New Argument for God Hits a Skeptical Wall (feat Forrest Valkai)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2023
- Paulogia joined @RenegadeScienceTeacher to host "The Sunday Show" presented by "The Line" on 10.01.23
original video - • Can you CONVERT Us (At...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/....
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
"I'm full. I ate before the show. I don't want any word salad." Brilliant!
I have to try to use this
The Dunning-Kruger effect was so very strong with this one...
“There is a cult of ignorance… and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
- Isaac Asimov
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
- Bertrand Russell
30:10 “I figured as a philosopher you had an opinion on everything.” That was another great quip.
I choked on air when the caller said he was a philosopher of physics. It got worse when he said he knows high school physics.
@@het53 Aristotle wasn't even the best of the ancient or classical Greek philosophers :) and caller's understanding was worse than Aristotle.
Well, he has a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech, so neener, I guess.
Oh wait, that's a Simpsons reference and "christian" schools are all diploma mills, weird how that works.
@@het53 Surveys show the majority of professional philosophers are atheists. So... as much as the majority of professional experts in the topic, apparently.
Falsifiability is a very simple idea: "Is this belief simply a mental trap: in other words, if I believed this belief, and at the same time I was also in fact wrong, is there a way I could find out?", that's, I think, the easiest common language way to express it. And when expressed in that way, it's obvious why the things the caller is saying about a "theory of everything" are completely wrong: a theory of everything would be extremely falsifiable, it would be making a prediction, a claim, about every event that happens, so any event that occurred that was not predicted by the theory would falsify it: if it was not the case that you could just ask the theory and look up every single future event to perfectly precise detail, it would fail as a theory of everything. I'm a physicist who works with quantum stuff, and this caller is very confused.
@@het53Seems like we know more than you at least. Not much to brag about but still.
@@mind_onion Thank you for saying this so succinctly!
It is just so baffling how many of these callers lack ANY formal knowledge regarding the subjects they're discussing, yet are so completely convinced that they know more than the actual experts.
"I did my own research on Facebook."
Religious fundamentalism is anti intellectual.
“I figured as a philosopher you’d have an opinion on everything.”-Forrest.
That was really fucking funny!!
Yeah, I caught that too. I chuckled.
Spitting my coffee out 😂
Busted up at that, really funny
Philosopher of physics just means he daydreams about other people's work and disagrees with them. 😂😂😂
I'll let Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell know you feel smarter than them.
James Fodor did a really thorough breakdown of why the 'digital physics' argument is just a hollow assertion that relies on most people being ignorant of quantum physics and therefore unable to see just how many unfounded assertions it makes.
Quantum is too weird to 'logically' prove anything..
Yeah. It's analogous to saying "god did it with magic". The message from theists who accept this line of thought generally want people to stop looking for answers, and just accept THEIR "explanation" for everything.
It's very similar to the "brain in a jar" and the "we live in a computer simulation", and has the same predictive power: none.
Anything of scientific value, and therefore worth pursuing, is falsifiabiable.
Falsifiability is when a scientist specifically looks for evidence of something, then tries to disprove that evidence, to be as confident as they can be that the evidence is not false, based on an acceptable set of criteria that would render that evidence false.
Science, as a whole, might have a bias towards finding a "theory of everything", but the Scientific Method, and standard scientific principles, do not.
@@Dr.JustIsWrongJust because your ape brain finds quantum physics to be weird, doesn't mean it isn't logical or unable to prove things, it just means your brain isn't made in a way to understand how it works.
Thanks for the heads-up!
@@Dr.JustIsWrong
If quantum is the norm, how can it be weird?
Unexpected maybe, but weird would just be human projection on something newly discovered.
"It's what you take into it." a.k.a. "I have a preconceived notion and I am looking for anything that can justify that notion."
Yup that's exactly Forrest trying to make up an excuse for men being women
Nah, I think this caller had a 'unique' explanation which didn't get addressed..
He's wrong, but he, nor the audience, were informed as to how..
