วีดีโอ

I say this as a fairly religious person, Gaston’s arguments and rebuttal were terrible.

Uni of Sask. The Patriarchy in Medicine eh Laura

I have some troubles undestanding why objects don't count as reincarnated? You see. Humans are made of organized atoms. Tables are made od organized atoms. If humans/person happens once it means that that organization of atoms happened once. Same goes for tables/objects. Just change the terminology from a talk about a person or a table into a talk about organized atoms (about what they both are) and you get that what applies to one also applies to the other. If a person can be reincarnated in the sense that that organization of atoms will happen again, then a table will also be reincarnated since it's organization of atoms will also happen again. If not, what makes a person different or what is the definition of a person? What is the ontological status of a person (how does a persons way of existence differ from a tables and how does that impact the application of this argument for reincarnation)?

Thank you for the thought-provoking discussion!

Learned of Huemer recently from ancap economist Bob Murphy. Nice to know we have a bona fide philosopher espousing the ideas of radical liberty, not merely the libertarian internet rabble and occasional economist.

Am I understanding the argument correctly that eternity basically ran out of souls and had to start reincarnating them? That's why we have zero chance of being alive now if we only live once? Because we had infinite time to have our life and would be dead an eternity ago. That's an interesting point, but it doesn't have to be that way. There could be a cosmic serial number to each soul which does not repeat even if everything else does, analogous to how the digits of pi go on forever for example. If we only live once and somebody is alive now after infinite time, that must still be somebody and we might as well be them.

Dr Huemer, I have to say that you are really good at arguing clearly. Your books are a blast to read, and everyone should go buy them immediately, of course!

I had Dr. Huemer as a professor in college. He makes clear arguments and goes through great pains to be understandable. Contrast that with his opponent who appears to prefer an approach of saying the word "materialism" with a great deal of negative emphasis. Sorry but that's not an argument.

I prefer another explanation, that is more plausible in my opinion, and works in accordance with quantum mechanics, and it's the one of John Archibald Wheeler, where basically, we (the spectators), are the ones creating the fine tunning by modifying our own past by observing the universe. Basically, all other realities and possibilities collapse in retrospect. The experiment is called "Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment".

Seems like social anarchy isn't feasible. All of the things suggested would require force. There would always be an incentive to leave your commune for other more productive communes with less dependants.

It seems Huemer uses a utilitarian appeal in his argument for veganism, but does not with the intuitionist argument for anarchy. Without a parallel praxeological-economic argument for capitalism, the utilitarian appeal for anarchy can fall with high time preference beneficial effects of the state. Radical philosophical consistency is the heart of anarchy imo.

Michael, I am disappointed there are not more viewers here. I have been using your work for a few years and recommending it to others--such is the popularity of Voluntaryism/Anarchism, unfortunately still a rare evolutionary outcome! Thank you for your efforts.

As a lawyer, I will say here only that I wish Professor Huemer's video here was presented by every judge, to every jury, before charging the jury with its task of deliberation. What a sea change we would witness in our penal system.

A great deal of larping from the comment section, from reddit atheists and wannabe Neil g tysons

Relativity is an optical illusion. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the same time for the same observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source and been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation if quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler explainatiin explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with the particle and all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. So due to the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics TH-cam presentation of above argument: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

Relativity is an optical illusion and this resolves the non-local dilemma in Pilot Wave theory. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the same time for the same observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source and been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation if quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler explainatiin explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with the particle and all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. So due to the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics TH-cam presentation of above argument: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

This was great. Good back and forth and counter arguments presented.

