Speaker 1: Steps stop stop sentences in the box in the st
st st st steps stop stop, stop stops, stop stops
to east stopping a step, and stockings stops.
Speaker 2: At the Brazenski model, the technic crap model is much
more interested in the incremental.
Speaker 3: Slow, killed Fabian approach to bringing the technocracy into being.
So they're not going to send the Homeland security troops
to round you up and put you in a FEMA camp.
Speaker 4: They'd much rather promote everybody being in national video games,
the Disney Gulog, the virtual reality gulog.
Speaker 3: All this kind of stuff is in much better FEMA
camp in your home. They don't need the FEMA camp.
Speaker 4: It's it's too messy, it's a big ordeal, and it's
all the nonsense of all the patriot crap on the radio.
That's not gonna happen. They don't need to the shadow
of the global government is already here. And as you
said that, it's in the latter stages of the mopping
up process to move it into the next phase. And
higg between two pages of the next page.
Speaker 5: M h.
Speaker 4: M hmm, what's up? Welcome? Can you hear me? We
ain't got no sound on you.
Speaker 5: How about now we do. I can hear you know, yes,
going on dude?
Speaker 4: Not much man? How are you?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 5: Pandemic?
Speaker 4: I feel like I haven't talked to you in a while,
so I'm glad you're back. It's good.
Speaker 5: I know, it's always good. I feel like I need
I need one of these one on one with you,
like every two months or something. How you do how
you been doing?
Speaker 4: I can go one on one. I can beat you
on horse, I could beat you on one on one.
I could beat you in any game.
Speaker 5: Dog, wait till I wait till I get my back drop.
Speaker 4: Uh, you're gonna have one of those green screens with
with the books with nineteen ninety three Windows screen savers
in the background. That'd be sweet, all right?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 4: The crowd, the mob, the mindless mob of nerds that
are also a high Q high IQ at the same time.
What's up? Can y'all hear me? Everybody go? Are we good?
Scam demit jenga scam jinga with Alex Jones eating oysters?
What's up? I'm just waiting for the nerds to tell
me that the sound is good, and then we start talking,
start jawing, you know how it is chat's always a
little bit behind.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is like that weird on uh, when talk
shows were a thing where the guests would be on
and they just wouldn't talk to each other until the
you know, the commercial came back.
Speaker 4: I go on radio shows still and it's like that,
and it's weird when that happens. They're like, all right,
you'll be back in five minutes, and then you just
have to sit there listening to the radio and then
some weird ad for they.
Speaker 5: Just don't want to they don't want to miss a
good sound bite.
Speaker 4: I think, yeah, makes sense. That's a good point. Any
think about that. All right, everybody says the sound is good.
Hopefully more nerds will roll in here. One hundred and fifty. Yeah,
we will get some nerds in here. Everybody's off doing
homework because they're nerds. Well, hopefully we're gonna have a
good show tonight. Because Jimbob has been asking me some
some fire questions in my inbox. He was blowing me up.
He's blowing me up in a good way, not in
a in a mean way, not in a terrorist way,
philosophy terrorism, blowing me up, asking pretty good questions and
actually a lot of the questions that Jimbob asked are
questions that a lot of people kind of ask in
a not in a I mean, Jimbab wasn't asking dumb questions.
I'm saying that he was asking them in an intelligent way.
But a lot of people take the questions that we
were chatting about the last couple of weeks and they
run off in a dumb way and they come up
with dumb ideas, dumb world views, and ridiculous positions. So
we're gonna hit on some of those, as you can
tell from the clickbaity retitle that I gave this stream.
You know, you see these videos about glitches in the matrix,
you see videos about simulation theory and all kinds of stuff.
But also a lot of the philosophical questions that jim
Bob brought up are more high minded that are very relevant,
like the one in the many, what is that? What
does that matter? The law of identity, all these kinds
of things. But before we do that, let's, uh, Jim,
I'll introduce yourself because we've had a lot of new people.
I think last time you were here we were at
fifty thousand, so we're almost at sixty. So it got
almost ten thousand new So tell everybody about you and
then what's up? All right?
Speaker 5: My name is Jimbob. I'm a satirical cartoonist. I'm a
weekly contributor to The Washington Examiner and author of Savage Means,
Volume one and volume two, which features a Courunka time capsule.
I'm glad that Kurunka happened because it gave me a
delay production time, and it enabled me to include a
lot of ridiculousness that we all shared in the last
couple of months. So yeah, I'm you know, I'm new
to back to theism after fifteen year hedonistic, atheistic, relativist
stunt in LA and very new to philosophy and logic,
you know, like properly, you know, just just really getting
into it. And I just absolutely love it. And Jay,
You've been a big influence on me in that regard.
Speaker 4: Hey, man, I'm honored you are a stellar comedian, a
stellar wit. I mean, the memes that you put out.
I'm envious of the skill that you have in memory.
I wish I was as good as you putting all
that stuff out. So you're using your logic in the
right way in terms of affecting the culture. So yes,
the last few times we talked, well, last time we
were just clowning around on the fifty k stream. But
now we want to talk about maybe stuff that's a
little more serious. And I think the previous two streams
that you and I did they were fairly serious. We
talked about you know, Darwinism, pan sperm, you know, these
kind of stupid ideas, materialism, metaphysics. Where do you want
to start? I think the last the first thing that
you had brought up was something like the simulation theory
or no multiverse, which we want to start with, and
we can we can launch off into that.
Speaker 5: I guess we can start there. I mean multiverse, simulation theory,
why use of logic you know, contrasts or conflicts with
the theory itself and why it's a problem, and uh,
you know, I just got into certain not full debates,
just like you know, banter back and forth, and that
came up and it seemed pretty clear to me. But
I also just I also ask you these things to
get to the real root philosophically and logically, to see
if I'm on track so far as discerning why it
doesn't work well, like why it doesn't work at all.
And so as you said it, I think you believe.
I don't know if that was the question you said it,
it violates the law of identity. Was that that question?
Was that the case?
Speaker 4: Yeah? So, and let me remind the audience too that
if you if you see the link that I put
up multiple times. So obviously we don't have super chats
here anymore directly on my channel, but if you do
want to ask us questions and super chat, you do
it through stream Labs. So there's the stream labs link
and that'll all be should come up on the screen,
you know, that little gay running dude should pop up.
See that bunch of nonsense. Jennifer. What's up, Jennifer? She
she donated sometimes it works. There we go, she sent
twenty Yes, there we go. So get the super chat
turn a minute, and of course you can ask a
question there. You don't have to just donate. You can
type in your question or whatnot. But shout out to
Jennifer for that twenty dollars. So, yeah, that's a good
place to start. Let's start with. Okay, so simulation theory
everybody's talking about, or there was a multiverse. I've already
forgotten what we did.
Speaker 5: It was simulation. And actually I'll just start with also,
you know, I just posted that on the on my
Instagram account that that was going to be, uh, one
of the the things we're discussing, and someone said, you know,
I they were like, simulation theories real, and I said, no,
it's not. And then he said that's something a simulation
would say, and I said, you wouldn't know what a
simulation would say unless you knew you were standing outside
of it. Yeah, because I think that really gets to
the crux of it is that, at least from my perspective,
just using very basic reasoning, is that you could never
you'd always have to appeal outside of it, like a
lot of things like you know, how would you know,
how would you know you were outside of it? How
do you know the simulation isn't three simulations or a
thousand and so that's just very basic level starting point
for me, where I'm like, you know, it's just endless
regress in a way.
Speaker 4: Yeah. The easiest way to refute this one, and this
is a common one that you see kind of we
live in the matrix, you know, if you go to
philosophy one on one dudes ask this question. If you
think about this, we'll break out the whiteboard here. So
let's take this proposition reality is illusory. Right, So it's
a universal claim. It's a claim about all states of affairs.
Everything is an illusion. We all live in the matrix.
These are what are called universal claims universal statements, and
whenever you put in every or an all in front
of something, that's called a universal quantifier and logic, and
that is a really strong, vast claim. It's a claim that,
I mean, there's a lot of weight behind this. This
is not like saying, you know, I think you know,
I think Paul McCarty might be you know, a clone, right,
I think Jennifer Garner was in the CIA.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: These are really strong claims because they they are about
universal state of affairs. So if we think about reality
is illusory, main, the easiest you've hit on it, You've
said it, right. The easiest way to refute this kind
of basic level mistake is to just point out that
if that's the case, we're going to do a reduct yo, right,
reductio ad absurdum. That is one of the strongest ways
to refute things is to reduce the position to absurdity
reductio ad absurdum. So the position reduces to pure absurdity.
It's self contradictory at a fundamental level. And so we're
going to say that this proposition is a reductio adum.
Why is that the case. Well, the easiest way to
show that is to just point out that if all
of reality is illusory, then this truth came to you
via your experience of reality. So this truth proposition is
also part of the illusion and therefore self refuting. It's
that easy. So at a fundamental level, it just breaks
down to nonsense. And so this is a metaphysical nonsense claim.
And likewise, it also relates to epistemology because it says
reality is, so it's a predicating a state of affairs
to something in the world. So it's a pistemology as well.
And we're not directly dealing with ethics, but you could
flesh out ethical implications from this.
Speaker 5: Right And then, I mean, the simulation could just as
easily be called metaverse in a way. It's just these
kind of wider terms. I was having a conversation with
someone who was actually a theist and then returned back
to I mean, you know resting on atheism now, and
I was confronting him about logic and how it's not
justified under his worldview, and then he went into the
kind of the dilla Honey and many others go down
this route where they start questioning whether logic is even absolute.
There could be a universe where it doesn't exist, doesn't
apply the same way as well as mathematics and other
absolutes that we use today to discern and apprehend truth
and reality. And I thought about that, and because I'm visual,
I explained to him that if you draw a circle
and the circle is our universe, what we know how
we get to know those things logic, reasoning, and you're
able to actually locate this other universe that doesn't operate
the same way, you wouldn't be able to actually locate it,
isolate it unless it then suddenly was in pulled inside
that first circle. I just said, So, in other words,
you'd have to use you'd have to appeal to logic
and reasoning and all of the laws we know to
even earn another universe that doesn't operate the same way.
But by default you're pulling that universe into our existence.
Speaker 4: You know what I mean?
Speaker 5: And that was a way that visually kind of refuted
him because he couldn't have an answer because the only
way to get an answer is to assume what we've
been given logic and reasoning, and you just can't. The
only way they could be right about a multiverse is
if you could never know it exists at all. That's
the only way it could exist. But you could never
get to it because you're pulling it into our paradigm.
And so that kind of made sense to me, and
I was like, oh, that was an eat. That was
a pretty easy way to kind of just keep that
theory in its place, like in the here and now,
because a lot of times those arguments and theories go
down to the basement where people are smoking bonds and
they just go they never take a strict logical, you know,
ridicule approach to it, and then because that would be
over and then the party would be over, and then
be like, why are you ruining my high dude?
Speaker 4: Exactly right, let's break this down. This is an easy way.
This is a good way to go about this is
just look at this ridiculous phrase and claim, and we'll
notice how many, how many, how easy it is to
debunk this. So let's take the proposition reality is illusion reality. Okay,
this is what exactly right? The phrase assumes already some
kind of metaphysics, some kind of statement of existence, that
things are out there they have being, or or even
if you think that everything is just a manifestation of
your mind, or maybe everything is a manifestation of my butt. Right,
could all of reality just be a man? Why does
it have to be my mind? Why is mind higher
than butt on the scale of reality? Right on the
scale the totem pole of being. Maybe butts are higher
on the totem pole of being and everything's just upside
down and we don't realize it yet. But we don't
know because we're just assuming. Right, we're starting with something
that we think is an easy place to ground and
start everything. Oh reality, We all know what reality is, really,
do we? I mean, philosophers have been debating reality for millennia.