@@gypsylee333 Congratulations! So, you got the job. I was wondering who was in charge of checking the genitalia of anyone that their (birth assigned) sex was in question. Do you also do blood tests, or is it just a quick forced check under their skirt/pants for your determination and enforcement? What are the rules if someone does not consent to your forced check? What are the specific qualifications of your job in case I would like to seek such employment?
@@Specialeffecks just make the bureaucrats match the birth certificate sex to the driver's license, then we can just look at IDs but a quick DNA test would clear up any confusion. Only need a month swab. The left was all about swabbing everyone against their will a year or 2 ago, can't complain now. Not that it's really necessary, they very rarely pass IRL without Photoshop where you can see the height and hear the voice and smell them. Any other questions? I am very solutions oriented 😘
@@gypsylee333Good grief, give it up for christs sake
"I can find some specific physicists that I think are agreeing with me, therefore the other 92.499999999999999% of physicists are also seeing what I see." Fantastic logic.
He also fails to A) Verify that they agree and B) Establish why they agree.
The best thing that people like Forrest do when they cite someone is explain the logic and basis of what they’re citing. Anyone with a degree can plant themselves firmly outside of scientific consensus and say “wrong!” That’s how we get people like Jorden Peterson and the entire Heartland Institute.
Something that is unfalsifiable could be true, but there's no way for us to be about to conclusively determine that.
"7.5% of physicists believe in a god. What do you know that the other 92.5% don't know?"
This is the same question you can ask every anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, MLMer, woo-peddler and conspiracy theorist alive. You get the same answer each time. For Adam here, it's 'focus', but that really translates to "They have an agendaaaaaaa! woooooo!".
This is why I maintain that religion and conspiracy theories are the same thing.
Based on my learnings from watching this show, unless the number is 100% with an irrefutable proof that goes with it, the 92.5% argument is no better than an argument supported by popular opinion -- i.e., is not evidence of anything. Am I missing something?
@@kaushikroy4041 You need to look up the Nirvana Fallacy. And what a scientific consensus means.
Yes, he revealed that when he said the physicists are guided by "their will", not God's will.
@@CraigGood Thanks I will look up the Nirvana thing. Though being a scientist in training myself -- I understand scientific consensus, and also that it can be wrong/incomplete despite high agreement scores (e.g., geocentrism or Newton's gravity laws).
“I’m gonna present my argument: the conclusion is….”
And people wonder why this caller doesn’t grasp the necessity of falsifiability? His thinker thinks backwards.
Beautifully said Forrest. I am sure the caller is a lovely fellow. He sounds like me aged 14 years. I was eager to learn about new ideas and look into them. The difference being that our guest hasn't bothered doing the footwork, instead he has embellished an idea that appeals to him, to make if work for him.
Each time I’ve come up with an idea I’ve looked up the research, and each time found a researcher disproved it decades or centuries earlier. I still have ideas, but now I assume it’s just something I need to learn.
Jesus ... imagine if everyone fact checked themseves before yapping off?
I've always used my compatriots to bounce my ideas off...
Huge credit to Adam. He didnt act like most theists and de-evolved into anger and insults. Well done.
But his argument falls into the category of what i want to believe. He cant prove his belief.
*Prove me wrong ;*
Leprechauns can only be seen, when they _choose to be seen._
How can anyone disprove the existence of something that by definition, can easily choose to never be found ?
Oh oh I know! Quantum physics !
Adam is a perfect example of "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm very confident about it". Plus his "new arguments" are older than most countries.
The whole "If we found A does not equal A" thing for instance. "That's not falsifiable, that would just be a contradiction!" The hypothetical was *_IF We Found A Case Of That Happening._* We're talking _if we found something that logically cannot exist but there it is doin' an exist right in front of you_ and he still doesn't get it, because he feels very strongly that his stonerthoughts are super smrt and just discovered entirely new lands but he doesn't realize he just entered a hiker's trail with eight billion yearly visitors. If you saw something that contradicted its own existence, "Adam", then *that would falsify logic. That's the whole freaking point, you dunce.*
He was showing that he did not understand what falsifiability is, he was talking as if theoretically, logic had already been falsified (all of it) and thus we would not be able to even "know" anything as we would not be able to tell true from false. That misses the point entirely of course, not just because the example doesn't falsify all of logic even if it were observed, just the part about A != A, but rather he's talking as if though logic is already falsified and not talking about how logic could be falsfied.
