaker 1: know why you would become a host like me, like Kelly.
Speaker 1: And we're always looking for people interested in being a
Speaker 1: part of our production. So email volunteer at atheistdashcommunity dot
Speaker 1: org to get involved if you wish. And that would
Speaker 1: be really really wonderful, do it. And yes, and so
Speaker 1: we've got a private chat over here for just you know,
Speaker 1: the crew to talk to us when stuff is going on.
Speaker 1: And yes, you're always welcome to stuff on Gem's test.
Speaker 1: Please do you only walk in the bottoms? You can
Speaker 1: stop on the tops. Uh. So we do have somebody
Speaker 1: on TikTok uh cool, cool that we would encourage to
Speaker 1: step up.
Speaker 2: I know our I know, I know our A c
Speaker 2: A live room told us to go ahead and take.
Speaker 3: A Yeah, we'll go ahead, and uh, next up we
Speaker 3: get a few minutes, LA get Bob in New York.
Speaker 3: We can handle it.
Speaker 1: You want to discuss reasoning behind belief in Christ versus
Speaker 1: not believing in Christ?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Sure, I've been waiting for about two hours now.
Speaker 6: The other guy got about two hours, so I would
Speaker 6: like to at least my fair time of day here.
Speaker 3: But anyway you're starting out to call the wrong way,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you right.
Speaker 6: Now, I would like to uh. I'd like to begin
Speaker 6: my uh. I'd like to begin my part with the
Speaker 6: with a little bit of scripture. Okay, So I don't care.
Speaker 6: All all things were created.
Speaker 5: Through him, and apart from him.
Speaker 6: Not one thing what was created that has been created.
Speaker 3: So I don't care. So what's gonna say anything solo.
Speaker 6: That's a philosophical point of view, but my I would
Speaker 6: like to approach it from more of a scientifical point
Speaker 6: of view.
Speaker 3: Scientifical, scientifical. Yeah, we're starting off really good here. Let's
Speaker 3: say scientifical was.
Speaker 6: No, you gave the guy about ten minutes without interrupting.
Speaker 3: No, I've just go ahead.
Speaker 1: Interesting, you haven't said anything interesting yet, go.
Speaker 3: Ahead, right? I was.
Speaker 6: I was prefacing my statement and then I got rudely interrupted.
Speaker 6: So I would like at least a little bit of
Speaker 6: time to make my point of view clear. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay, you know what, if you're going to keep complaining,
Speaker 3: you're going to get just leave him alone and let
Speaker 3: him get on with it. I just I don't have
Speaker 3: this back and forth you gave.
Speaker 6: You gave the guy about two hours to watch.
Speaker 3: You have ten seconds to get on with it. He
Speaker 3: had waiting.
Speaker 6: Okay, contingency contingency, I did it.
Speaker 1: You're going to make an argument from contingency, Yes, sir, really.
Speaker 3: Definite cause if if nothing.
Speaker 6: Can be created, then where did it come from?
Speaker 3: Indefinite?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because how did God take out take nothing and
Speaker 2: make everything?
Speaker 3: How did that happen? That's the question.
Speaker 6: He's because that's a that's an amazing question.
Speaker 5: And that's the root of the matter.
Speaker 3: Okay, So, so ergy, we know that energy can't.
Speaker 6: Be doing a questions. You asked the question online.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, tell us, tell us and stop fucking complaining.
Speaker 3: It's no, I'm not.
Speaker 5: But the guy before me, he got I was waiting
Speaker 5: on the line, stopping again, complaining, or we will hang out.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: We didn't want to take your call anyway. You're the
Speaker 1: only caller on the line, so we.
Speaker 6: Kind of had to Everything came from something like today,
Speaker 6: from yesterday, an.
Speaker 3: Energy be created or destroyed, the contingencies and.
Speaker 1: Energy be created or destroyed. No, okay, everything is contingent
Speaker 1: on on energy. I don't need your God, where where
Speaker 1: did it come?
Speaker 6: And my question I'm talking physics.
Speaker 3: I'm not even getting into it.
Speaker 1: I'm talking physics. We're talking to law. Thermodynamics. Energy cannot
Speaker 1: be treated or destroyed. And then you ask where did
Speaker 1: energy come from? It can't be treated or destroyed. Where
Speaker 1: If you're going to claim your God didn't come from someplace,
Speaker 1: I can claim energy does. I've got better grounding, hey
Speaker 1: to say energy doesn't come from anything because the laws
Speaker 1: of physics.