Do we all have a common sense idea of what
reality is? I don't think we do, because what reality
is is going to be. It's going to be determined
by our worldview as a whole.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: That's why if you're a rank materialist, you have a
different worldview from a person who's a theist. Right matter,
reality is different, you think it's two different things. Is
And by the way, if there's a multiverse, then there
actually is a whole dimension that's just butt. I mean,
there's literally everything. There's a whole fart dimension, right, Yeah,
literally the whole dimension is farts. There's also a dimension
where it's just me and a part. There's also a
dimension of me, you and a fart and a butt
on ad infinitum. And then let's look at is is
a statement of predication in terms of you know, sentences,
it's also a statement of being here. So ironically, what
the people who say this kind of stuff, they don't
realize that this is more than just a sentence. It's
also making a sentence about a state of affairs or
a state of being. It's assuming again that something exists,
even if you think that it's just your mind, it's
still saying that something has this feature, has this property.
Speaker 7: It is right.
Speaker 4: And then when we come to the question of the
statement illusion, the problem with this is that in our
common understanding, if we were to use that in like
a colloquial sense of illusion, I mean, you could debate
what illusions are, but in the colloquial sense. If you're
going to try to convey meaning with this sentence, most
people think of illusion as contrasted to the real. Right, Well, now,
wait a minute, reality is contrasted to the real. That
makes no sense, you see it, right, So once again
we see that at a fundamental level, this not only
assumes so many things that it hasn't justified. It's really
just nonsense speak. It's just gibberish. Right, And beyond this,
we could also deconstruct this on a grammar or a
philosophy of language level. Right, we're looking at the statement
as it is here in terms of assuming that it
actually is telling us something true about some world or
some existence or some state of affairs. We could also
deconstruct this at a linguistic sentence level, right, because this
is some guy in your philosophy class who just watched
the matrix and smoke some you know, DMT, Right, he
thinks reality is illusion. Wait a minute, bro, if you're
going to make a meaningful statement like that, let's boil
this down and let's do you realize that you're assuming
that words have meaning. That's actually a prior assumption to
the actual statement of metaphysics in the sentence, you see.
So he's assuming that the R and the E and
the A and the L and the subject the predicate right,
that these are meaningful things in sentences, you see.
Speaker 5: Right, And if he was, if he was going to
be really consistent with his worldview, he would just say
like exactly, and then it would defend it.
Speaker 4: I mean, even Kant I think, made a joke about
this that a lot of this kind of stuff is
just farting upwards, meaning from right.
Speaker 5: And then you see how the farting upwards is just
uh rampant in all aspects of culture and life, and like,
you know, it's just borrowed, you know, the same ridiculous
self refuting stuff. You know, one of the things that
pissed me off when usually pisses me off when people
get on Joe Rogan. That's why I'm hoping you eventually
get on there, because you actually combat or use logic
and reasoning in a philosophical way to put a lot
of things just at a halt. You just can't run
away with these things. And and there's a lot of
runaway conversations there. And you know when when when Dawkins
was like.
Speaker 8: The teaching little children there going to burn in hell
is absolutely immoral, but of.
Speaker 4: Course it's okay to eat the children. There's nothing wrong
with the children. There's nothing wrong with touching the butts
and eating children.
Speaker 5: And then I'm just like, you know, Joe is you know,
wherever he is, he's not, he's not present. To just
be like, wait, you just you don't you believe in
a universe that's just not basically non existent, just material matter,
infinite void of nothingness, pitiless now pitiless, And then how
could you why you're using the word moral. It's insane
to me, you know, it's absolutely obsane. But they get
away with it. And it's just the one thing that
gets me mad. It's not that they do it, it's
that they there's no one there to just be like wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
hold on a second.
Speaker 4: Right, I think, yeah, don't forget that other there's quite
a wide concatenation of ridiculous worldviews that have appeared. I mean,
Ben Gertzel was on, We're all just a bunch of
molecules in different formations, man, and it's all just chaos
and meaningful. There's nothing more than molecules in motion man
literally what he says right, which is total incoherence. But
the another thing I wanted to point out about simulation
theory itself is, and I have read some stuff on this,
I've looked at different people's analyzes, and when at first
was kind of getting popular around two thousand thirteen fourteen.
I mean, I know it's existed prior to that, but
you started seeing people talk about it on the line.
I heard Joe Rogan mention it back then, and other
people that would be featured at like Ted talks and
this kind of stuff, right, And one of the things
that they proposed was a, oh, there's a study. Some
universities somewhere did a study Dutch or something I don't
know about how they studied how light, you know, moves
in space or something like that, and it has this
sort of phased array or something to it to where
it has actual kind of like structure to it. So
light has a structure to it. Therefore, if all the
reality is kind of known via light, there must be
some kind of like structure. And they said the structure
was similar to the way computers have you know, bits
or whatever, like you know o'sen ones and o's and
ones and osen ones, right, So they were making this analogy.
Oh look, see the binary aspect of computers is very
similar to the structure of how light diffuses or something
like this. That's this was the argument in this paper,
right anyway, point being the way that I interpret that
data is going to be determined by kind of my
again governing assumptions, and so as a theist, for example,
I might just as well assume that the the universe
was created to have these features that are similar between
the way bites and binary work in a computer and
the way we experience the natural tactile world. Right, So
there's nothing about the natural tactile world having this sort
of ordered structure to it that negates that it was
a creator. Similarly, RNA DNA, there's nothing about that that
doesn't demonstrate that there was a creator of the animals
or humans or life, you know, biological life.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: So, in other words, I can have the same data
put in front of me. This in philosophy it's called
the underdetermination of data. Simply having data is not necessarily
going to give you the correct interpretation of that data.
This is again it's a well known notorious problem in
the history of epistemology, and anyone who studies philosophy science
knows about this. So I can just invoke the underdetermination
of data to point out that sim theory itself does
not actually tell you how the universe was constructed. If
it was constructed, but what do all those people say, aliens? Dude,
we're in like aliens, the matrix that the aliens put together. Man, Look,
well what I thought creator was irrational by the way, Oh,
but not if it's aliens, you see.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Similarly, dude, there's you know, there's infinite amount of universes,
and there's an infinite amount of possible universes where we exist.
And you're like, well, is it possible that one of
those universes has a creator? God? No, dude, that's crazy. Man,
you're just ruining my high.
Speaker 4: Man, right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So.
Speaker 4: I was trying to think of it there under We
had a few streams with Father Deacon and and Ayas
where we and I actually mentioned this one to Stefan.
This was one of the problems of epistemology, that what
happens is that you get a theory or you get
a discovery, and it sounds and I mean entirely it
could be true. I don't know. There's also obviously fakery
and science as well. But let's assume that the study
is correct and you get you know, light has this property.
How do you know that light having that property? That's
not going to tell you anything one way or the
other about the grand structure of reality as a whole,
per se, right, or the origin of cosmology or the
origin of man. Right, just like when you look at
an earthworm and when you study biology, it doesn't tell
you about what happened millions of years ago supposedly when
this supposedly just popped into existence. So there's all these leaps.
That's the point here, is that under determination of data
is calling out the non sequitor leaps that the science
quote unquote community often does unknowingly or without any reflection.
Or you know, well, look there's similarity between monkey and chimp.
Excuse me, between man and monkey? Right, what is it?
Ninety ninety percent similarity? Therefore it must all be the
common same common ancestor.
Speaker 5: Right, Why can't like.
Speaker 4: God create two different species with similar DNA? You see?
So in other words, it's really just depending on the
presupposition At the point.
Speaker 5: Right, there seems to be like there's the ought the
is ought fallacy, or more technically that was it, the
naturalistic fallacy. Yeah, like it's cousin or whatever it seems
to be an an aught is is ought, and then
there's like an is was fallacy, Like you just you
look at what is and then you just assume what was,
similarly to assuming what ought, and it's all just assuming
based on nothing, like you know, like bird. You know,
people think certain things have the same ancestors because they
have the same functions in their biology, like wings, and
you're just like, no, they have the same functions because
they provide the same advantage to that thing. It doesn't
mean they're connected just because they're you know what I mean.
So yeah, that that yeah that Speaking of the presupposition,
I was in a debate with someone I think is
I think his account name was debate Me, and we
talked about, you know, logic, and I confronted them on
all that. And then this is another question I asked you,
is that when someone you confront someone and they can't
justify logic, but they presuppose it, and they say, well,
you're just presupposing God. And then you get into you know, whatever,
girdles incompleteness and you justify circularity. Is it just a standstill?
Always like, is there any other move when you both
establish that you're both presupposing Because I was under the
impression from his statements that you don't need to justify
a presupposition, like ideally you you move to and you
want to, but you can just leave it there and
that's it. And I was like, maybe I'm you know,
I'm not studied enough to you know, take him on that,
because I just couldn't, I couldn't get past it. I
was just like, yeah, I guess we're at a standstill.
If you're just gonna presuppose logic without justifying it, and
I'm presupposing God to justify logic, then we're both presupposing something.
I just ended with it. My my pre's up supposition
makes logic coherent, makes meaning coherent, makes all these other
things coherent. Yours is just kind of left in the open,
and that is the best I can do.
Speaker 4: Great question. This actually comes up a lot, especially in
our discord. We get this one a lot. One thing
what I mentioned was Ernest Hackel. He's another great example
of this fallacy of like similarity and oh, that looks
kind of like this. Therefore common origin, right, everybody knows
that hopefully you know now that this you know famous.
He was basically the Darwin Darwin's evangelist to Europe is
what he's known about, Ernest Hackel, And he was exposed
as a huge fraud because he actually just made up
the drawings of the zygoats. So he actually doctored the
zygos to make them all look the same, to say, oh, look,
the zygoat of you know, this reptile is the same
as a human and they look the same. And actually
they don't look the same. But so he lied first
of all. But even the similarities that they have, right,
this has actually been debunked. Nobody believes in ontogeny anymore.
It's just a thing he made up, totally debunked, discarded,
and it was all based on his made up drawings.
So I mean, and that's not one. There's many, many
examples amongst the history of the Darwinists that are are
full of fraud, right hilt down there and all that stuff.
But on the question of coherence. Oh, the other thing
I was going to say is that you can think
about like a penny too like if I find a
penny and it has Abraham Lincoln's you know, image stamped
onto it, I wouldn't therefore conclude that pennies in Abraham
Lincoln come from the same ancestor, you see, right, But
that's how silly. This this you know, morphology is between
the assumption of the assumptions of the tree of life,
basically within the Darwinian scheme.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's it's funny the scribbles you mentioned, because that's like, uh,
it reminds me of like, uh, you know, just like
the idea that you can scribble anything and it looks
like a mad genius like you know journal you know,
like you look at like old scribblings from like you know,
Jordan Peterson where you're just like it.
Speaker 9: And then there's a dragon and then and then this
has meaning because you know, there's another snake up there
and they're fighting.
Speaker 5: And people are just drawn into the child like wonder
that they once had alone.
Speaker 4: Seven Miles the West is the best exactly chicken style, right,
like just Jim Morrison's.
Speaker 5: Just yeah, exactly, just saying stuff ejaculations of nonsense. That's
how I'm gonna get them.
Speaker 9: I'm just gonna make a maps of meaning out of
doodles and then and then I'll sell out stadiums.
Speaker 4: Okay, So back to your question, what happens when people say, well,
if you have presuppositions, I have presubsisition as the reread
to standstill because we all have presubositions and we just
chose different ones. Actually, we did not choose different ones,
so we're both choosing presubsitions. You could say, I mean
some of them were forced to. We don't necessarily choose them,
although you could choose theoretically bad presubpositions, I guess. But
for people who are not intentionally being incoherent, we all
kind of are forced to some similar presubositions or approaches
to things.
Speaker 6: In the world.