I think he might also believe that it is "impossible" to falsify logic as it is, in his mind, prescriptive (and somehow 100% accurate in the process) of reality and the universe when in fact it is descriptive. And any descriptive claim can be falsified as long as it allows for a condition wherin it can be falsified.
@@DeludedOne Logic is just the formal description of how we think (that is, putting things into categories). If A is true, then not A is false, not because some property of the universe, but because we defined A that way. Logic is not a property of the universe and it's not falsifiable, because no observation of the universe can affect it. Logic is also, not true or false, because it doesn't describe observable properties of the universe. It's, in fact, an abstracion like mathemathics (or part of it), it's just that abstraction is hard-wired in our brains.
@@juanausensi499 Exactly. Adam seems to not undetstand that and he's not the only theistic commenter that I've seen having problems undetstanding this.
While not an intrimsic property of the universe, logic is still based on human observation of the way the universe/reality works. Foe example we've never observed A != A and only A = A so that is considered a fundamental law of logic.
@@DeludedOne "we've never observed A != A and only A = A so that is considered a fundamental law of logic." I'm going a step beyond. If we could observe A!=A, then we wouldn't define A that way. We would change the properties we assign to A, so that A! would become A, by not allowing the properties we assing to A be negated for something that still we want to be A, and defining A only in base of some unchanging properties. I hope it makes sense.
@@juanausensi499 Like how water is not ice but at the same time still water just frozen?
The big question theists ALWAYS lie about: "Did you believe in God before you found this argument?" It's yes. It's always yes.
Ah i remember the comment section of this call. The caller claimed he wanted to 'disintangle' forest claim that any claim needs a falsifiability criteria... by special pleading his own claim that it didnt need to be *experimentally* falsifiable.
From his POV he had a point : Logic is not falsifiable via logic.
But, logic is falsifiable via experience.. reality falsifies logic, often..
Any conversation beginning with 'disentangle' should be expected to be confusing right up to the point of resolution.. Which didn't occur here.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong Logic is not falsifiable, because it's not an hypothesis about the universe. Logic doesn't deal with physical things, but with the abstractions we make for those things. Logic can be seen, indeed, as a part of mathematics, and mathematics arent's falsifiable either, because no observation about the universe can't falsify any mathematical proposition.
@@juanausensi499 _"Logic is not falsifiable,"_
1. All men are mortal.
2. Cleopatra is a man.
C. Cleopatra is mortal.
Is this logic unfalsifiable?
@@juanausensi499
Logic can be falsified by being either invalid or unsound.
2 + 2 = 783
√-1 = 14
It's still logic; it's just wrong.
@@juanausensi499
1. Everything that begins to exist needs a creator.
2. My car began to exist.
C. Therefore God created my car.
Both invalid and unsound.
If Terence Howard was English....
He would still think that 1×1=2 😂
@@shawn092182 "One cup of tea x one cup of tea = two cups of tea"
- Sir Terry Howard
@@interstellarbeatteller9306 You mean, Dr. Terry Howard.
@@shawn092182 He's also a trained pilot & can talk to animals, so the man wears many hats! :)
I feel like the thing the caller seems to be having trouble with is that the arrogant part isn't having an idea. It's presenting an idea that disagrees with the consensus in all related fields to others and expecting them to be convinced. If you have that great of an idea, go tell it to the experts! If this is such a great proof they should be convinced, and if not they can set you straight.
The caller was having trouble with communication, partly because Paul & Valkai dude _(erroneously, imo)_ presupposed his point, and they ended the conversation prior to resolution.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong Yeah, that's true, could have had better clarification and listening being done on their part.
