Episode 14, Josh Rasmussen, On Necessary Being
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2019
- In this episode, Alex talks to Dr Josh Rasmussen (www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/...) about the notion of necessary existence. It is a free flowing conversation where lots of different ideas are played about with.
If you enjoy this content, follow on social media:
/ thoughtology
thoughtology.podbean.com/?sour...
/ thoughtologytube
Thank you for this conversation! :)
Very enjoyable. Would enjoy hearing you guys talk further.
Very interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you so much for this discussion. It felt so free and creative. You guys focused on trying to get to the bottom of the issues, there wasn't a hint of ego or hostility. Inspiring. Thank you!
Very interesting and cordial conversation, thank you:)
Woohoo, I've been waiting ages for a new Thoughtology discussion, although I wish it were video rather than just audio. Anyway never mind, great stuff Alex!
Well wait longer cause your reading comprehension is awful .
Patterns of information vs chaos non pattern this describes every single that at every scale of reality.
A object or abstract idea or a wording language with definition. It's all a package of information order vs chaos information vs static
There is order and chaos or information and static.
That what reality consists of
A shared thought just packet of information filtered through 2 independent experiences.
Alex, regarding the discussion of self-reference starting around 47:33, the two of you seem to agree it can sometimes be problematic but don't seem to clearly identify what separates the non-problem instances of self-reference from the problematic ones.
Have you considered that self-reference may only be an issue in instances of *pure* self-reference? For example, take the following two sentences from your discussion:
(1) _This sentence has seven words in it_
(2) _This sentence is false_
Sentence (1) seems that it is not problematic while sentence (2) does seem problematic. Note that (1) ultimately refers to something beyond itself - that is, something outside its condition of "standing in" for something else, _something beyond its own referring._ It refers, ultimately, to a countable set of words. This is indicated to us by the phrase "has seven words in it." In sentence (2), however, the phrase "is false" indicates we are being directed to find the sentence's referent then determine whether that referent conforms to the "is false" evaluation. But there is nothing beyond the reference function of the sentence to which the sentence refers. In other words, the sentence's ultimate referent is, again, the semantic referent of its particular group of words. This cycle continues ad infinitum so that we see the problem of sentence (2) could be that it suffers from *pure self-reference* - a situation in which something _refers _*_exclusively_*_ to its own referring._
It's possible, perhaps, to further generalize this and say that _anything_ which refers exclusively to its own referring will generate this problem. If we take "meaning" to be the thing in reality to which a symbol ultimately refers, we could also say that all situations of pure-self reference are meaningless and, therefore, _not even_ true or false.
Thoughts?
Hmm, interesting..
Do you find a problem with the sentence "This sentence is true"?
@@Oskar1000
Yes. I am inclined to say it suffers from the same problem - an unending regress of references. On that basis, I would say it's not true or false. I tend to think the regress issue is less obvious when looking at "This sentence is true." because we are not forced - as we are in the former case - to reconcile two contradictory truth values. Both sentences suffer the same problem, but one is better at highlighting it.
@@shawn.brumfield I think I share this intuition but perhaps not fully. I think the "This sentence is true" is stable, in the limus sense (maybe it's called final value theorem in maths). As iterations of the sentence goes to infinity it is true. While "this sentence is false" alternates and is not stable.
We still have the problem of what the value of the first iteration would be on my view so perhaps your view is superior.
@@Oskar1000
That's an interesting consideration. Thank you for pointing it out.
Propositions not about itself are information packets about external world however filtered through a tiny single mind if that human experience
~ 31:00 - Could you say that the thing that's shared is an ability? We independently have some information in our brains which are private and not "shared" (although maybe if we could examine them, the pattern of neurons is exactly the same) but what we do share is our ability to do something similar or the same using those independent bits of information; such as identifying a colour or whatever.
A collection of red things what they share? A pagage 9f information ( as opposed to a stack of shirts all different colors that's chaos regarding color)
Where a stack of red pants shirts hat shoes pillow cases you are using information regarding how light reflects to make a list a package
Whether a film a song a winter storm human emotion math paper it's just information package vs static
Maybe redness is a universal just means that linguistic tokens of *red* and functionally equivalent tokens in different languages are predicates
In Rasmussen's _All non-self-referential propositions exist_ problem, the contradiction isn't with the existence of said proposition; that's simply a matter of how you define the existence of propositions. The problem is limited to whether or not the proposition itself is a member of the set of all non-self-referential propositions. And that question cannot be coherently answered, which is really a problem with self-reference in set theory, not in the theory of proposition existence.
1:19:42 @alexmalpass Was "ambulatory" the word you were searching for?
The statement "the chair is on the table" needs a lot of assumptions to make it true. The chair is assumed to be the one in front of you in the classroom, same goes for the table. The word "is" assumes that you are talking about this specific moment in time. So really the statement should be something like, "the chair that is directly in front of me in my classroom is on the table directly in front of me at 10:45 on 8/5/2020. This statement will always be true even if you knock the chair off the table later
How does law non contradiction apply to quantum mechanics?
It is true that's particle is in location x and it is false that particle is in location x?
I'm not so sure that we can definitively say that whatever proposition someone says next will either be true or false. It seems intuitive on the face of it, but what if the proposition the person says next is "This sentence is false"? Surely that proposition is neither true nor false because it entails a contradiction.
There are only 2 things order and chaos
All of reality is order or chaos information or static ( for trillions of parameters)
Our words are just representations and need information from reality itself to confirm. It
Agreed. When we think, we think in terms of what our senses have interpreted from the world around us. Blind people think in sound and touch, deaf people think in sign language sight and touch. I see no evidence that we can think of anything that isnt some combination of what our senses have experienced. A blind person cannot think of the color red, etc.