Speaker 4: And this is why, for one, you don't actually have
to refute every worldview. This is another common question that
people ask. It's like, well, how do you know that
there's not a worldview out there that you haven't heard
yet that doesn't actually have a coherent answer to the
questions that you bring up. Well, that's because when we
look at philosophy and the three disciplines of philosophy right epistemology, ethics, metaphysics,
there's actually a limited number of places that you can
go in each of those you see, So there's not
actually an infinite number of vas of worldviews, there's actually
a very few. There's actually a very few number of
places that you can go within each domain. So, for example,
in metaphysics, right, I could ask basic questions like we
started this show off with, like how do we know
reality isn't just an illusion?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: So we're asking a question about metaphysics that that we're
actually limited in how many places we could go. Right,
we could say it's either illusory or in some sense
it's real or not illusory. Right, there's two options there. Well,
once we say that it's real, we're again limiting the
number of commitments and places that we can go. In
the next step and we say, well, there's all reality
matter or is it also matter in something else?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 4: If all reality is matter, then we're reduced again back
to contradictory fundamental presubsitional mistakes. So we can't go with
pure materialism, and the same will go with ethics. Right,
you have to have there's a limited number of steps.
And if you say ethics, all ethics is relative or
it's not relative, right either? Ors here, if all ethics
is relative, then there's again nothing ethical and everything is
just subjective taste that's self reputing. So we know that
there are objective truths or ethics in some sense, therefore
we move in that. So there's again limited numbers of
ways that each of the branches can even go. So
there's actually not an infinite number of world views. Now
there's variations down the line in terms of world views
with crazy stuff like, oh, I believe the Jim Jones
worldview that the universe is literally a fart. That's what
he said. By the way, that's actually the Jim Jones,
this Jim Jones apologetics. It fits in well with our
original drawing that we had that the fart universe. But
even in the Jim Jones world view, that was a
thing that was something that he proposed kind of down
the line, right, So there was all these other things
that like he believed in you had to do this,
you have to do there's objective truth and it's whatever
Jim Jones says this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: So again, even if it's the craziest cult, there's still
a basic fundamental structure and pattern to that system or
that worldview, and that's going to be the case for anybody.
Every human being is limited in the number of places
that they can go in their worldview. So when we're
engaging with a guy who says, well, whatever, dude, like,
you know, you have your presupposition of God and that's
a circle. I have my presupposition of what did you say,
logic and that's a circle.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, so logic.
Speaker 4: Our presubposition of God is the presubosition of logic. So
so in our system we kind of have if you
if you think of it as a web or it
will say the web, will put God here in the middle,
will put all of the other things that extend out
of the presupposition on the web of beliefs here at
the federal web. Real quick, so we've got we'll say,
at the center of the web, just for the sake
of analogy, here we'll say God. And then we've got
things out here like we've got logic, we've got ethics,
we've got you know, belief in things like mathematics. Uh,
you know they're the external world love, right, I mean
you could you put anything out here that you that
are part of your web of beliefs. Okay, Now, in
this structure. What we're looking at is that this system
will be coherent, not just because we are saying that
God is at the center of it.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: We're not saying, oh, it's true because God and God
says it's true. What we're saying is that all of
this coheres in a sensible way as an entire system.
And by the way, that doesn't mean that we know
everything about the system, because actually no system can tell
you everything about the system. Right, So let's say that
we'll use M here, right, We'll put M at different
places in the system for for mystery. Right, there are
aspects of reality which are mysterious. We might make discoveries,
learn new facts and that becomes no longer a mystery.
But there's always some aspect of mystery within any system.
That doesn't mean that the system as a whole is incoherent,
because we could have a system where mystery is actually
a component in the system. May not be everything, but
it can be a component. And by the way, guess what,
that's a feature of everybody's worldview. Everybody's worldview, because of
human limitations, necessarily has some degree of paradox, limitation, finitude,
and mystery. It's impossible. So that's actually a little game
that atheist will play. Oftentimes we'll try to say, well,
if you can't explain every single thing to me right here,
right now, bro, I don't have to believe your worldview.
Oh really, well, then I don't also have to believe
your worldview because nobody can do that. That's an irrational,
impossible requirement. So what we're looking for is a again, coherence.
What does coherence have? Assumptions? Absolutely it does. But again,
what we're arguing is that it's a thing that's unavoidable. Right,
It's kind of like those other basic things that metaphysics
or ethics. Once we deny those, the whole thing falls apart.
If we deny coherence, which I guess theoretically you could
you could say, well I don't believe in coherence. Well
then you just refuted your own sentence because it requires
different levels of coherence within language, lexicons, definitions, sentenced grammar. Right,
all of those things required coherence. So let's look at
So that's our system. They may not like it, you
may not like it, but that's how it kind of
holds and stands and fits together. But the other system
is going to be different. It's going to have. If
we want to put it as the same model, we'll
put dudebro here at the center of it. And he's
got a web of beliefs.
Speaker 2: That he has.
Speaker 4: But his web of beliefs are just there, dude, Like,
there's no rational coherence that links logic so called, to
anything else or to him. He might he might try
to say that there's a link between those things, but
he can't actually explain how the two link or relate
together at all. For example, things like causation. Let's take
a us simple thing like causality or ethics or love
or logic. All right, so let's say this was like
a giant cookie with a dude in the middle. It's
not that's a cookie you get at the malls, nasty
mall cookies that are huge. It's a worldview sized cookie
from the mall. Dude. So here's dude bro in the middle.
He's got I.
Speaker 7: Believe in logic, Dude, Well, I believe in there's so
caind of ethics.
Speaker 5: Bro.
Speaker 4: I believe in cause and effect.
Speaker 1: Dude.
Speaker 7: I believe in numbers. There's like numbers or whatever. Oh,
I believe in the love, dude. Love wounds man right,
So you've got a dude bro and just these things.
He says, Okay, this is his world. So what we're
doing here, we're not just saying that God therefore true.
We're saying, let's compare this worldview to this one. This
one again, we may not like it, but we're not
here to pick out which ones we like.
Speaker 4: That has nothing to do with I mean, there's a
lot of things we don't like, but that is mean
that they're not true or that they're not facts. Right,
But this one doesn't even get off the ground. Because
let's say that there is causation. How does this dude
have any connection to or know what causation is in
the external world? How does he know there's an external world?
How does he know who dude bro is? Is dudebro?
Even a self? We don't even know this yet. What
is a self? Where does it come from?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 4: How does there is there a connection between love and ethics,
or between love and logic, or between causation and math.
We don't know, right, But it's just assumed. It's just
stated to be the case. It's all at hoc. And
what you will notice is that constantly these guys will
just refer to it just is Bro. The whole system
will constantly be at hoc at every level, and that's
why you have to constantly call them out on all
these different assertions, right, because it's like, well, just give
me this, this, this, this, this, and my world free
works no any of those things, because all those things
you want me to give you actually only makes sense
in this world view.
Speaker 5: Right, And even how you drew it, the logical end
is solubism, which is accurate to the drawing. But I
also noticed that, not that this is an argument for it,
for it being true, but you could take his circle
and anyone's circle who looks like that and put it
in the upper one and it would make sense, yeah exactly.
But you can't put us Jay or Jimbob in his
circle and it makes sense, you know what I mean, right,
And we can't be placed in that.
Speaker 4: The sub positional argument is saying that that bottom circle
is just a copy paste rip off of the top circle,
and it's trying to get rid of the centerpiece of
that circle. Put himself in there in the god position, right,
do Bros? The God?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: That's why I always uh when I argue I don't
skip right to God. I feel like it's a necessary
step to get to a mind, to connect.
Speaker 4: You can have people and go that way.
Speaker 5: In terms of the progress, it's a longer it's a
longer move, I guess you would call it. You would say,
but it's like, uh, people general, they just can't refute that.
Concepts and laws and truth, knowledge, reasoning, logic, math, these
things that we can. We can get an atheist to say, no,
we didn't invent these. I admit we didn't invent these.
Some will say they we did invent them. Some say
it's no, it's in our genetics. Man, it's just And
I'm like, where where is truth found in biology? Like
show me truth, Like show me the concept truth, show
me morality in your body.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 5: But once they admit that their concepts and that their
absolute concepts, they at least, i mean, if they're open
can get to a mind. At least they will go
to aliens, They will go to is it it's ai mind? Maybe?
Then it's like fine, go there, but don't but don't
stay where you're at. Don't stay in that really super
incoherent place without even trying to travel toward coherency or truth,
because that's just the worst place to be in my view,
I feel like that's hell. That's like one of should
have been one of Dante's like layers is where just
like nothing is true, you can't know anything. I mean,
that's that's almost like what we can only imagine, like
dementia is I.
Speaker 4: Was gonna say, yeah, something like dementia or madness exactly. Yeah,
it's hilartious, exactly, hilatious fallacious. Boy, Yeah, there was another
way I wanted to kind of present. Uh So the
tag approach. What we're saying with tag, with the transcendent
argument is we're saying that we're not just saying that
there's only circular arguments. We're saying I know you're not
saying this, but what I'm saying to dude brother, uh,
when we say that arguments are ultimately circular, that just
means at a certain level in our systems, it's unavoidable,
that's all it means, right, and that's true for everybody.
So if that's true for everybody, the question, the next
question that arises is, well, how do we reconcile which
systems are real or coherent or meaningful and which ones
aren't that's where the comparison of the systems comes in.
So the only the only way to do it, because
we're not dealing with things that we can compare or
test in a lab. Right, systems belief systems are not
empirical realities. They might encompass empirical realities, but they're not
reducible to empirical reality. So how do we test them.
The only way to do it is what I was
showing you, is to compare the two models. And if
one of those models is fundamentally retarto, then it's not true, right,
because that guy is trying to set forth a system
that's not retarto that is better or refutes our system, right.
And that's what you have to understand is that arguing
at a systems level is not exactly the same as
arguing at a kind of normative factual level. And this
is why this is so difficult for people in the
science sphere, is that they're not used to thinking at
a meta level, right.
Speaker 5: Which is which is bizarre because they're borrowing models, kind
of coherency theory to make material claims. They're like taking
those things and they're like, well, we can just draw
a couple of circles and then and then just that
makes sense out there in the universe, and it's like,
well that, you know, that's a tricky thing too, where
you're borrowing. I mean, I don't know if they're aware
that they're doing it now they are.
Speaker 4: I mean I'm at like countless for you know PhDs
in my many years of college and grad school that
I mean that part of the reason for that is
the specialization. You know, the guy who studies astronomy, he
doesn't know anything about logic at all, like you not
know one thing or something, but he doesn't mean you mean,
any of them. I'm saying, like, forget the big pop
famous ones. Like if you were to go to your
average university and you were to go and sit down
and interview the you know, biology professor, the you know
astronomy professor, you would find them constantly making basic level
fallacies that they don't they don't know anything about this stuff. Yeah.
And then partly because the education system is intentionally compartmentalized,
that's part of the part of it, right. I mean
you can get a PhD in biology and never have
a logic class. Yeah, so they don't know what you're
talking about. They have no idea why this even. They
just think this is like like they view it like
science fiction, like you're just making up stuff.
Speaker 5: That's right, metaphysics they you know, like you once said,
they've purposely put the books next Yeah, like in the
bar like you know, crystal head dress.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how to how to use your menstrual cycle? Which magic?
You know that that's what they think metaphysics is.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I had to speaking of that. I had a
roommate once in La that uh put her menstrual cycle
in my garden without asking, So I wasn't joking.
Speaker 4: I mean you will find books like that in the
in the parts. And by the way, what's up. We
got almost four hundred nerds in the house tonight. Welcome everybody.
This is j DR JS ANDWLS when we're interviewing made
by Jim Bob. I've got his link below if you
want to check out his savage ass memes. And it
was word solid Yeah, thank you exactly. It's always just
words showed brow. Yeah, but it's not words slid when
Darwin has make up all this nonsense like ontogeny, right,
that's a totally made up word from Ernest Takele by
his made up diary where he's making up nonsense doodles.