Please dont call again Adam, as an atheist who did some uni physics I was almost pulling my hair out!
I love how Paul has a perpetual dramatic breeze blowing on his hair indoors.
Think that's called an air conditioner.
No. Dramatic breeze. From here on the AC is the DB.
Nsh, that's just the telekinesis guy trying to join the call
It's because it's magnificent! Paul's hair is the only reason I'm here 😁
(30:40) How to be totally oblivious: "Thank you, I appreciate the compliment!"
Give me more Paulogia and Forest!
He can see the matrix. Always nice to get a call from neo.
Nah, he merely had a different POV that never got addressed.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong yes! this was literally the worst response to a call in i've ever heard.
As someone who works in the HVAC/refrigeration field, I have known plenty of Mikes who think they know more about medical advice than doctors. lol
Engineer syndrome.
I think the appeal to Authority is actually rather important to this discussion. The internet is lousy with self-appointed experts in physics jumping to conclusions that physics doesn't actually support. And many of them sound very reasonable to someone who doesn't understand the subject matter. I think Forrest is right to essentially say talk to a physicist about this, then talk to a philosopher about this, then and only then, once you can at least determine that you're on the right track and not making any gross errors, then come back to someone like Forrest or Paul with this discussion. Because I have to be honest, I've seen so many seemingly reasonable theories brutally shot down on the basis of fundamental misunderstandings of quantum physics that I basically distrust them right out of the gate without some reason to believe the proponent has at least cleared those bars.
_"I think Forrest is right to essentially say talk to a physicist about this, then talk to a philosopher about this,"_
I think it was the caller who said this.. 29:45
I find most people who invoke quantum mechanics, don't even have a high school level understanding of quantum mechanics let alone what Heisenberg or Feynman understood and there have been more understood since their deaths.
@@user-gl5dq2dg1jI didn't even know there was such a thing as a high school level understanding of quantum mechanics.
@@aaronpolichar7936 If you take chemistry there is a little bit of a discussion about it. Of course it has been a few decades and college courses in science and engineering afterwards so I might be a lot fuzzy about my memories.
@@aaronpolichar7936When you learn about electron spin and how that relates to electron pairs in highschool chemistry, that literally quantum mechanics. And when you learn about orbitals and how electrons may move between orbitals and how interactions between valence electrons between atoms creates covalent bonds, that is also quantum mechanics.
16:11 - "The strongest example is logic itself. You can't falsify logic because logic itself does the falsifying. The laws of logic are immune to falsification."
"No, if we found that A is not equal to A then we would falsify the laws of logic. The laws of logic are merely observations for which we've found no exception."
I don't think that's quite right. It's more like a conceptual framework we've built to understand things. I think it's more like math in that we could develop new systems of logic that work differently, and possibly even much better, but the laws of logic aren't facts about the universe, they are tools we've developed to understand it. So they aren't themselves necessarily "true" to begin with. It would make more sense to say they're "applicable" or "not applicable" depending on how we model a question.
Good explanation.
Correct. Logic is not a proposition, and therefore the falsifiability criterion doesn't apply. Logic is a way of evaluating the validity of an argument.
@@njhoepnerLogic is not a proposition?
The Law of Idenity is a proposition. The law of non-contradiction is a proposition. The law of excluded middle is a proposition.
These are all axioms or presuppositions, and require justification to be certain about one's conclusions based upon them.
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep Those aren't propositions, they are ways of evaluating a proposition. If a proposition violates the law of identity, then the proposition is logically invalid.
@@njhoepner The fact that you claim that the law of identity means if some proposition violates it it is invalid, and then deny that it is in fact a claim you've just made, boggles my mind.
God is a 13-year-old kid running his sim program. That explains everything.
So basically the plot of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-- a computer named Deep Thought was built to answer the question of life, the universe, and everything, which then built our universe and came to 42.
That Douglas Adams has a lot to answer for!!