@@MrMcwesbrook I don’t agree at all that blind people can’t think of the color red. Blind people can talk about colors abstractly even though they can’t personally experience them. Just a quick google search turns up blind people talking about their personal experiences understanding colors and other visual things abstractly. If a blind person is talking about colors what are they thinking about?
@@KamikazethecatII they are talking about their understanding of what people who have seen red thought or felt about it. They can't close their eyes and visualize a red apple floating in front of them. If they can have an experience based solely off color, then they should be able to tell which of two near identical objects is painted green and which is painted red. For example a blind person's experience with a red balloon would be no different than their experience with a green balloon
@@MrMcwesbrook That’s what I said though, they can’t experience color. But they can still understand color abstractly.
@@KamikazethecatII Oh. I agree with that. I guess when I said "think of the color red", that was too vague of a statement. I should have said visualize or relive the experience of the color red. It could also be interpreted that I was being very specific with the words "color red" and in that case I would stand by my original statement. They aren't thinking about the color red by itself, they are thinking about how red makes people feel, or what objects are red, or what other colors are next to red on the color wheel. They rely on someone who has experienced color to tell them about it. Do you have videos of blind people describing color? I'd be interested in watching them. Also, if I didn't have the sense of touch, how would you describe smoothness and roughness to me?
The brain is pattern recognizing machine
1:19:29 ambulate
Every combination of letters into words with definitions, every thought proposition is false fictional bunk (( except those occasions of demonstrable))
It's not a puzzle . There 8s a reality level 1. Level 2 a particular human being e 8sts inside this reality, they don't see the world through realities point of view but through their tiny perspective.mlevel 3. 8nsieeyhe mind that person the have propositions not about themselves the entire category is through their perspective a tiny sliver compared to reality which they exist inside 9f looking out a keyhole. There's no problems .
Just seems like from outside looking into to philosophy ( historic etc not process itself)
There no acknowledgement that it's just thinking in language lot times definitions .
And then confuse definitions and arrangement of sentences with truth and reality with no concern for actuality instead more concern for definitions.
I think the word you were looking for was "ambulatory". So here we have an example of an unknown pointer, pointing to a known but unrealized abstract object. 😂
Man he was going well untill all of a sudden he's saying that God is least arbitrary hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. His train of thought just exploded like a can of spaghetti O's put in a microwave for 10 minutes
It seems like philosophy does not recognize what language is 5hey information packets encoded with eye shapes and ear shapes mouth shapes body language for the brain that what every word is
Reality does not have propositions. A proposition is a thought , a thought is ainformation packet . A information packet is order. Order is similarities
Stop rambling.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns yes that is applicable to yourself meow rhrangooh
@@johnjacquard2182e amen
@@johnjacquard2182
All of your comments are just incoherent gibberish.
1:20:00 It seems like Alex is concerned about his ability to move. But the supreme being is everywhere simultaneously in the Christian worldview. So isn't that "more powerful" than being able to move between two places quickly? Similarly Alex can manipulate objects, but the "supreme power" can manipulate objects more fully, creating and deleting them from existence at will, again demonstrating "more power".
Being everywhere is not a power, it is an attribute. And your claims are nothing but unjustified assertions anyway.
@@Oners82 Seriously? What is your point? That I didn't write an entire book justifying what I said, which was merely a clarification that the comment wasn't a good analogy for God? I don't even know what you want from this comment.
I mean seriously, what is your point?
@@VACatholic
I'm not sure what you don't understand. Being everywhere is not a power anymore than being human or male or tall is a power. It is an attribute, not a power.
I genuinely don't know how you can fail to understand such a trivially simple point.
And I didn't ask you to write a book did I so calm the hell down. My point was simply that if you want to make these claims about god then you need at least some sort of argument to justify them, not that you need to write a book.
Talk about straw manning the shit of people...
@@Oners82 I put quotation marks around "more powerful" for a reason. That reason is because i using the word in a colloquial sense.
As for justifying the claim? I don't know what claim you want me to justify? The Orthodox Christian claim that God created everything that exists and so is present everywhere? I mean that's just basic Christianity. Feel free to clarify, though.
Sorry if you think I was not calm, I just have no idea what you're talking about.
@@VACatholic
Regardless of how you were using the term it still fails as a rebuttal because being able to move is a power whereas the size of an object is not.
As for claims you need to justify (ignoring the fact that you haven't established that a god even exists yet), you claimed that this being can delete objects from existence at will. This is a blatant violation of natural laws so if you want to claim that a being exists that can perform miracles you clearly have a HUGE burden of proof to justify the claim.
Regarding omnipresence, this is again an unjustified claim and it should be pointed out that many Christians do not accept it either, so justification is required here as well. Saying, "that's just basic Christianity" is not an argument. Even if it is true that this is what the bible claims, it still needs justification. You can't just say something is true because you defined it that way or because a book says so.
"I just have no idea what you're talking about."
If English is your first language I'm not sure how that could be the case. I am raising simple challenges to the claims you made - it's not complicated!
In order for something to be gazorp-gazorp there must *be* something that is gazorp-gazorp. I'd like to see his argument spelled out in a formal way. I'm skeptical.
1:25:37 I couldn't agree more. Being God sounds awful.
Why do these people even talk about a "supreme being" as if it's something real? I just don't get it. It's an imaginary construct. Just like "god" and the imaginary qualities people ascribe to "god". Omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness are imaginary qualities. No evidence that they are real. It reduces these people to simply playing word games with imaginary concepts. Is this why philosophy is essentially a decadent undertaking?
Yea I'm not sure why people think these qualities are even possible. Especially qualities like timeless or beyond time. Too many people think that if they can say a word then it is possible for it to manifest in reality.