Speaker 6: That's cool.
Speaker 3: Then you do for your god.
Speaker 6: Let's cool it for a second. I want I want
Speaker 6: to I want to slow down and unpack everything. I'm
Speaker 6: not trying to get into an argument. I want to
Speaker 6: get into a conversation. So, okay, we got that out
Speaker 6: of the way. Anyway, according to I don't know who
Speaker 6: came up with Albert Einstein, something equals mc squared or whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it's Albert Einstein. Mass comes from energy. Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: And this goes back to fund my first question. If
Speaker 1: energy cannot be created or destroyed, everything is contingent on energy.
Speaker 1: Egles MC squared proves that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a basic scientific.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's that's perfectly fine and great. But I'm asking
Speaker 6: where did it start in the origin, Where did it originate?
Speaker 1: Energy?
Speaker 3: It was never created, It can't be created.
Speaker 1: It didn't originate from anywhere because there is no there
Speaker 1: is no origin for energy.
Speaker 3: Energy. Is that's the whole point behind the first law
Speaker 3: throne and dynamics?
Speaker 6: Or are you saying it's eternal like it's always existed.
Speaker 3: As far as we know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now this universe hasn't. There's a difference between this
Speaker 1: instantiation of the universe and energy. Right, And it also
Speaker 1: depends on which version of time, whether you think it's
Speaker 1: space time or space and time, which is a whole
Speaker 1: physics thing on own we're not going to try and
Speaker 1: get into.
Speaker 6: But yes, a matter of just a matter of actual
Speaker 6: clock time, like clock time, like if I had yesterday,
Speaker 6: and then if I went back in time yesterday, yesterday, yesterday, yesterday,
Speaker 6: all the way to the beginning.
Speaker 1: I guess they say you go to the beginning of
Speaker 1: the universe. And then we get into the question of
Speaker 1: whether time is eternal or not. Right, we don't know, Well, no,
Speaker 1: we don't know if it's space time the concept of
Speaker 1: space and time, that time depends on space or our
Speaker 1: space and time independent things in physics.
Speaker 3: We don't know.
Speaker 6: Excuse me, please, I listened about two hours of that
Speaker 6: guy wastling on.
Speaker 1: All right, this is your last warning, complain about the
Speaker 1: last guy again, and I'm just going to drop you.
Speaker 1: And not only I'm going to drop you, I'm going
Speaker 1: to recommend to our crew that you never come back.
Speaker 1: Stop complaining about the previous guy. Now answer the question
Speaker 1: equal energy. Everything is dependent on ergy. Energy cannot be created.
Speaker 1: Whether time is eternal or not is up for debate
Speaker 1: in the physics world.
Speaker 6: Sure, okay, that's fair enough.
Speaker 5: Can I please, do I have like?
Speaker 6: Do I have a response to that?
Speaker 5: Is this a lecture?
Speaker 6: Can I respond?
Speaker 5: Please? I waited about two.
Speaker 6: Hours to get on the air, so I'd like to
Speaker 6: at least a little bit of time.
Speaker 3: There you go. Now you're gonna wait forever, dude, Bob,
Speaker 3: You're gone. Wow. I hate to do that to our
Speaker 3: only caller.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but how many times you got to tell him though,
Speaker 2: to stop complaining? I mean yeah, I mean half of
Speaker 2: that call was him complaining.
Speaker 3: Let's face it.
Speaker 2: And honestly, when he called earlier, he was half his
Speaker 2: call then was doing the same thing complaining. He was
Speaker 2: complaining that we were over talking him while he was
Speaker 2: over talking.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, the contingency argument is perfectly fine.
Speaker 1: I hate everything is contingent on energy, and we can
Speaker 1: in the physics show that right is time?
Speaker 3: Is it spacetime or time?
Speaker 2: Go know, there's a new quantum concept that was first
Speaker 2: thought of in twenty I talked about it to him earlier.
Speaker 2: Just recruited everything you said, just on truth wanted earlier.
Speaker 2: There's a new scientific concept that was thought about in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. It was actually proven just last year, twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. It's called indefinite causal order, and we've what
Speaker 2: we found out is that the cause and effect are
Speaker 2: super positional. The effect can actually happened before the cause.