Oh but that's science, you see, but not what we're
talking about. So yeah, so circular arguments are unavoidable, but
sometimes you do have to kind of like uh, wade
through the dirt or the weeds to get people to,
like you said, kind of think about basic concepts. I
agree with you that in practice in terms of what's
more advantageous out in the field, so to speak, is
not to necessarily immediately jump to like really high falutin
theology concepts. You kind of have to start with more
basic philosophy, things that people don't even realize they recognize,
like you said, like mind, And there's nothing wrong within
the argumentation in terms of the logical order starting with
something like mind, or starting with something like causation or
metaphysics or numbers. You can start with all those things
in your logical order. But that doesn't mean that they
have necessarily metaphysical priority. That's a different issue. That's the
problem with classical so called apologetics or classical argumentation and
Thomas Aquinas is that those positions assume, because of a
logical priority, that therefore there must be some sort of
metaphysical priority. But that's a different issue. But that's why
you don't see me make the causal argument, like everything
has a cause, therefore there was a first cause. Therefore
it was God, the God of the Bible. Totally fallacious argument,
terrible argument. But I will say that I can make
a transcendental version of a causal argument. I can say, dude,
you can't reason or do anything in the world or
have any meaningful experience of the world without causation. That's
two different arguments. Does that make sense what I'm saying?
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, And then and then you have to I mean,
people generally don't wake up, eat their you know, processed
cereal and think about like the unity between immaterial concepts
the mind and the physical world. They just like are like,
how lucky, we just got really lucky here that there's
immaterial in this great explosion or you know, from a
singular moment in time. Also just laws of logic and
number theory and reasoning and that that entire unified you know,
system of three just you know, we just got lucky
with that. And I'm I'm just blows my mind. But
it makes sense that people aren't thinking of that, and
they don't have to deal with it. I think you
were saying, like, what was it since the the Enlightenment? Peeps,
they kind of like we're like, we don't need to
deal with that anymore. We're we're so past that, Like
we're so like just follow Q, you know, and they
just don't have to deal with, you know, justifying the
things that are just you just take them as freebies.
You know. People just take take them. They don't want
to think about them. Sometimes I don't blame them because
you're just like sometimes you're just like, is this just
like it's not a lost cause for me, but explaining
it or prompting people or like stopping people in their
tracks with their thinking, it's like, are they going to
ever spend more than fifteen minutes just just dealing with
that and what that means?
Speaker 4: You know, I don't know, right, Yeah, I mean it's
it's a you know, it's like fishing, right, the analogy
that Jesus uses of throwing the net out and you
know you'll catch some, but you won't catch them all.
And you know there's no telling, you know, you don't
we don't know who will be and won't be caught
in the net. But you know, I think a lot
of times people have a hard time believing that academia
because you know, there's they're big, great buildings and they
have big statues of you know, dudes out there, and
it just looks so impressive, and it's so authoritative, and
universities produced like computers and shit, right, so they must
be knowing what they're doing. They don't realize the the
how hollow and shallow and absurd academia actually is. And
if you've been in that world, you know it, you've
seen it firsthand, you know how fake it is. I mean,
I think we're starting to see these other areas of
like Hollywood, you know, and government people are starting to
see how fake and absurd it really is. And guess what, y'all,
it's not that different academia, Okay, because if you're writing
your thesis, for example, right, I mean, in a lot
of unless you're in like a hard science has been
like maybe engineering or math or something like that. I
don't even know. But most of the time you're trying
to write something that will give you, get you a
claim and get you notoriety for a novel thesis, right,
like that Shakespeare was actually a woman. You know this
kind of thing, right, that's the kind of thing that
people are trying to you know, groundbreak with their research
and with their philosophy, or if you're in the philosophy department,
you just kind of have this assumption that, like you said,
Jim Bob, those kinds of questions are the old ones.
We don't do that anymore. It's like fads. It's like,
well that's not in fashion anymore, we don't do that,
which is absurd because I thought this was the domain
of free thought, right, I thought universities promote free thought,
but it's actually the most dogmatic, like atheist, materialist place imaginable. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well, it's also just like how are they going to
get their funding if they're stopped in their tracks with
like logic and philosophical barriers that just debunk and expose
the nonsense.
Speaker 4: It's like, you don't care about funding, Jimbob. They're they're
altruistic and they want the truth. And that's why we
need the state to step in so that private entities
don't control education. And if it's the state running things,
then it'll be objective and truthful, right, yeah, totally, I mean,
which is I mean what if the state is owned
by private institutions. But anyway, I mean, that's just retarded.
But uh yeah, I mean, let's look next at before
we do multiverse, because that one will be fun. But
let's look at one and many because this is a
question that you raised, and it's it's really it's maybe
a little abstract for some people. But if we do
not you, but in the audience, if we do grasp it,
this is actually a really fascinating realm of philosophy in
terms of classic questions. Right, So in the history philosophy
in the West especially, but even beyond the West, you
have kind of recurring problems that pop up that are
always being argued and debated. And when we go back
to Plato and Aerosol, even prior to Plato, with the Presocratics,
they start asking this question of what is one thing
versus the class of things? Right, we have a cat
and then we have many cats. What is it that
they share in common that makes them cats catnus? Right,
this kind of stuff, And the Presocratics asked that prior
to Plato, and they tried to solve this big question
with universal claims about reality, about metaphysics, and so some guys, Oh,
everything's fire right, all is fire right, and that that
might sound a little absurd, but you could see, like
if you thought that energy. Fire is energy, and everything
seems to have kind of some kind of energy making
it be or move, So everything must have some kind
of like fireness in some varying degree. Or everything is
water right. Things come out of water right when humans
are born, water breaks, so maybe everything's just water in
different ways, or everything is little atoms. So the ancient
Greeks came up with these theories and they were trying
to explain what everything is with these all encompassing grand
narratives of everything is this. Now when you get to
Plato and Aristotle, they kind of modify it and they
take it to the next level and they say, now
it's not everything's not like, you know, one thing. Although
Plato kind of said everything is one thing, he said
everything's idea, right, not idea in the sense of all
I had a good thought today, but like ideas themselves
have a higher level of existence than the material plane.
That's the Platonic view. But the reason Plato thought this,
and this will help everybody understand this is like the
seven coconuts dilemit that we had the discussion, right, I mean,
what is it that makes something one thing or one
class of things and not that whole class? What picks
out a single thing a singular particular as opposed to
the universal. So this is the question of universals in particulars,
the one and the many. And in the history of
Western philosophy, this is a dialectic. It's usually a tension
between these two between groups and classes and particulars individuals.
But the easiest way to understand why this question kept
being raised is through grammar itself. I just listened to
I'll give you props to a doctor Branson who just
did a show with interview with our friend Lewis, and
they went into the history of the one in the
many in terms of grammar, and a lot of the
ancient Greek grammarians were looking at language and saying well,
in order to explain and talk about the world, language
itself just has this feature of saying the you know, cat,
or so we're picking out a specific cat amongst the
class of beings that would give the title cat, and
we're saying the cat is on the matt. We'll say
here and so cat picks out one of some class
of beings that all possess the same features. And in
the ancient mind, in the medieval mind, the essence of
a cat, or the essence of that thing is more
than just the properties. There's actually some kind of higher
level quality that makes that cat a cat, beyond just
the external whatever Arista will call accidental quality. So just
having hair, just having two eyes, just having four legs
and a tail, and you know, eating mice and you
know walk it being garfield or whatever, those are not
the features that are the essence. Those are just the
characteristics or properties of what it is to be a cat.
So you can begin to see how we're reasoning, and
we're asking this question. We're saying, what is it that's
the universal here that's also instantiated in a particular cat, right,
because we're saying that this particular cat is on the mat,
it has a spatio temporal location, but at the same
time it participates in some higher level reality of catness.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: That would be both Plato and Aristotle would agree that
there is some substance or essence that this being possesses.
And even when we write a sentence, guess what our
sentence is assuming that to be the case. So the
Greeks would have said sentences presupposed metaphysics. Right, these things
must actually be the case in the world. For our words,
our logos to have meaning, for logos to work, to
have meaningful expression in dia, logos and dialogue, this metaphysic
must be the case in the world out there. So
this is the question. This is one manifestation of the
question of one in many throughout history, universals in particulars.
Aristota will call this primary and secondary substance, Right, primary substances,
the particular that's picked out, secondary substance being the universal
quality that it's shared in. Now, Aristotle doesn't believe it
with Plato that the substances are ultimately ideas. He thinks
that they're actually in the particular objects. So that cat
possesses the universal essence of cat just as much as
the next cat possesses the universal essence, and what distinguishes
them is their particular characteristics of that particular cat, you see. So,
I mean, that's a lot of rambling, but I'm just
trying to say that language itself is asking one in
many questions, right, is asking universal particular level questions. That's
what the ancients were obsessed with, and that's why you
could see why they would like mathematics. I mean, mathematics
is a really easy way to ask that same kind
of question. And that's why all you know, sentences can
be translated into you know, logical formulations or even mathematic formulations,
like you can put sentences into formal logic or into
even mathematical equations if you wanted to, you just make
you just make the words stand for you know, numbers.
Speaker 5: Right, I didn't. Didn't Kurt Girdle do that? He said this,
what do you say the sentence can't be proven?
Speaker 4: Or well he was illustrating. Yeah, he was illustrating the
the circularity of sets by just showing a paradoxical Girdel's sentence,
which even some of the ancient Greeks asked that same
kind of question, they didn't think about it as in
the to the depth that Gurdell did. Yeah, And all
Gurdell did was just look at mathematics and point out
that you know, sets and set theory have a circular
self referencing they If you're going to explain all reality
with set theory, it's not going to work, he said
to Bert and Russell, because the sets ultimately appeal outside
of themselves, and so you can't have any perfect system
that's coherent that doesn't appeal outside of his set his
self in mathematics, so that's a transcendental type of argument
in math, and what we're doing in the transfer argument
for God is just taking that type of argument, and
we're applying it not just to transcendentals and transcendental categories,
but to God himself is kind of the ultimate transcendental.
So it's the same form of argument used in different arenas.
Speaker 5: Is Bertrand and Russell's set? What was it? Is? Paradox
is that related to the one in the many? Do
you know the one directly?
Speaker 4: So, yeah, he mentioned multiple logical paradoxes, and typically he
was just pointing out that that they're like inescapable features
of language. But Russell still thought that you could have
a perfect mathematical set that explained reality. He thought you could,
in a reductionist way, reduce all reality to symbolic mathematical
representations and you could explain all reality that way. Now,
what Girdell was showing is that actually you can't because
the set becomes self referencing or reference. It also references
outside of itself, which is illogical in that strict way.
And so therefore he's just showing that you can't do
a reductionist approach to reality. Any reductionist system will have
that feature. And so Bertrand Russell, being a classical minded empiricist,
he could not admit that there were either circular arguments
or that a set had to appeal outside of himself itself. Right,
So once he did admit that, he kind of it
doesn't work in his basic presubpositions. So it means you
can't you can't consistently be a total empiricist. It's it's impossible.
Speaker 5: So when people come up, you know, it'll never end.
This theory of everything constantly just rehashed and represented in
new ways. Isn't that mathematical problem that Girdel exposes. Isn't
that just crushing to anyone who's trying to propose a
mathematical or you know, you know, physical you know, metaf
not metaphysical, quantum physics, all that stuff, to reduce all
of everything to a singular theory mode or whatever. It
doesn't doesn't the girdles work just go like, well, no,
you can't because you have to.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a good essay that shows, for example why
it's it's uh Mind's Machines Girdel, and it argues that
you'll never have self conscious AI because AI is just algorithms. Right,
So the argument that Gurdell was proposing also applies to AI.
That that paper argues because AI will never evolve to
have consciousness because you can't reduce consciousness to something material.