Talk about nukes more. US Democrats lost Vietnam on purpose after it was all but won

Anarchism is defined by its opposition to all forms of unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, not simply that found in government. The term derives its name from the Greek term that means without a ruler or leader. Anarchism also comes out of the socialist tradition, and has always been anti-capitalist, as the logical conclusion reached from its tenets recognizes capitalism as an enabler of gross coercion and hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology unrelated to anarchism in any meaningful way. Its right-wing creators simply adopted some of the language used by actual anarchism.

let me just highlight a "small" fact from this, ATLEAST 2% of death row was sentenced to death wrongfully. Thats horrifying

This is an excellent introduction to fundamental concepts of Bohmian Mechanics, especially its lucid description of configuration space. However, there are a number of details that I think invite misinterpretation: @2:20 - The terms "position" and "location" are used interchangeably in discussing both particle behavior and wave function evolution in configuration space. I think this invites confusion between a particle's probablistic location in physical space versus the wave function's deterministic position in configuration space. To be precise, particles are located in spacetime while the wave function is positioned at a point in configuration space. @4:20 - The dimensionality of configuration space is characterized by real-number coordinates. In practice, dimensions in configuration space are complex-valued. This is an important distinction because it is the complex-valued nature of probability amplitudes in the quantum wave function that produces the interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments. @5:35 - The second bullet-point ("The theory is deterministic.") appears to contradict the first bullet-point (Particle locations are characterized by squared probablility distributions.} Of course, this apparent contraction applies to conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics as well, which the third bullet-point correctly highlights. I think a clarification would help resolve the issue: While the evolutioin of the quantum wave function in configuration space is deterministic, the corresponding locations of particles in physical space follow probabilistic distributions. @9:20 - "Instantaneous action at a distance in physical space is possible. There's no action at a distance in configuration space." Sorry, but this is backwards. In physical space, propagation of quantum events is limited to the speed of light. It is in configuration space where the evolutioin of the wave function is instantaneous (because configuration space is inherently nonlocal.) What can appear to be instantaneous action at a distance in physical space is in reality the simultaneous projection of probabilistic particle locations into physical space, produced by applying Born's Rule to the deterministic evolution of the wave function in configuration space. @10:55 - "Pilot wave goes through both slits, producing interference." This implies that pilot waves propagate through physical space, a misconception that is the source of endless confusion among critics of Bohmian Mechanics. As you made clear earlier in this presentation, pilot waves are manifest exclusively in configuration space, they do not accompany particles travelling through physical space. In a double-slit experiment, what actually happens is the barriers around the slits are integral aspects of the quantum system represented by the wave function in configuration space. Consequently, the pilot wave evolves in a manner consistent with the presence of those barriers in physical space. If the pilot wave actually manifested in physical space (e.g. as do electromagnetic waves), its propagation would be subject to relativistic limitations. In reality, pilot waves manifest instantaneously in configuration space. (They do not take time to "travel" through the double-slits.) That said, you can nevertheless treat the pilot wave's guidance of the particle as if it was an inertialess wavefront in physical space that the particle "rides" on top of (e.g. like a ping pong ball floating on the surface of a lake). This will produce a close approximation of the interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments. What's actually happening, however, is the complex-valued components of the wave function produce cancellations when summed in configuration space. The complex conjugates of those summations are then squared to produce real-valued probability gradients according to Born's Rule.

"I am a very simple minded guy" - James Gaston

Into the lion's den! Nicely argued.

No

Bruh no, I wanted like this guy

I always find it ridiculous how judges pretend that jury nullification is illegal.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere MLK

Great work…one of these days I’ll tell u what happened in Massachusetts

This is really good. Thanks Dr. Huemer!

Does anyone have a source for Dr. Huemer's claim that more people die from cold than heat each year?