Speaker 2: So that takes your whole contingency argument, throws it out
Speaker 2: the window.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's not new, that's been around. I remember
Speaker 1: reading about that in the nineties. I think I think
Speaker 1: it was an experiment. I want to say it was
Speaker 1: in Ohio where they shot a photon of light down
Speaker 1: a tube and then they would randomly close close one
Speaker 1: side of the tube after the photon had passed the
Speaker 1: a point, and one percent of the time it was
Speaker 1: in the one that was open.
Speaker 3: If I remember that correctly, and.
Speaker 1: I may not, I'm sure somebody in chat probably has
Speaker 1: a reference to the actual paper.
Speaker 3: That would be cool. I'd like to add that to
Speaker 3: my notes on stuff. I got to keep up with science. Guys,
Speaker 3: you get your theiss with all your argument.
Speaker 2: You got to keep up with science because science keeps
Speaker 2: making making those gaps that your god lives in smaller
Speaker 2: and smaller and smaller.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So yeah, cause and effect are sometimes effective.
Speaker 1: Then cause once again goes back to is it space
Speaker 1: time or space and time?
Speaker 3: And if you don't have time, can you have changes?
Speaker 3: That's kind of the question.
Speaker 2: Also, right then, and they were Let's say we say
Speaker 2: that Bob was right there that there has to be
Speaker 2: some cause cause that started at that doesn't prove that
Speaker 2: that is his personal god, right.
Speaker 1: No, nastually have the problem with a lot of these
Speaker 1: is they get to Okay, you want to say the
Speaker 1: contingency argument, everything is contingent on something that something has
Speaker 1: got Well, okay, you make the argument everything is contingent
Speaker 1: on something, all right, matter is contingent on energy.
Speaker 3: I don't need to go beyond energy at all.
Speaker 1: Ever, I don't need a god, right, we don't need
Speaker 1: a god to know that one plus one equals two.
Speaker 1: We don't need a god to know that A equals a,
Speaker 1: A is not equal B. You know those things we
Speaker 1: just don't need. But yeah, and any other way I
Speaker 1: like to go with contingenty ar argument is that everything
Speaker 1: is contingent on me, proved me wrong, and then watch
Speaker 1: them flunders they can't. And the fun part about that is,
Speaker 1: remember all those things that people used to say, is
Speaker 1: you know, why didn't God answer my prayer? He did?
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's no, he works in mysterious ways, all those
Speaker 1: really fun answers.
Speaker 3: I just feed it back to him. It laughs. Historically
Speaker 3: it's it's great fun. Yeah. Man, the universe works in
Speaker 3: mysterious ways.
Speaker 1: Man, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, black holes, Yeah, they work in mysterious ways, you know.
Speaker 3: All right, and we have a color in the screating room.
Speaker 3: Hopefully they make it past. Fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah, don want to drop and hopefully they make it
Speaker 1: past so it looks like it's an interesting uh.
Speaker 3: Oh oh, it was Bob trying to call in as
Speaker 3: somebody else.
Speaker 1: I'm really really tempted to click that band collar on Bob,
Speaker 1: but that is not my choice. Yes, yes he is.
Speaker 1: The more we know, the less we need him. I
Speaker 1: always like to point out when it comes. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're going to start trying to prove God first,
Speaker 1: pro the supernatural is a thing, and over the last
Speaker 1: two thousand years we've kind of proven it isn't.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: Two thousand years ago, we had supernatural explanations for all
Speaker 1: kinds of phenomenon. Why my ship sink beside and got
Speaker 1: angry at you and created a storm and sank your shit?
Speaker 3: Why did my cows get sick? Witch cursed you?
Speaker 1: All of these supernatural things had or all these phenomena
Speaker 1: had supernatural explanations.
Speaker 3: And now you know, we know what causes.
Speaker 1: Storms, we know how storms work, we can forecast them
Speaker 1: with a fair degree of accuracy.
Speaker 3: We have the germ theory of disease. We know why
Speaker 3: cows and humans and everybody else.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as witches too,
Speaker 2: but well not you know, like ones that are casting
Speaker 2: mid level and spells on you.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Right, Okay, Allison is up next. Cool, let's talk.
Speaker 1: About how God would be unknowable pronouns or she her?
Speaker 1: And it looks like you are from moving opera. Oh Missouri,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sorry sorry?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, is that Missouri?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I thought it was a Meli opera back of the US.