So the argument assumes that consciousness is material. Right, Oh,
our consciousness is just you know, matter in motion or whatever.
And if we figured out the matter in motion and
we put it into a computer, then we have consciousness.
But that begs the question, and it just assumes that
consciousness is matter, but it's not. And that essay argues
that what Gurdell showed proved that AI will never be
self conscious. It's absurd, it's stupid. It's just science fiction LARPing.
But to be clear, though, I mean not everybody who
might think all reality is math or just matter in
motion or can be reduced to that, they wouldn't necessarily
be physicalist. I mean you might have somebody who thinks
all reality is math in a platonic way or a
new you could have anyoplatonists who thought that all reality
is reducible to higher level logic or thinking. But that
is also self refuting too. I mean, it's kind of
a different way of argument. If a lot of times
people who recognize the problems in materialism and ranked materialism
and rank not eve empiricism, they'll kind of opt for
platonism or neoplatonism because it does allow for there to
be higher level orders of reality, an ideal realm, a psychosphere,
to use the Matthew McConaughey language, eacho share the mindscape,
the mental realm, which some of those thinkers like Roger
Penrose actually think has a real existence. So there kind
of there are still people a lot of mathematicians kind
of opt for a neoplatonic or a modern version of Platonism.
Right if you read that book which is really good, actually,
Paul Davis' book Mind of God, he kind of argues
that point. He's like, look, I don't know about exactly
what the right theism is, but if we look at
the way math works, the way Girdel's stuff works, if
we look at the way higher level hypercube geometry works,
you know, these things are obviously not reducible to matter.
Mandelbrot sets are not reducible to states of matter. How
can we explain that? And the best that the strict
physicalist materialists can say as well, one day we'll know, right,
So they had this faith that one day moster science, right,
mister lab coat will just figure it out. Oh, now
we know that all reality is just. But again you
can you'll never have a perfect physicalist explanation without assuming
that everything is physical.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and even if you expressed it, like in the
same problem with the cat or the seven seven coconuts,
the concept of consciousness or AI is still not identical
to whatever the expression or apparatus we create to represent it,
you know what I mean, So that we have an
idea and then we're like, I think we got it.
You know, we're gonna mimic this thing, and all you're
doing is mimicking some you know, constrained, apprehended version of it.
You know like that, you're just like, oh, that's AI.
And you'll never get the direct connection to consciousness because again,
you can't appeal outside and watch consciousness to know exactly
what it is to be able to then simulate or
model it because you're still in it. You know, it's
you can't. And that's kind of our thing, is that,
like we can't appeal outside ever, Yeah, I mean can we?
I mean I don't.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean what would we know that would? Well,
theoretically you could if you had a mind that was
outside of it, that revealed it to you. So if
you're a theist, you have the possibility of that. I'm
not saying that it's true because you say that. I'm
just saying that, right, if the theistic worldview is true,
and the God of you know, the worldview that, for example,
I have is correct, then it is you could see
how it's possible because God could reveal from that outside
perspective as to what universal claims universal truths are grounded in.
So if you have a universal mind, then yes, you
do have a basis for that. And now again I'm
saying that it's coherent, right, I'm not saying because sometimes
we'll make again, you'll get people says, oh, well, if
you can't explain to me perfectly how it is the
case that a universal mind makes claims about universals true,
then I won't. I don't have to believe it. Well,
that's but again that's a requirement that no system can
actually meet. What we're saying is that it is possible.
It makes sense how you could make universal claims if
your worldview has a universal being. That is the grounding
and basis for universals, you see, And that's precisely what
we're getting out here, is that you know, so in
philosophical theology, this is called divine conceptualism, right that that
the grounding of reality is the uh divine The concepts
in the divine mind for us are called the logi
l O G o I, which are just the instantiations
of the logos. Right, So in that in that worldview,
that's why we say those things. We're giving a why here.
We're not explaining all the hows that's not possible. But
that's contrasted with again like so remember so if we
we're looking at divine conceptualism, the different forms of this
you could look at, uh, this is this is not
divine conceptualism. So any system that believes that the world
is patterned on a creator God would be a form
of divine conceptualism. So Judaism would have a version of this,
could have a version of this. Islam could have a
version of this. Christianity has a version of this, And conceivably,
I guess if you believed and like the many Aliens
or many God Creator simulations, I suppose you could come
up with theoretically a so the ai entities had a
conception of what they would create. Okay, I mean I
don't believe that. I think you could refute that in
another way. We'll get to that when we look at
like simulation or multi verse theory. But just to some
of the ideas of oh, everything is math, right. This
is so Pythagoras, Plato, and Max Tegmark in terms of
modern mathematicians and theoreticians. He has this view that reality
quite literally is mathematics at a fundamental level. Right, So
some of the people who believe the quantum stuff will say,
when I get down to the you know, smallest levels
of reality. Again, I don't know if it's if they're correct,
but let's say that it is. If it is true,
they'll say, you find geometric structure even at that smallest
level real. So therefore reality is at a fundamental level
math or numbers or geometry in some way, And that's
just another or I mean binary right one and zero
being non being right. That's another version of like mathematical
approaches to reality. But again those are reductionists, right, there's
still systems or positions that try to predicate from a
limited human vantage point what all of reality is. So
you actually hit on kind of one of the key
areas where I would criticize. This is what I would
is that I would just say simply say, look, how
can you say what all reality is? If you're a human.
You can't. I mean you're limited. And again, most people,
unless they're platonists, which most people aren't. Your ninety nine
percent of the people that you interact with are going
to be basic level empiricists. They're going to be like, man,
we only know what we can see, touch SuDS and
fuel man as all we know. Dude, Well guess what
if that's all you know? You can never make a
universal claim ever at all.
Speaker 5: It's important that including that claim. You couldn't actually show
me how that's true using those tools. Yeah, it just
it doesn't work. It's funny you a lot of people,
uh I'll do streams or you know, talk to strict
empiricists and materialists and It's funny because the our best
approach to that worldview is it almost sounds like nihilism
at first, like we're taking the nihilistic approach to like
lead them to their logical end. You know, have you
noticed that, Like you don't just say like no, no, no,
like it's this, you go, okay, you just keep like
if that's true, then oh, then you believe this, and
then like that's that's a I don't know, I don't
even consider it a technique because I'm literally like asking them,
I'm just going, how do you know anything's true? You know,
like and then they're like, you're just a not You're
just being a nihilist, and I'm like, no, I'm leading.
I'm leading toward your toward the end of your worldview.
And once you lead someone there, I mean, it's just
like you did with Dill Honey, like eventually you the
only thing you can do is appeal to metaverse logic
isn't real maybe somewhere like you know, it's just real
for us now, you know, and and it's just absurdity.
So I mean it all like you said, there's not
many places you can go, and I'm seeing that clearer
and clearer, like, there really isn't that many places to
go with a with a worldview because one, like you said,
we're limited. But but that's like sounds like a you know,
nihilistic approach, but it's not. It's just that's what the
that's the truth of the matter, and we have to
appeal outside of ourselves. So we're stuck. But no matter
your worldview, you're stuck with those two facts.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think you You also nailed it when you
said that earlier when we were talking about Dude Bro's worldview,
that it was it ends in syllipsism, and ironically, the
history of Western philosophy actually went in that direction. So Descartes,
you know, when he does his meditations, he's actually trying
to get down to the most basic thing that can't
be doubted, right with the cogto, and then he proposes
what he thinks would be a place to kind of
start building a philosophy. Oh we all know and can't
doubt this. Now, that doesn't work, and ultimately for multiple reasons.
But what's ironic is that even after that, when we
get up into modern empiricism, which is still the dominant
kind of philosophy for the most part naive empiricism, because
people just think, well, there's there's what else can we do?
There's no other options. We're boxed in here. You look
at Quin's essay, his famous essay just reasserts the problems
of Hume. That's where we're stuck. And ironically, if you
look at Russell, for example, in his scientism books, he
actually proposes in Scientific Outlook that reality really is just
a series of phenomena that could entirely just be projected
onto our senses from who knows what I mean. He
doesn't believe in simulation theory, but he literally says early
on in the books that, look, we don't know that
the data or the impressions that are hitting our five senses,
that they're actually coherent or meaningful. We don't even know
that they're from an external world. We could be a
mind and a app He literally says that. He says,
we could just be projecting them from our sub conscious.
He says, now that we because we can't answer those questions,
we're just going to proceed as if we live in
a world where we're distinct beings and there's a commonly
experienced external world and all these things right, because we
can't answer the just forget it, dude, it's done. It's
like the unattainable quest. It's like, you know, can you
beat the final level of Donkey Kong? There isn't one. Right,
So you might think, well, are we out a nineistic endpoint?
Are we at a dead end? No, because you would
only think that's a dead end if you want to
be an atheist, if you want to shut up all
of reality into man's mind. But that's where all of it.
You see, these people, the problem is not knowledge for them,
the problem is pride. The problem is atheistic arrogance, pride
and not wanting there to be a god. They have
an invested interest in not wanting there to be a god.
That's the issue here. It's not Oh, it's just a
lack of facts. And if we just give them more
facts and now you have to repent. You see, that's
the point here. And again, yes, there's limited ways that
you can go.
Speaker 5: Also, I wouldn't I would say more specifically, people don't
want there to be a coherent God because it's way
easier to you. Notice, it's not just a fad. I
was thinking about this, like, why does Christianity such a
strong target. You know, Islam is a target for a
lot of things, you know, in media or whatever politics.
But I was thinking about why certain certain worldviews are
really hard targets, you know, and they're just like out
in the open, and I was realizing that, like it's coherency.
It's like if something makes sense, then you don't. If
you're invested in not having that be the truth, you're
gonna find the one that's the most threatening. In other words,
like you know, if you're over the target, you know,
like any of you guys like Rouche got you know, banned, right,
you know, he was over the target so to speak.
He was saying things over a target. And I look
at it similarly. So it's not like just because a
lot of other things are easy to write off, like
an elephant with six arms and blah blah blah, or
Cali the demon goddess and you know, multiple gods flying
around and kind of arguing with each other and pagan is.
It's like it's easy to discard a lot of stuff.
But because specifically Christianity unifies an immaterial God and that
God is embodied in a man, I believe that is
why it's so people are so averse because it kind
of like gets into the material a little bit, into
the material world. Yeah, and it's a lot more threatening,
I think, you know, and I'm not well versed enough
in theology, you know, just still reading and learning. But
it seems from a broad perspective that that's the threat.
If it's coherent, it's a it's a threat. If it's
not and just silly and it can be written off.
It's just like, okay, not a threat. Not a threat.
Speaker 4: That's a great question. Let's get to why that is
also unavoidable for any system how truth in whatever senses
you can see it to be have to instantiate or
be in this world as well. That's actually unavoidable for
their systems too. So even the guys who argue against
or had this problem with the idea that the universal
could be instantiated in the particular or could enter into
the here and the now. That's going to be a
big problem for any worldviewing. By the way, this has
been problem for Plato. But this is another reason why
you can't go to platonic route. But I did want
to address that question just kind of in a earlier
about being limited in the ways that we can go
in terms of our beliefs. If we just took basic
ideas in epistemology, right, anybody's epistemology will have to answer
kind of easy questions. Right, We've got two options here.
Can we know or we can't know?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: We can know or we can't know truths, propositions, beliefs, anything,
It doesn't matter.
Speaker 5: What those are. Both number one though, right in the end,
if we can't know, right, So if we.
Speaker 4: Went this route, it would be right, it would be
self refuting. But I'm just going to show you that, right,
So we know that that that's the one we covered earlier,
and we know that one self refuting, so we're going
to cross that out. So the next step I meant
to I meant to make this number one so we
know that number one is correct. I can't write upset
down there we go so we know that we found
out that Roman one was correct and one was correct.