Under 5) you ask the question "How much" should we listen to experts, but the arguments below are about whether we should listen to them at all or not. The first problem is "Who is an expert?. The second issue is the structures and assumptions behind the experts. I might not be able to analyze an ice core, but I can have an informed opinion on how much evidence an ice core can provide in principle. I give the following example. Imagine 99.997% of experts agree, that Jesus is coming next month to judge the earth. If you look at the evidence you see them quoting scripture. If I critize their interpretation of scripture, I get rejected for not being an experts in ancient apocalyptic writings. So I should not critize their interpretation. But I can look at the principle of looking at such texts to come to that conclusion. Similarly, I can critize huge parts of Climate Science for using methods I think of being not a reliable method for coming to these conclusions, without being a climate scientist. The other problem are structures I see behind the experts. If I see bias in the way scientist were financed and how skeptics were treated, I would conclude that the entire process that generated these experts and their consensus might be flawed. I therefore am allowed to be skeptical of their assesments. The rational approach seems to me, to listen to all kinds of experts with different opinions. Mainstream experts and fringe experts. Encouraging public discussion between them and understanding the different perspectives. Often it is not necessary to have an expert-level understanding of the first-order evidence. So normies like me definetly can rationally disagree with the experts.

Well, if the jury is NOT told about it, how are they to know. Indeed a dirty little secret!!!! Does this JURY NULIFICATION apply to courts around the world, or just THE USA? I could see it being applied in very minor or unique situations, but imagine a serial killer or a mass murderer getting off because the jury applied this, NOW THAT IS NOT RIGHT. So my question is, where do you draw the line? Thank you for posting. Oh by the way, I only learned of this power the jury has from following the Darrell Brooks case which I am sure everyone is aware of --- where he drove his SUV thru a christmas parade plowing thru people, killing 6 and injuring 70.... Can you imagine if JURY NULIFICATION was applied in this case. I cannot imagine what would happen to him if he walked out of court a free man. So this POWER the jury has is a double edged sword..... it could work for the GOOD but it could also work for the BAD.

i just want to stop and say thank you, thank you for such a clear clarification you provided in this video and for your time. dont know about others, but finally a video that was able to point were the problem of confusion was and all by chance 😂 🤗

As a lawyer I'll let you know: This video is correct. Since the Bushel case in 1670, it has been the law that jurors can't be punished for delivering a verdict contrary to court instructions because jurors are entitled to determine both law and facts. Anyone who doesn't believe me, look up Bushel's case on Wikipedia ⚖️

If spiritual value is nothing then human is about to be replaced soon by robotic which had thousand time more valuable then what are we or were we here for in the first place

Religion was the first science then why does true religion de punk modern science or just because ambition of Monopoly if science and intelligent

What are your thoughts on democracy? Do you think voting gives democracies political legitimacy or do you think voting is coercive?

Scientific priests too rigid to see what Bohm means.

Do you think democracy is coercive?

As someone who's trained in physics and who's writing a book on statistical thermodynamics, this was a better explanation than I would have expected from a philosopher Edit: I mean, no offense. You just went into a clearer explanation of some of the basic mathematics than I'd expect from someone in the humanities

I slept in today to save on entropy.

Does Michael Huemer believe that democracy (or voting) is coercive?

These are some very good thoughts. It was a joy thinking along and further.

I feel like it was incredibly hard to listen to James since his reasoning and arguments seemed so weak and porous. Is he much smarter and intelligible in different contexts? He should prepare harder for debates or give them up if this his best.

Mike, it doesn’t seem obvious to me if “most common” argument (in this case the immigration law) is “strongest” argument. I would think steel manning the opponents side would be a good exercise in tackling the strongest arguments and then dealing with the most common arguments if those are not synonymous in your lecture.

Awesome discussion!

So how do we deal with the unjust laws? I know of someone who was a working productive member of society before his arrest. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance that he intended for personal use and is now a prisoner for 10 years. This is so terrible to me and I can't even get my head around it. How can a society even allow this sort of Injustice to happen?

I am surprised that the the religious belief in political authority wasn't explored more. As this belief in political authority is arguably the most dangerous religion on earth.

Would love if you did a 'healthcare under anarchy' lecture. This always seems to be the sticking point when I talk about anarchy with friends and family.

Politicians claim ownership over your body through drug laws, and taxation on your labor.