Speaker 6: I was just calling because it seemed like there was
Speaker 6: a lack.
Speaker 7: Of college currently and I wanted to give you someone
Speaker 7: to talk to him, something to do.
Speaker 3: I would call up, Sorry, we just said awesome. I
Speaker 3: thought I would.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I thought I would call it the claim that
Speaker 6: if there is a God.
Speaker 7: No human could ever know anything about their true intentions
Speaker 7: and motivations, because anything we would ever know about them
Speaker 7: would either be propaganda from themselves, propaganda from their allies,
Speaker 7: or propaganda from their enemies.
Speaker 3: Okay, or made up. So how did you prove that
Speaker 3: God exists?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 6: So I for me, that's hard to answer.
Speaker 7: I don't know what it would take.
Speaker 3: To convince me.
Speaker 9: Either.
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I feel I could all know.
Speaker 7: God wouldn't know what it would take to convince man, right, right.
Speaker 2: I had had some parameters on one of the earlier
Speaker 2: shows about what type of what type of evidence I
Speaker 2: would need, you know, But what the actual evidence is
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: But it would have to meet certain guidelines for me
Speaker 3: to accept it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a ton of evidence, and the time to
Speaker 1: believe something is true is when you have sufficient evidence
Speaker 1: to warm that belief. I just don't know that, Uh,
Speaker 1: I should you know? Until until you've got some sort
Speaker 1: of evidence. It's not you know, black swan fallacy, that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Uh, there's a reason to believe there
Speaker 1: are black swans until you find one.
Speaker 3: And we found one. Oh, look there are black swans,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 7: Uh, But that's sort of my pot this too, is
Speaker 7: the idea that it's already a big enough.
Speaker 6: Thing to say there is a guy God. But I
Speaker 6: think it's a more radicter paying to pay.
Speaker 7: You understand the nature of that God when all you
Speaker 7: would ever have is we science that I could never
Speaker 7: study a god. It's not possible, So to pay you
Speaker 7: know the nature of something, it would be simply based
Speaker 7: on propaganda, either by them, their allies or their enemies.
Speaker 6: And so I don't think propaganda is never a.
Speaker 7: Good way to know nature.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not a good way to know anything. It's
Speaker 1: from propaganda, right, Everything is putting a spin on us.
Speaker 1: And the best way to know something physical is to
Speaker 1: measure it, right, absolutely, Yeah, So God would have to
Speaker 1: be something we can measure.
Speaker 7: Hemans.
Speaker 3: God would have to be something we can measure physically.
Speaker 3: That's kind of what I was saying. I want empirical evidence,
Speaker 3: right on ambiguous empirical evidence.
Speaker 1: When you say the word existence you are implying properties
Speaker 1: that can be measured.
Speaker 3: I don't know how you cannot.
Speaker 1: Even like one plus one equals two being true, exit
Speaker 1: that formula exists. It has properties we can measure, right,
Speaker 1: it has an operator to operands and an answer. Those
Speaker 1: are all those are all properties of the equations.
Speaker 5: So absolutely, and I get what you're.
Speaker 6: Saying, Yeah, is that true God to exist, they would
Speaker 6: have to exist.
Speaker 7: Within the rules of our universe because they exist within
Speaker 7: our universe?
Speaker 6: Is that kind of what you're saying.
Speaker 7: They would have to It would interact with that universe
Speaker 7: the way everything else does.
Speaker 1: Well, it would have to inter I mean, well, first
Speaker 1: you have to figure out that if outside of the
Speaker 1: universe even has any kind of meaning. And as far
Speaker 1: as I'm aware, physics is kind of up and air
Speaker 1: on that one. There isn't There's a whole lot of hypotheses,
Speaker 1: but there isn't a whole lot of of theory on that.
Speaker 1: So that's a problem. I mean, that's kind of the
Speaker 1: first thing you could have to do. The second thing
Speaker 1: you'd have to do is demonstrate how something outside of
Speaker 1: the universe can affect something inside the universe. You still
Speaker 1: have to prove how they or how they created the universe.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: This is a problem with the teleological argument is there's
Speaker 1: only two ways to prove that. To prove it to
Speaker 1: the logical argument, one is to show the creator and
Speaker 1: two to compare the thing to something that is known
Speaker 1: to be created or natural. And we only have what
Speaker 1: We only have this universe, and we don't even know
Speaker 1: if the concept of another universe makes sense. There's the
Speaker 1: multi universe theory and hypothesis and all that, but right,
Speaker 1: we're still working on it. So our physicists are still
Speaker 1: working on It's a mathematical concept that math can be
Speaker 1: wrong if we don't have you know, math models, what
Speaker 1: we know, what we know may not be correct or
Speaker 1: And that's why they built the large the l h
Speaker 1: a large Hadron Collie is to prove that the math
Speaker 1: proving the Higgs Boston existed, that the math was correct.