Well Deep Thought came up with 42 on its own. And it was the Earth, not the whole universe, which was constructed to find the question.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki _"That Douglas Adams has a lot to answer for!!"_
He answered, it's now merely that _That Douglas Adams has a lot to _*_question_*_ for!!_
@@Dr.JustIsWrong He was right about one thing - a lot of humanity is a joke!
@@Leszek.Rzepecki He also appreciated the unwitting joke his mother played on him with the initials DNA.
17:36 Forest: "I ate before the show. I'm full. I don't want any word salad" -- LOL!!!!!!!!!
What I view as the knee-capping of the simulation hypothesis is: The reality we inhabit has extremely high fidelity, and this fidelity can be reproducibly observed by any agent; to maintain this level of fidelity requires complexity that can't be reasonably short-cut by LOD effects (in particular, the nature of a quantum field that is reproducibly observable in just about any context); and simulating a universe with this fidelity fundamentally requires more mass and energy than is present in the universe you're simulating. To wit: You need a universe to simulate a universe. The simulation hypothesis requires a host universe that is larger and more complex and has favorable physics for the creation and maintenance of universe-sized simulations.
.... Which is just a fuckin' stupid idea.
You need several universes worth of data to represent one universe.
Any individual physical entity (this includes sub-atomic particles, and it's not clear what a good definition of "individual" might be) requires 3 representations just for position each of which can be much, much larger (however you want to measure it) than the entity being represented. Now add data for every attribute of that entity, colour, speed, acceleration, and so on.
Now add in limited fidelity: is position 3 floating point numbers? Or integers based off the plank length?
Now add in calculation time and realise not only do you need multiple universes worth of space, but of time as well which doesn't go away because the speed you run the simulation has a finite limit, and the simulation requires perhaps billions of calculation with exponential cost - and those calculations have to be perfect, otherwise we'd have detected those anomalies
@@Zirrad1 More like 11 universes, but yeah, precisely.
Are you old enough to have experienced the transition to multi-gigabyte storage media? Back in the day, 1 GB of storage seemed like more than anyone would ever need. And now we have terabyte storage. My point is that this is all based on our limited frame of reference, so I see no reason to assume that it couldn't be bigger than what we currently perceive it to be. Our universe simulation could be Pong compared to Doom Eternal as far as resources go. There's no reason to believe it *is,* but there's no reason to assume it couldn't be either.
@@Krikenemp18 Yes, I am old enough. I do remember my excitement at the prospect of storage passing the $10/GB threshold.
But I also know the Shannon Limit of information storage, and I know that there isn't just a practical limit to storage density, but a *physical* limit. It is not physically possible for a single particle to store, represent, or process more than one (quantum) bit of information. That's not one small piece of information, that's one single binary digit: 1 or 0, on or off, true or false. At that scale, the information density required to store, represent, and process the state of a single particle in a system is, at minimum, an 11-dimensional vector quantity. That would include its position, momentum, charge, spin, magnetic dipole moment, mass, and so on.... And for the fidelity we are _able_ to observe, that is needed as a universal field of 11-dimensional vectors for every position in the universe.
It's not sufficient to store just the orientation of a person's bones, you need to store the state of their musculature at a sub-cellular level and the state of charge density at an atomic level for all neurons. There are, to be sure, some tricks you can use to reduce the amount of information you need, like sparse voxel trees, but each such trick you use reduces the fidelity and introduces potentially-visible *errors.* The only errors we can _see_ are quantized at the planck scale. To get that kind of fidelity, we're talking about precision to well over 30 orders of magnitude. For 11-dimensional vectors. Everywhere.
You need entire universes-worth of matter and energy to store, represent, and process that kind of data at the scale we can see. Entire universes-worth.
It's easier to simply create a universe.
>"and simulating a universe with this fidelity fundamentally requires more mass and energy than is present in the universe you're simulating."
