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