Speaker 1: They were hoping, I think that the math was wrong
Speaker 1: and that there would be no Higgs Boston or it
Speaker 1: would not be what they thought it was or what
Speaker 1: the math showed it to be.
Speaker 3: But they proved the math, right. This is why you've
Speaker 3: got to prove your math right.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just think it's science, but I would just
Speaker 9: saying from my understanding that was I like.
Speaker 6: How you would, because that was a big part of it.
Speaker 7: Was they did all Chadron glider to prove something wrong
Speaker 7: and ended up proving it right. And it's not like
Speaker 7: the way you worded that to they were hoping to
Speaker 7: prove it.
Speaker 9: Wrong, because from honestly, that's what science is. You never
Speaker 9: want to prove anything correct, use some detail to prove
Speaker 9: it wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, if they proved it wrong, I think the thought
Speaker 1: was that they would have more interesting physics to work on.
Speaker 3: And they would have things to go explore.
Speaker 1: But they proved it right, so there's a whole avenue
Speaker 1: of stuff that doesn't need to be explored now because
Speaker 1: well the math was right, so our models, so that
Speaker 1: our are right.
Speaker 3: You know, now we got to go find something else
Speaker 3: to work on, damn it.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, or yeah, because I think they were hoping
Speaker 1: for some answer because on string theory and some other stuff,
Speaker 1: if they had proven Higgs boson wrong or some other stuff,
Speaker 1: that would have become more probable.
Speaker 3: But yeah, okay, I.
Speaker 9: Don't actually know much about anything.
Speaker 7: I I'm a high school dropout. I got heavily bodied
Speaker 7: in school.
Speaker 5: I dropped out.
Speaker 7: I really wanted to graduates. I went back out heavily
Speaker 7: bodied again, dropped out again. But I love information, so
Speaker 7: I frequently just going through the scholar and read about
Speaker 7: topics that interested me. I thought, I know some stuff
Speaker 7: about some stuff, but I have massive gaps in my
Speaker 7: knowledge everywhere. But I enjoy the concepts of like physics
Speaker 7: and stuff I really like enjoy the Do either of
Speaker 7: you have any background in physics?
Speaker 3: I am, like you a dilettante, little tiny bit. I'm
Speaker 3: a geologist, so I have a little bit.
Speaker 7: Okay, I know that I think you right what a
Speaker 7: lawyer cut him?
Speaker 3: I'm a engineer.
Speaker 5: Oh, I'm antually mean to him with someone else, I
Speaker 5: think someone what a.
Speaker 7: Host is or was a lawyer at one point.
Speaker 1: Yes, Johnny is uh Johnny plays a lawyer on the
Speaker 1: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: I will say that.
Speaker 6: I was going to say, be.
Speaker 7: Sucked out a lot because I tell you a lawyer
Speaker 7: on role.
Speaker 6: Play on five M roll play it just role playing
Speaker 6: a lawyer.
Speaker 5: How much work it actually is?
Speaker 3: Cross examiner too is a lawyer? Yeah yeah, basically just
Speaker 3: taking apart someone's argument.
Speaker 7: Yeah no, But I honestly called because it was downtime
Speaker 7: and I thought, let's not have downtime, like, given.
Speaker 3: Something to talk about it, I would appreciate that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I feel like you agreed to my first topic
Speaker 6: and we just kind of.
Speaker 7: Agreed, and that I didn't know where to go from there.
Speaker 3: I kind of you might agree, Yeah, we got somewhere.
Speaker 3: Feel free being nowhere.
Speaker 7: I'm still talking about any topics you want to you
Speaker 7: till then.
Speaker 3: I think Bob is in chat being Bob Really okay,
Speaker 3: Justin doesn't give up.
Speaker 1: Huh Well, his handle on chat's kind of cool. Ronnie
Speaker 1: Dio is awesome or something along those lines. Ronnie Dio
Speaker 1: kicks ass. I'm kind of ADEO fan. I like Dio's music.