But this simply assumes that simulations come from matter and energy, and not from minds. Simulations ultimately coming from minds was a part of the argument. It also ignores the evidence that was presented, that spacetime is emergent. What we regard to be matter is information that doesn't have material constraints, which is what leads us to believe matter is being simulated.
I like how you point out how few physicists and philosophers believe in a god and he said "I think our beliefs are dependent on what we being to the table"
Yes.... and the higher the education the more likely it is that people start to leave those things behind.
As someone that understands quantum physics, I can confirm that this caller has very little understanding of the subject. I certainly do not understand it at the level of Krause or Greene, but I know the fundamentals and it took a long time just to nail that down. People that are looking for god within quantum physics are just moving the goalposts. This is the frontier of science and it will be a long time before we have a majority of answers…because that’s the way science works.
Adam got that Theory of Everything+1
Right off the start line the caller already failed severely in one trap: the fact that we write programs with some "local" features does not mean that every program written for every computer in the universe will manage locality in the same way. It is quite possible that the computers capable of the simulation of a human being, never mind seven billion of us, will be so sophisticated that every potential limitation or problem with such a program is completely different from the limitations and problems of our computer programs. For all we know, the combined efforts of all of humanity plus all of our technology, working in perfect combination, are still not enough to discover the first aspect or property of the program that simulates Earth, if such a thing exists.
I think we're in a physics simulation on the "computer" of an "alien teen" who has no idea anything is "alive" in there and one "day" they will delete us to make space for a "game".
I know it's unfalsifiable but it's just as good as any religious theory 🙂
Why is Paul there making his best Mark Hamill face?
"I figure as a philosopher you have an opinion on everything" LOL!!! Best low key insult by forrest.
"It's turtles all the way down!" - Forrest Valkai
I think therefore I am ... I think.
@@johnnolen8338 100%!!! worst response to a call i've ever heard
What could prove evolution false? Metaphysical Substrate my friends. Metaphysical substrate. 😂
This is merely the Watchmaker answer, in the form of a program instead of a device.
16:58 the expressions are priceless! Thanks for taking the dumb for us, guys😆
I love when someone thinks that they are smarter than Forrest. It is comical on the best possible level. This guys word salad had Forrest doing a 1,000 yard stare just waiting for him to get done with his malarky....lol
During the stream I was wondering if the caller has played the original Silent Hill?
What made that game so thematically spooky was the fog, which was used to circumvent the limitations of the PlayStation One in rendering all of an area at once, so it only had to detail the limited area around the main character, Harry, within flashlight range.
In our daily lives, simply walking through a doorway can make us forget what we were doing in the first place.
There are times we're driving and lose track of time and location, and suddenly we're at our destination. How'd I get here?
As Paul and Forrest mentioned, brain injury and certain substances affect our cognition and can even change our personalities.
Then there's dreaming, at all, much less lucid dreams and precognitive dreams... _What's the deal with that?_
On the note of sleep:
Sleep paralysis, where we're still physically locked in dream mode, can't control our muscles, and our waking and dreaming visuals can overlap or distort.
Sleep walking, where our muscles off switch isn't working, but we're still dreaming.
Sleep talking, where we can have entire conversations with someone else in the room, but be utterly unaware of it, ourselves.
Why does sleep deprivation or certain mental disorders cause hallucinations?
If we're in a Matrix like simulation, where we have a physical body in a pod or at least a brain 🧠 in a jar, the connection isn't perfect.
Yeah, we've got scientific explanations for these phenomena, but they _could_ merely the in simulation explanations for the in simulation data we have available to us...
... Or, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, doctors could be proctors of the simulation, either as programs, themselves, or as other people outside of the simulation who use their digital avatars to interact with the rest of us.
Let's take the last Thursdayism idea that Forrest brought up, and let's say that everything didn't necessarily come into being from scratch last Thursday, but, instead, Thursday just happens to be the day that new patches to the program roll out and/or system maintenance is performed.
I know we had a lot of disappointed Cox Communications customers when we had system maintenance every week during the same time Blizzard was doing the same thing for World of Warcraft.