That could lead to other questions. Can we know there's
an external world?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 4: Can we know who we who's that we there? Can
we know what an eye is? A self an am?
Can we know what it is to exist in this
external world? Can we know what a world is can
we know where it came from? So we just started.
So what I'm getting at is that once you answer
yes to one of the easy kind of foundational questions,
it limits you in where you go from there. And
if you answer wrong in one of those foundational ones,
the whole system collapses. It's like, you know, the the
superstructure of the building collapses.
Speaker 5: Right, right? Is that still within the one and the
many issue?
Speaker 4: It could be yeah, I mean you could. I mean
I was just kind of making it even more simple
than that. But if you wanted to, you could. You
could apply the one of the many and say well,
if you don't believe in universals, then you can't actually
predicate of anything. And you'll get a lot of modern
philosophers who will try to answer that and say, well,
we don't actually believe that there have to be universals,
but we will act like they exist in language so
that we can have language. But that doesn't tell us
that there's actually any universal truth. So they just play
this game in philosophy and academia where they just like
the Darwin I say well, we don't actually know there's
an external world. We can never actually know that. But look, dude,
we're gonna like it is so that we can do
our science. That's how stupid it is. I'm not kidding.
That's what they do. And they'll just ask if you
start bringing these things, that was it? Man? Nobody can
even answer those questions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, how do you have nothing? Nothing is really? Yeah nothing,
No truth is accessible. But you had one sixth of
aw wi for a million years, correct.
Speaker 4: And many of the science crowd still has one six
we wi for many Uh So the last what was
your last quese? You went to a different arenas where.
Speaker 1: They go.
Speaker 5: I was talking about the target, you know, easy target,
like coherency, like not just uh, you know, people don't
it's not just that they don't want to believe or
confront the possibility of a god, but it's it filters down,
It filters down to coherency. Like the closer you get
to coherency, the more people don't want to deal with it,
you know. And and they'll even go to you know,
people like Brett Weinstein will be like, you know, I
can't deny and similar to Jordan Peterson where they argue
for the work ability the usefulness of religion, Christianity as
a heuristic model what I like to call it tech
and avatar to use in the game of life. You know,
that was that's good. That that one's good.
Speaker 4: I like that one.
Speaker 5: And uh, they they almost admit the pragmat the pragmatic
aspect of it, but the pragmatism isn't the basis for
the argument Nora's usefulness, and that can't be further the
basis of truth or morality or ethics or anything else.
So they kind of deal, They're they're swimming in the
same soup. There's still they're confronting and dealing with it,
and I actually applaud some of them. I don't necessarily
respect their ongoing departure from the truth or you know,
rejection of logic, But even someone like Sam Harris, who's
just constantly contradicts himself all the time, still at least
got to a place where he's like, well, no, I
really think the good exists, like I can't can't avoid it.
And the same thing with Stefan. You know, when you
had your conversation, he was already at a point where
it's like I can't. I'm not gonna pretend I don't
live consistent with this, with the you know, acknowledgment of
these metaphysical preconditions, these metaphysical claims, these truths that have
to be true in order for me to even begin
to argue about truth at all. And then, you know,
once you get to that place, I don't I think
it's either you go toward good and God or you
live in a version of hell where you're just like, yeah,
you begin help, yeah, yeah, and you're like, you know,
it's you know, something's true.
Speaker 4: So let's deal with that question that you raised, like, well,
what about the people that have a problem with the
idea of like universal truth entering into the here and
the now in this world? Right, because we do say
that about Christ, We say Jesus is the logos, the
second person of the Godhead, that he became flesh, right,
he became man fully human, walking around, you know, doing
things that humans do, yet without sin in our worldview,
Isn't that problematic? Aren't we? Aren't we kind of like
diminishing truth by bringing it down into the here and
the now. That is the platonic issue, That is the
platonic problem. Now, remember we said before Plato was asking
one of those great questions about the one of the
many when he was saying, well, what is one cat
in relationship to all cats? What do we mean when
we talk about cats? And we saw it. We said
earlier that his solution, in his mind, what he thought
was the best answer, was idealism. And by idealism, we
don't mean it in a colloquial sense like the Marxist
on the street is an idealist. We mean it in
a technical, metaphysical sense that what really exists or has
a higher level of existence or reality or ideas. Plato
is a the pre eminence ideal. He thinks that in
his scheme in the Greek chain of being, you could say,
at the top of what exists in the chain are ideas,
and those ideas ultimately actually are fundamentally one. This is
the monad for Plato. So what exists, truly and properly speaking,
is though one, the idea, the monad, and all those ideas,
even the cat. Right, we're saying that the essence of
the cat is the idea of cat that's in the monad,
and ultimately it's one. Now, there's problems just to how
there can be distinctions in the one, because there's not
what we're going to set that aside for a moment,
when we look at Plato, just what we just want
to understand that this answer, and we're going to show
why this is a problem for Plato. It's also going
to be a problem for any of the any of
the persons who might admit abstract truth but don't want
it to enter into the hearing the now. Like we
say with Jesus. We're going to point out that they
have the same problem, and not only that, they actually
admit that it does enter into the here and the now.
And guess where it enters into the here and the
now in the non Jesus believing worldview in their mind
they make their mind the logos. We'll see it in
a minute. But what are the features in Plato's idea
of the one or the higher level ideal reality? Well,
for him, because it's like math, obviously it's unchanging. The
number seven doesn't become the number five. It doesn't evolve.
Those things are eternal. They're not subject to time like
we see here. They don't. It's invariant. They don't. There doesn't.
This realm doesn't undergo flux, right, Cat and this will
always remain Cat andus no matter how many cats come
and go, even though all the cats in the world
go to Hell. I'm joking they don't.
Speaker 5: And also just anyone in the chat who went there
with their brain, that's still the same even if we
all decided that B is seven, because it doesn't matter
what you call the cat, that's just the descriptor.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the ling whatever. Correct. It could change, right,
So that's why I Plato would just say to that, well, look, uh,
you know, I'm a Greek. I use this word for cat.
You know, the Chinese they use this word for cat,
the Egyptians use this word for cat. We're all talking
about the same thing. The linguistic symbols can change, it
doesn't matter because the reference is the same. That's all
Plato would say to that. But yes, you're right. And
then the features of this this metaphysically, this ideal one,
this moment ad, these ideas, they're metaphysically higher in some sense,
meaning that they're more real or they're given ontological priority. Uh.
And they're also immaterial in Plato's philosophy. So this is
all in his view, contrasted to the here and the
now in a dialectical tension. Now you're starting to see
why if you start, if you think that math numbers logic,
that stuff is more real, and it's higher ontologically, metaphysically,
it's given a priority. This world is lesser, lower prison dream.
Oh now it's starting to sound like eustism. We've heard
this before. So this world is a trap, it's a prison.
We're in the matrix again, and literally Plato's philosophy is
the major's philosophy. But forget that. Let's just point out
this main thing. Look, Plato had this same issue because
people say, wait a minute, Plato, if that's the real realm,
how does that realm of the ideas and the real
relate to this realm, which you say is not really real.
It's like a dream, it's an illusion. Your whole system
is built on the one and the mini having a
real participation and relating to one another. But if that
realm is invariant and unchanging and this realm is literally
flux and change constantly, you've got a problem, Plato, How
can you relate to fundamentally intention things. Do you know
what Plato's response was, I mean, it's it's utterly retarded,
but it's.
Speaker 5: He said, it depends on what you mean you're close.
Speaker 4: He actually this might piersonbod act believe this. I don't know,
but uh, Plato literally said, uh, we had a past life, bro.
Oh that's that was the best thing you because the
best I could come up with is, at one time
we were in a past life in the realm of
the ideas, and we were part of the realm of ideas.
We were one with the one, and we at some
point just kind of like fell down into this bodily prism.
So he literally relies on myths. He says, uh, myths,
that's ancient myths, and we are reincarnated, that's what he said. So, uh,
transmigration of souls, total mythology. So you see the irony
here is that you thought and in a way it
is a highly rational, highly systematic, mathematical Pythagorean system. And
what does it ultimately fall back on mysticism?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 4: You know, we just had a past life, bro, where
where we were, we were in we were the one man.
We were all one dude. So it's even that system
is based on certain Now, if you if you don't
want to go this route, you see, let's say, well,
I don't believe in that reincarnation nonsense. But it doesn't matter,
because you're going to have the same problem in your
worldview if you don't have the ability to explain the invariant,
abstract conceptual things and entities relating to instantiating and being
able to be in this realm of time and space
and flux. Now, also we can explain that in the
Christian system, we can give an account for how that's possible.
I'm not saying by explain, I don't mean I give
you the infinite, perfect way of how it all works.
By explaining, we mean give the possibilities and the preconditions.
That's how that's possible.
Speaker 5: Or doesn't He he also had a problem because he's
he only, even through his his mythical explanation, explain the
unity between the immaterial, the one, the abstract world of
invariant and the mind and us the mind. But he
does he's he didn't. I don't know if he did
or not, But in your summary it didn't sound like
he included the uh, the unchanging, you know, like the
uh the what is it called regularity in nature? Like
that's that's that we actually perceive in similar No, he
would have.
Speaker 4: A way to explain that you're correct. I mean, that's
a question that we'll be asked a lot later in philosophy.
But you could ask that of a Plato or a
Platonist or anybody who tried to go down that route.
And I was just giving one easy example of the
tension between the invariant and the variant of the This
is in philosophy. It's a problem of UH being in
stasis like flux and and change versus UH stasis and invariants.
These are these are problems that come up that these
kinds of systems can't answer because they're well, they're they're
they're bad systems. But yes, you're correct, you could that one.
There's a whole actually a whole list of problems that
you could ask of Plato. A more fun I mean
and even more devastating one could just simply be well, Plato,
if if, if this is the case, why was there
ever distinction at all? Because remember the one the monad here, right,
So in the Platonic system, the highest level reality is
the one the monad. Quite literally, we're saying that numbers
are a mystical thing, magical mystical lot up for the
number mystery too, the magical number mystery tour is coming
to take you away reincarnation type stuff, right, Uh, literal
Beetles level stuff. Right. If this monad was perfect and
in a state of unchanging invariants and flux in the primal,
pre temporal, whatever ideal, why was there ever this split
into to the diad. You see this, this one at
some point split into the diad. This is Plato's view.
This is the the ancient mystic view, right, and this
diad then produced you got it, a triad. And so
this diad that split, this caused noose, and this caused
the two of them together caused world soul. Now we're
getting now, we're getting into the world soul, right, we're
getting into this level of I mean, I'm not joking.
This is the system. This is the ancient esoteric view.
The monad split into the noose mine, and then the
monad and mine produced world soul. This is the Platonic triad.
This is this has nothing to do with the biblical
t vhe show.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: But all we have to do is just look Plato bro,
slow down here, dude, Like, why was there this split?
Come on, what does that even mean that the one
split to noose. And he's getting this by reading like
ancient mythology texts. He's taking mythology and he's saying, you know, dude,
there's like secret coded messages and the you know in
the ancient myths of you know, Zeus, and the split
from you know, Athena comes from Zeus. That's like telling
us of the original schism in the Golden Age. I mean,
that's what he's doing here. And do you know where
he says he got all this. I'm not joking, by
the way, if you don't know this, do you know
where he says he got all I'm not kidding where
he says he got this.
Speaker 5: Whatever the Snopes was back then.
Speaker 4: Oh no, it's even better. He says, I was taught
by a guy who was taught by a guy, right,
because Plato was taught by Socrates, and Socrates was taught
by a dude named Solon. And Solon went on this
journey and he talked to the priests in Egypt, and
the priests in Egypt told him the ancient mysteries. Literally,
Platonism is an ancient mystery school philosophy. So's it's a
hermetic philosophy of ancient ey, so he claims. I mean,
scholars have debated whether this is all be us anyway.
Point is that, look, you can't escape this mythology element.