Speaker 1: But if you're going to wind complain bit Simon, we're
Speaker 1: going to get rid of you. You're just encouraging us
Speaker 1: to make it permanent. I'm going to be honest.
Speaker 7: I felt like in the that call, from the second
Speaker 7: they answer the phone, they sounded like the person at
Speaker 7: the like steak house who's pointing across the restaurant, like,
Speaker 7: why does the mindstick.
Speaker 3: Look like theirs?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was on for six minutes and spent four
Speaker 1: of it complaining. The other guy was on for over
Speaker 1: an hour. And at least we were having an interesting
Speaker 1: conversation until it got repetitive.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, and he wasn't complaining.
Speaker 6: So I can I ask you a question, askally, how
Speaker 6: do you What are your thoughts on ton.
Speaker 3: Depends on what the tone is.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are there are there are tones that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, if you have if you're angry and upset
Speaker 1: like he was, then yeah, that doesn't work so well
Speaker 1: when you're trying to communicate information. But you know, as
Speaker 1: a general rule, uh, I don't think it's a good thing,
Speaker 1: but there I think there are times where someone's tone
Speaker 1: makes it necessary to kind of go, hey, dude, turn
Speaker 1: it down a little bit, thank you.
Speaker 7: I was having a conversation about tone please this morning
Speaker 7: because of the time. I didn't get this in a
Speaker 7: conversation and I was confused and I would say about
Speaker 7: it to me. But I thought was that if someone
Speaker 7: is yelling like a lunatic at me, or if they
Speaker 7: used been in this hateful ton of voice, I would
Speaker 7: not engage with them because of their town. I feel
Speaker 7: like it's my peace.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that that that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Now. Some people use tone policing to mean that you're
Speaker 1: dismissing the argument or idea by attacking how it's expressed,
Speaker 1: and that I would disagree with.
Speaker 3: Right, you attack the argument, not the person.
Speaker 1: But just because you don't like someone's tone doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have to engage with the argument or them at all.
Speaker 1: That is not rejecting the argument, that's not dismissing it.
Speaker 1: That's not doing anything other than dismissing the person. And
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of the difference. What are you
Speaker 1: dismissing the person or the argument?
Speaker 2: Yeah, if somebody's just going to get angry and over
Speaker 2: talk you and not have a conversation, there's no sense
Speaker 2: in trying to have a conversation. I always try to
Speaker 2: reel it back in first, but a lot of times
Speaker 2: with some you just can't do it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I agree with both of you a lot.
Speaker 7: And that's what sort of the conversations when he turned
Speaker 7: down to was that ton case is more of a
Speaker 7: logical fallacy than a casual thing. It's just missing an
Speaker 7: argument for a salacious reason rather than having it here
Speaker 7: an issue with the tony being spoken to around. Mm hmm, right, okay, Yeah,
Speaker 7: I was just a common how this one I was
Speaker 7: reaching for a topic. Do you don't have any other
Speaker 7: college yet?
Speaker 2: I know we're actually we're we actually hit the end
Speaker 2: of the showtime. You know, if we had college, we
Speaker 2: could stay over time if we had callers, but we
Speaker 2: don't really don't have one. We have somebody in the
Speaker 2: uh in the text chat, but I'm not I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that it's not Bob again.
Speaker 3: So well, hey, thanks for calling and talking to us Alison.
Speaker 3: It was awesome. It was a great call.
Speaker 5: We will chat all.
Speaker 3: Right, I'll talk to you later.
Speaker 1: Okay, folks, we want to thank our back up for
Speaker 1: helping out tonight, Jamie blind blimey, there we go.
Speaker 3: You look better? No, that was here, all fair? Yeah,
Speaker 3: way better.
Speaker 4: I was just jacked into cyber space communing with the
Speaker 4: techno gods to see if I could discern some truth.
Speaker 3: I couldn't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was just all fur. He's nothing wrong with
Speaker 4: that man anyway. Yeah, I really feel bad for Donald.
Speaker 4: It was me that invited him to call back in,
Speaker 4: and I could just sense the frustration in his voice
Speaker 4: as he was trying to get across what was obviously
Speaker 4: in his head but didn't be able to come out
Speaker 4: of his throat. And I think it's one of those
Speaker 4: things where again I'm sure the orders would go, don't
Speaker 4: do it, don't encourage him to call again. But I
Speaker 4: wouldn't mind having another conversation with him. But he might
Speaker 4: be one of those things where it's actually a conversation
Speaker 4: better had offline in a more casual kind of space.