And I'm using mythology in a loose sense, not in
the sense of everything being fake, because you could say,
you could say Christianity is a mythology or just a narrative.
What I'm getting so this is a narrative. Plato, for
all of his attempt at mathematizing everything, still has to
rely on narrative, grand narrative explanation. Darwinism still has to
rely on grand narrative stories. Even Aristotle, who was way
more scientific and empirical than Plato, still relied on narrative
grand stories of the first mover being love man.
Speaker 7: The first mover was love dude.
Speaker 4: So what I'm the point, It's just that none of
these philosophies can ever escape narrative story. I don't mean
this in the Jordan Peterson sense. I'm just stating, what's.
Speaker 5: A factor wagons sneaks.
Speaker 4: So therefore, so therefore, what we actually are doing when
we compare world views is not just comparing. You're correct
to say that we are comparing logical systems. We're also
comparing narratives, because every even the most rationalist materialist guy.
Let's take Birchran Russell. Remember when we did Russell. He's
probably the pre eminent rationalist materialist empiricists. Loosely speaking, he's
not rational, but you know what I mean, right, the
pre eminent logician, the greatest logician of the modern era,
which is all bullshit, but let's just say that he is.
He begins his book by saying rational thinkers have forever
been persecuted by religious dogmatists, and he lists the Hall
of Science, the heroes of the whole science. What's he
doing here? Is he doing science? No, he's telling a story.
And he's saying that the Galileo, Nicholas of Cusa, all
of these different scientists persecuted by these irrational dogmatics, the
Puritans burning the witches. And then we come up to
now we are in the era of free thought and
science and empirisis. He's telling a story that's not empirical evidence.
Speaker 5: That's a story, right, I mean, what's his name? Hitchens
as charming and he'd always be like I could do
the world mean anything. The Andromeda is coming in great
nothingness is going to hit you, and and and you
realize you're just you're already you're doing.
Speaker 4: Have you watched Have you watched Carl? Yeah, he's like,
we are all store were Did you hear that stupid
song that went viral? Remember a right? Yeah, Lawrence Krause,
pre eminent physicalist physical right, what does he say? We're
made as star dust man? Oh yeah, we're destined for
the stars. Again. So they're always throw in the transhumitist
bullshit because it's just a story they're telling you.
Speaker 5: I predict Lawrence Krause will have a ponytail in within
ten years.
Speaker 4: We're made of Uh, let's see simulation, let's talk or
not multiverse?
Speaker 5: Multiverse?
Speaker 4: Who did it come?
Speaker 5: Was it the the crunched over guy? The is a
billion years the multi stuff? Yes?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 5: Is that is that where it started? That's how he
justified Uh you know they were they found out there
there wasn't actually enough energy to create the big bangs.
They were like, well, there's probably more universe something about this,
but I'll just make.
Speaker 4: Up more of them. I don't remember the details. But
actually there's like a there is this weird I'm not
joking about this. By the way, there's a weird sex
magic component to the Big Bang stuff. Oh yeah, it's
it's actually evident in some of those people in their philosophy.
But anyway, uh yeah, I know what. That's what I'm
saying is that the reason we're all made of star
stuff and stardust, that's that's Crawley. That's all from Crowley, literally,
And Crawley was a he was transhumanist, like he I
don't know if he said the bots will take over,
but he thought humans would eventually storm heaven. So that's
what transhumanism actually is. But by the way, you can
ask your questions via stream labs. That's the replacement for
super chats. I'll put the link there. We've got a
lot of super chats. We're gonna get to you here
in a minute. Thank you all for that we got.
We've got a lot of generous people tonight, very very
thankful for all that.
Speaker 5: Hawking Mary and pretty much people think.
Speaker 4: It was just Stephen Hall. Dude. He's like, have you
ever seen when they opened up the things that the
little garbage cans of dolls are in. That's what they
look like. Stephen Hawking. I bet you he was them.
And when he was on Epstein's Island. By the way,
he was going up the hill to the little Saint
James Hill. Did you know his his wheelchair tipped over
his did it?
Speaker 5: Yeah, he's just a nome.
Speaker 4: What well, all of these like triple A batteries, like
five hundred triple A batteries fell out because this whole
thing runs on five A.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: That was a stupid joke. I came out.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Forget that. I'm sorry. But he was actually with Epstein.
That's well he.
Speaker 5: Got he got U was watching he got submarined into
epstein Island, so he went and uh, you know, I
don't know. That's what I actually have idea.
Speaker 4: That was one of your You actually made me cry
with the that literally made me cry laughing? Which one
the one with him and oswatch shut Guard?
Speaker 5: Oh yeah yeah, let me actually have this. I'll see
if I can get it on the screen.
Speaker 4: This made me cry.
Speaker 6: Tell you about my vacation. I took a plane called
Lowly to Express to a private island owned by a
man named Jeffree. I had such a good time and
some drinks and like some entertainment by some tasty snacks,
would very much like to go back because he puts
such a good time.
Speaker 3: Ship was lit.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so that's some like footage that showed up later
that I got ahold of.
Speaker 4: By the way, you'll want I want to see more
of that hilarious satirical imagery from Jim Bob. You can
go to his ig, his instagram, and his website is linked. Multiverse.
One thing, one way that's easy to refute this multiverse
nonsense is that just as we were showing before with
like language, assuming a lot of principles of epistemology predication.
So all of these scientific theorist people and these they're
more like science fiction writers, is actually what they are.
They don't realize as we said that they're using a
lot of assumptions and principles objective truths just to make sentences.
So one thing that we do when we do philosophy,
Aristotle pioneered this idea of like the law of identity,
and in logic it is just a equals a right.
That's an assumption, a logical assumption that for a thing
to be identified or picked out or spoken of, or
explained or perceived or whatever to have meaning, it must
have identity. It must be able to be picked out
amongst all of these other things. So whatever that thing's
essence is or whatever we're doing, it has some identity.
It has some particular feature that makes it a one, singular, unified,
particular a thing, that thing as opposed to things that thing. Right,
So that law of identity is obviously necessary for any
kind of meaningful predication. For me to talk to Gembob,
I have to be picking out that dude right there,
not every single gymbob in the world, right, not every
single dude. So law of identity is obviously fundamental to
reasoning in this world, to basic predication, to knowledge. Right,
I know that fact? Right? That fact is that fact
because of the law of identity. Now, in really abstract
philosophy and meta level questions, it's not always going to
hold in this real easy, simple way, But for most
of the time, in normative philosophical discourse, argumentation, homology, the
law of identity holds. And again, that thing must be
that thing to talk about that thing, right, So it's
it's a logical assumption that's really simple. Now, we as
humans are a little more complex because you know, it's
it's a little bit more difficult to define what a
human is, or what Jay is, or what Jimbob is,
or who that person is. Right, that's that's a little
more difficult, a little more metaphysical, but regardless, even still
law of identity applies to all of us too, right,
I mean Jay has to be Ja to be explained
or known as Jay. I can't also, at the same
time be Jimbob. That's impossible for the created world for
us to reason and make sense of it. I can't
at the same time be not me. Ja is not Jay.
That's nonsense statement. Right, Jay is popcorn. That's nonsense.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: So there's some static feature that something that is in
stasis that's perpetually true, a law of identity, a continuing
feature of my existence that doesn't change. I might grow
gray hair, it might all fall out. I might, you know,
have a lot of soy and grow some big old titties.
I mean those things might happen, but I'm still in
some sense the core me right. I mean, I got
beautiful titties now, but I might grow some big ones. Right,
same for you. I mean I haven't seen your titties.
Speaker 5: But probably I've got dad tits now. It's like there
they grew a little bit from holding the baby a lot,
and that's just a normal reaction. But I'm keeping them
at a good size.
Speaker 4: So we could say that the so we'll put the
law of identity there, But there's all so other features
that have occurred in time and space, in this war,
in this world that all kind of also go into
making us who we are. They might not be essential characteristics,
but we could say that in a way they're kind
of secondary necessary qualities. For example, the only me that's
me is the one that was born in Paris, Tennessee, right,
I mean I'm from Tennessee. That's where I was born.
That has to be that. That's in a way a
kind of secondary necessity about who I am. There's not
going to be a jay that is me that wasn't
also born there. You see, So even historical features of
our life, this is a this is an argument that
Leven has proposed. They're not strictly necessary in terms of
our essence per se, but once they've come to pass,
they kind of have a secondary necessity to us, and
that that that's not going to change. You're not going
to be the jimbob who was born on Epstein island, right,
You're not going to be that dude tomorrow. So when
we think about it in that way, that's who we are,
at least to this point in time. And it would
be absurd to start doubting those things. Right Like you
could say, well, I don't believe that the past ever occurred. Well, okay,
but that's gonna be that's gonna lead you into absurdities
to say that if you want to go that route.
But since we don't go that route, then those are
all in a way related to our identities and who
we are. So if we're going to even talk about me,
to posit that there's also me in a universe that's
all butts and farts, not only is that absurd, but
that's not me because that's violating the law of identity
because by definition, me is this me. I have no basis,
no knowledge, no way to even posit the possibility of
a me that's not this world me that's also over
there in fart dimension. It's utterly nonsense. But in order
to argue about that other dimension, I'm still assuming regularity
and the properties of identity in this world. That's why
it doesn't work. Right.
Speaker 5: And then even if you somehow acquired even a blip
or a taste of that other universe. Like I said
at the beginning, you it would now be in this universe,
Like how could you separate it if you if you
obtained it, if you got to it, if you reached in,
you know, like stranger things through the weird vaginal hole
in the wall. It's now a part of this universe
in a way. Like so even even dimensions that theory
is like if you ever got to the point where
you proved it, you'd only be showing more of this reality,
more of this universe, exactly right.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, there's an assumption that, yeah, let's say
I have a d MT trip or uh, let's say
that Christianity is true and I have a vision of
this the spirit realm like some of the prophets like
Ezekiel did or something like that. Let's say, for the
second argument, that's true. That doesn't necessitate that it's a
an infinite multiverse of all potentialities. That's a non sequitor.
I mean that could just be higher dimensions of this
universe exactly so. But they I mean again keep in mind,
the people that are believing this are total like you know,
just bugman type people. They don't even they don't even
think about the absurdities of it. They're just loving the
You know, we live in a multi like God doesn't exist,
that's all absurd. But there are infinite realities where I
can go be a god right back, and there's some
reality where I'm a god. Basically I'm lording over my
and I can turn you all to cheese by touching
you and haha, you're cheese now, and you just fall
onto the ground into a big puff.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's that's the that's like the ultimate kind
of story fantasy, right, That's why that appeals to that
type of person and has do What is the imp
spirical basis for that nothing? I mean, all of these
people are science obsessed empiricists. There's no empirical evidence for
that nonsense dreams really Well again, I mean if that's
the case, then all absurdities are also real. If all
assertinities are real, then there is no logic. There is
no consistency, because how do we know that the logic
and rational that but that we possess in this world
is actually the real one or the logical consistent one.
Maybe there's the fart maybe in the fart dimension that's
actually more logical or the real one. Right, It's just
it all reduces to absurdity.
Speaker 5: Right exactly. You'd have to Yeah, who who could Who
could argue the one reality is the true one to
measure two? I mean, you just couldn't. It would just
never end.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I have Brian, I have Lisa
Randall's books. I have Brian Green's book where he I've read.
I know what the arguments are, and they're like, oh, well,
if we think about in infinite space and the fact
that it's going on forever, which by the way, is
not an empirical proof, that's just an assumption because you
can't empirically improve infinity going off in that direction or
any direction. That's just an assumption because you don't empirically
see something infinite, Right, you're assuming that it is light
goes in that direction forevery know, how do you know that?
You don't know that maybe it appears to it, but
it doesn't really.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: The argument is just that, well, if we think about
it continuing to go, then it stands to reason that
at some point you would hit another universe. And if
you would hit another universe. It stands to reason that
that universe might have all the characteristics of this universe,
and therefore it could also be an infinite So the
argument is just that if things continue in all infinity,
in all directions, for all infinite reality, then all potentialities
must therefore become actualities. That's the atity of this, right.
So what is the basis for this? Their minds. So
they make their mind the godmind. This is the source
of logos for them, because remember, there's no logos out
there in the world. The world doesn't actually possess that feature.
It's only in here in man's mind. But man's mind
is not actually a logos. It's just chemical reactions. There's
no basis to believe. They just they just and they'll say, well,
let's act as if it is. Yes, we know, it's
just chemical reactions. We can't improve there's consciousness. Let's just
act as if let's play it.
Speaker 5: It's funny. That's funny because the starting point doesn't even
uh affirm that this reality is even believable to even
start the exploration into other universes, you're already starting from
a broken, broken place where nothing could be known to
be true, which even though that's completely absurd, it doesn't
it it I'm not surprised that they can extrapolate if
nothing is true, then anything can be true and weird,
funny dumb way, you know, like you know, why why
can't be this? Why can't all the books behind J
be also you know little J, little J dyers and
they have a being, we just can't access them.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 5: And then and they all found you because you are them,
and and they they glowed a little bit before you
you bought them, and like whatever, it's like we're you know,
we're where nothing is true than anything can be a
proposed sort of reality because there's no constraint. But it's
so dumb because you are left appealing to language needing
to have meaning. The words need to have meaning to
make the claim of metaverse, the numbers, the.
Speaker 4: Logical universals, any particulars I need.
Speaker 5: All Yeah, everything you said, Yeah you have to be
you to make to be even you know, talk about it.
So yeah, then there's then there's the not so you know,
like you were mentioned the typical like bond smoker stoners
who they're not really invested in it. They're just kind
of like like it's fun. But then there's like you know,
right now, there's you know, the theorists who are you know,
writing their novels and coming up with the next big
theory of all of it, and they it always leans
toward those those theories. Yes, where how inaccessible truth?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: Is the leading proposition?
Speaker 4: Basically, so, how do I refute multiverse theory by this?
This is the This is what the multiverse, dude is doing.
I use the law of identity to deny identity. That's
the that you ready for super chats or do you
want to go in another direction?
Speaker 5: That's good?
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, we got home, mad E t Error.
I'm not going to read his name because that's a
violation name. He sends five dollars. Thank you, Tall City
three five bucks. What's up, dude, Tall City. Well, we
know that I'm not gonna make a short joke hurt
people's feelings. Don don one hundred dollars, he says. Keep
up the good work, brother, Well, I will keep up
the good work as long as you send me one
hundred dollars.
Speaker 7: Dude.
Speaker 4: That's gonna feed me for an hour. John three dollars,
he says. If there was no Satan, but man is
still falling. I mean, for us, the whole narrative stands
or falls together, So it wouldn't really make sense to
speak a man falling without the temptation of Satan. But
he says, do you think that the world would look
the same as it is today? Yeah? I just think
that's a that's an impossible question. That's like, what if
you know, God created a world where there weren't humans,
what would.
Speaker 5: It be like?
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Mac Marco ten dollars. Have you ever heard of the
mathematicians that deny the existence of infinity? Yes, it makes
sense from a materialistic worldview. Too bad, materialism itself is flawed.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, at a certain point, those people are kind
of just talking in circles and they're they're using words
and then turning around saying, well, but we don't Actually
there's potentially an infinite number of numbers, but they're also
not really infinite. Or we can divide the number one
infinite number of times, but infinity is not actually a
real thing. Okay, well, but all of these other scientism
proponents proposed that the universe is infinite, So now it's not.
You see, it's it's just constant, like it's just people
making Shut up, dude, that's what it is. That's that
some point. What do you think?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that sounds about right.
Speaker 4: There's a great quote of we need to find this quote.
It was somewhere on YouTube, but it's William Shatner and
he was talking about hanging out with like NASA people,
and then he saw the you know, supposed NASA stuff
and he went and toured it, like the ships and whatnot.
Then he met with all these NASA people and heard
a bunch of their lectures and he said, my god,
I really it's all just theory, right, he said, He
literally says, it's a sciences not a theory.
Speaker 5: Look just look at that real footage.
Speaker 4: But but William Shatner says, think about he's Captain Kirk
and he's working with all these science fiction writers. He
meets all these science guys and he says, it's not
a convention. Actually, if you find the video on YouTube,
it's him at a convention being interviewed and he says,
I realized the scientists at NASA are no different than
the science fiction writers that work on the show, because
they're just making it up. Yeah, annoying questions. Three bucks.
Why do you need incoherent models to compare your model
to to justify your model? I don't need them, but
there are incoherent models, and so it's kind of just
an unavoidable thing. That's like saying, why do you need
a bad argument to compare to a good argument? I mean,
there are bad arguments. So how else are you going
to compare bad art arguments other than comparing them to
good arguments? I mean that's kind of like unavoidable, bro,
But I appreciate that. Three dollars. You're banning your your
urban moving systems, You're banning movings, your band to six
seventy eight YouTube? Do you monetize you?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: I love your essential hero video response to mister Guta
main Hyde. I watched it so many times like a
sperg Yes, Sam liked it too. I sent it to
him he got a kick out of it. Thank you
for that. Shaw'sby thirteen five dollars. Do you think atheists
are by the way, I'm not trying to leave you out, Jimbob,
if you want to say anything, super chats. Do you
think atheists are hesitant to try to justify their presuppositions
out of bad faith. Yeah, often, what do you think.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I think I think it's also out
of like I think there's a level I remember, just
not too long ago, I mean two years ago or
two and a half years ago, I was pretty staunch atheist,
and there was a shame factor of like not shame,
like you don't want to go out on a ledge
where you look silly or you start, you know, playing
with ideas that you cannot base in material because your
whole crew is all like, yes, science man, you know,
like and so you don't want to explore these things.
So there's a little bit of like the same phenomenon
of wearing face mask, you know, it's like but that's
why I think the conversations are for those people who
are in that place and they do want to explore
truth and be challenged. They exist. But like Jay said,
you know, like casting the net, it's going to be
a lower percentage yield, but it'll really make a difference
for the people that are interested, and they won't know
to be interested unless you're also having the conversation and talking.
Just like myself, I was interested and I found the
right people, you know, and I approached them, you know,
I went on on Jay's show, I went on Owen's show.
I was prodded, you know what I mean. So, I mean,
I guess you're right, but also don't discard them, you know,
don't you know, don't just embarrass an atheists.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's good points. Penny Row five dollars. Thank you
for this conversation. I'm really in loving it. I love you, Jim, Bob,
Penny Rou Thanks Pennyrou, dan Man five bucks. What do
you think about the prophecies of Saint Pizis, Cosmos Elder,
Joseph Elder, Joseph on Haigio, Sofia, recapturing Constantinople. Yeah, I mean,
I've seen these for a decade. I'm not totally discounting them.
But sometimes these things are made up, Sometimes they're forgery,
sometimes they're used for geopolitical motivations. I don't really have
any opinion on them, so I hope I didn't hurt
your feelings there. But I'm more interested in what I
can argue and confirm, you know, from scripture, that kind
of stuff. But I'm not discounting that there can be
real clairvoyance. Absolutely. Lone star twenty bucks. I appreciate y'all's work.
I can literally feel my brain expanding making new connections
every time I watch y'all's stuff. Thank you very much.
And yeah, Jim Bob is also very based and good
at I see him in the comments. Man, he just
kind of dissects these people like like a surgeon. Dude.
He's like.
Speaker 5: Just cutting them up.
Speaker 4: Baby, He's like a ninja with arguments. He's getting really
good at debate. Rusty Shackle for fifty bucks. The way
that you two guys chat, by the way, that's a
fat super chat. I thank you, Rusty. The way YouTube
chat seems to make philosophical terms easier for or my
low IQ self. Don't talk about yourself like that, Rusty.
Thank you and God bless well. Glad that we can
make these things accessible. That's that's kind of the point.
Speaker 5: That's also why I really enjoyed coming on, as I'm
a novice still logic, philosophy, theism and uh and uh
a part of my you know, back and forth with
Jay it actually forces him out of the higher level terminology,
you know, because that is used to debating with people
or talking because it's just like an established level of
uh you know, words, definitions and things like that, and uh,
you know it's uh it's helpful. You know, it's helpful
for for him to, uh Jay, for you to you know,
dumb it down for someone who's at my level, because
there's a lot of there's a lot more people at
my level than at your level. And so, you know,
I mean even when you went on you know, what's
his name, he was even lost in some terms Stefan.
He was like, you just like educate me. I haven't
heard of any of these things, you know. So that
just shows like there is a there's a pool of
people who are really interested in this stuff, but there
has to be an accessible layer.
Speaker 4: To it, you know, right, Thanks Man, I appreciate that
those kind of words. Anybody interested in what we talked
about tonight, I highly recommend doctor Jason Lyles's little book,
Ultimate Proof. It's a really good introduction to the topics
that we have been discussing at an accessible level. It's
not written for the technical philosopher person. It's written at
a pretty accessible level. Dan Man three dollars. Again, he says,
do you know about electric universe theory?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 5: I do.
Speaker 4: I've watched many of those videos eight years ago when
they first proposed it. I followed it for a while,
listening to the podcast for a while. I don't I'm
not saying it's all. I don't know. I love to
hear different theories. It would be very cool if electric
universe theory was correct. It sounds pretty I don't know,
like I mean, lightning and shit, that's just cool, right,
I don't know.
Speaker 6: But.
Speaker 4: Jimbob, do you have any opinion on it?
Speaker 5: I probably only watched like one video, probably not the
person you're talking about, But I mean, like you said,
it sounds cool. It's hard to like really understand it
because you're actually taking you know, terms and paradigms that
are in the physical natural physical and trying to, you know,
create a model out there that we can't access. And
it kind of forces you to explain, you know, how
you were saying the things, you know, like the Bonson thing.
I was just watching your review of the Bonson debate
or whatever. Oh yeah, Steining or whatever, and like that
that key point where the things that you know to
be true aren't accessed or debated or proven the same way.
You know, and so electric sounds like it, doesn't it
still doesn't account for the immaterial absolutes we deal with.
Speaker 4: Yeah, necessarily crackers in the pantry fallacies.
Speaker 5: Not that it not that it claims to. It's just
that my interest is where, you know, the material intersects
with the mind and the the preconditions for what we're
doing thinking, talking. But uh, it sounds cool, sounds like
something I could listen to. I mean, I have a
lot of time, all what was the what is that
the name of the YouTube, the Electric Universe is that's
the actual name of it.
Speaker 4: I think that is their channel. I forget the dude's name.
Speaker 5: I'll look it up.
Speaker 4: But anyway, I'm also recommended to if you're new to
these topics and you want to kind of get into
the mindset, I recommend the Quadrnion book. It's really good.
It kind of ties a lot of these seemingly disparate
areas of the relationship between math and numbers in the
in the world together. So anyway, everybody would be sure
and go follow Jimball, but his sights and his his
there's another.
Speaker 5: Here's another, really insanely I have. I have complex philosophical book,
Savage Meanings Volume two with the Corunka and that means.
Speaker 4: Randy Savage means literally every meme is Randy.
Speaker 5: Right, made by Jimbob dot com.
Speaker 4: All right, y'all, thank you very much. God bless everybody good.
Have a good night. And uh, by the way, I
have for those that are wondering, I'm I'm halfway through
Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum books, so that will be
the next book. Probably do it maybe tomorrow. Uh So
I've been eager to do the head of Davos's book
because guess what, he lays it all out. So I'm
gonna lay it all out for y'all, uh in the
next dream.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Jim Bob, thank you, Thanks, thanks everybody.
Speaker 4: It's a pleasure see yep.