Speaker 1: I think the problem is going to be that he
Speaker 1: can't articulate what he's thinking because he doesn't know what
Speaker 1: he's thinking. He can't you knew something when you can
Speaker 1: articulate it clearly, and he was not able to do that,
Speaker 1: and that is a problem for him. But until he
Speaker 1: can do that that, I don't know that another conversation.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've always wanted to talk to him, yeah,
Speaker 1: but I don't know that would be any more fruitful
Speaker 1: until he's got an idea.
Speaker 4: If he's still listening and he's on and he wants
Speaker 4: to try it again, I mean, I'd be fine. But
Speaker 4: if there is a way that we could maybe, I mean,
Speaker 4: he can always send an email to TV at atheist
Speaker 4: type and community organ and request some kind of offline
Speaker 4: chats with me at least, then I'd be happy to
Speaker 4: try and accommodate that we are a community after all,
Speaker 4: and I'm happy to engage. And if he ever came,
Speaker 4: if he ever drove like ten hours from Louisiana to
Speaker 4: Austin to come to the back cruise, then I'd be
Speaker 4: happy to do it in person over some sort of
Speaker 4: chilled beverage. That would be great. As for Bob, yeah,
Speaker 4: don't just complain, don't just bitch and moan. You would
Speaker 4: get like he had. He had all the time in
Speaker 4: the world to actually give his points and refused because
Speaker 4: he was just And I think that's the large of
Speaker 4: the Christian persecution complex. I have to feel like they're
Speaker 4: a victim.
Speaker 2: Well, he was claiming to be an atheist, for one,
Speaker 2: and I don't know that, you know, I don't. I
Speaker 2: think mostly as Jim said, I just don't think he
Speaker 2: fully understood. And he seemed real frustrated. And I wasn't
Speaker 2: sure if he was frustrated with us because we didn't
Speaker 2: understand them, or if he was frustrated with himself because
Speaker 2: he wasn't communicating so we couldn't understand him.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 4: Anyway, handled as well as it could possibly have been fantastic.
Speaker 4: Thanks for being It's been a long ass day. I
Speaker 4: feel like I am. I am now one with this chair.
Speaker 3: Thanks to be the backup post here here appreciate it.
Speaker 3: And thanks once more to our wonderful crew.
Speaker 1: Thanks to Kelly for co hosting with me and helping
Speaker 1: me to keep saying even though I'm sure his brain
Speaker 1: is mush after doing free shows. Like I said, I've
Speaker 1: done that before, it's not fun. It is, but it
Speaker 1: isn't It is, but it isn't right. It's fun up
Speaker 1: until the end, and then you crash.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely, definitely the crash is absolutely fun.
Speaker 1: And to everybody who joined us in chat, thank you
Speaker 1: guys so much, even those of you in chat who
Speaker 1: wanted to make arguments but not actually call in and say, Hi,
Speaker 1: we are a call in show.
Speaker 3: We exist for you to call in, not for you
Speaker 3: to argue.
Speaker 1: In most of ports, you're arguing about something really important,
Speaker 1: like his hot dog sandwich.
Speaker 3: You put the milk in first, of the cereal, end first.
Speaker 3: Those are important questions too. In cereal then bowl. That's
Speaker 3: the way thing. There are apparently people who do it
Speaker 3: the other way, pour it all over the counter and
Speaker 3: scrape it into the bowl.
Speaker 1: That works too, all right, Thank you guys so much,
Speaker 1: and we will see you same BAT time, same BAT channel,
Speaker 1: Sundays at four thirty pm Central. Well, someone will be back,
Speaker 1: may not be me, but it'll be one of us,
Speaker 1: and we'll be here to take your calls and talk
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 3: Live in chat, not in chat, but live on the
Speaker 3: phone or from TikTok. I know, as we'll be watching
Speaker 3: it on TikTok.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much, last time, request up, Thanks
Speaker 1: you next time right away.
Speaker 6: To start
Speaker 3: Stop there ready, Watch Talkie Than Live Sundays at one
Speaker 3: pm Central and call into the show at five one
Speaker 3: two nine nine one nine two four two, or connect
Speaker 3: to the show online at a C A dot show
Speaker 3: slash call