*_My Internet is down, and I can't download the updates._*
I apologize, but it's a vicious cycle.
Blizzard runs its updates this time every week, which forces its players to get offline during this time.
Cox then sees that there's lower Internet traffic at this time every week, so they perform their own maintenance, since it should affect the fewest customers.
Again, I do apologize, but that's unfortunately going to be the case for quite a long time.
At the start I could tell he had no idea how computer programs work. Everything else made sense when he said he likes philosophy. I have never heard an argument from a philosopher that wasn't brain meltingly stupid. Philosophy is fun to think about but it is actively harmful when trying to apply it to actual reality. Philosophy is even easier to abuse than statististics, just like you can make statistics to prove whatever you want you can can word salad your way into literally any thought through philosophy.
Agreed. It was tinkerers, empiricists, and observers that have developed science and improved the human condition. The philosophers were too busy navel gazing contemplating the number of angels that could dance on the head of pin to do anything useful.
@@user-gl5dq2dg1jExcept philosophers were the ones who established the importance of science and empirical evidence and logic. Hell, they even have specific philosophies that helped establish that importance, namely empiricism and scientism.
Obviously some of it ranges into the pedantic and unnecessary, but science would not be where it is today without people that asked “why”.
Also, this guy saying he likes philosophy shouldn’t reflect on actual philosophy. The guy hasn’t the first clue what he’s talking about one way or another.
Douglas Adams had this idea. It's the mice I tell you, the mice!!!
This made perfect sense. Pretty much every molecular biologist I know believes in a god due to a philosophical argument based on quantum physics...
I loved Paul's and Forrest's responses to Adam, but I had to bow out after about sixteen minutes because I felt like I was on the worst merry-go-round ever.
Ironically they have more or less the same reaction about 2 min after and switch gears for the sake of sanity
“nondeterministic algorithm”
Forest has heard a lot of this stuff before. I think that the more times you hear the same stuff, with the same flaws, the shorter your temper gets. I think this is especially true when the presenter seems firmly convinced these are original and fascinating ideas and if he just told you about them, you’d be immediately convinced. I get that way about some subjects.
Also, I think it’s not quite fair to compare him to Paul. Paul is one of the kindest, gentlest people I have run across, and probably the nicest guy in counter-apologetics. Hell, he even got Eric Hovind to have a polite conversation. He is almost never anything but nice. It’s kinda like putting someone next to Fred Rogers.
"I think that the more times you hear the same stuff, with the same flaws, the shorter your temper gets."
At this point, we should call this Dillahunty's Law. And no, I'm not having a fun laugh amongst comrades, I mean this as a deep criticism. I've lost most of the respect I had for Matt after listening to him for enough time on enough call-in shows. You don't get to act terribly and blame it on being a call-in host. "Look what you made me do" isn't a defensible reasoning for bad behavior, in any context, and I'm tired of pretending that if you like a particular atheist personality enough it's your job to defend them at all cost.
@@dingdongism I was actually going to mention that. There comes a point where your frustration with the repetition gets in the way, and you’re no longer having a reasonable dialogue. I can’t say where that point is, but Matt’s definitely crossed it for me. Where I lost patience with him was about the tenth time I heard him vow to let his co-host handle something and then butt in.
So I can totally understand people reaching that point with Forest. He certainly got obnoxious towards the end of that. (I will never learn to listen to the whole clip before starting to type, which is on me.)
So, yeah, I agree. An analogy that seems apropos is one used to explain combat fatigue: everyone has a bottle. Some are bigger, some are smaller, but once one fills up, that’s it, and you’re ineffective until you fix that. Sometimes it can’t ever be fixed.
I’d argue that if you can have a civilized conversation with Eric Hovind, you are too soft.
they were mean
@@Leith_CrowtherI would argue that there is no net positive value in having any conversation other than a civilized one.
"The truth must always exist" - is unfalsifiable, yet absolutely true according to logic. I'm not for the dude's argument; I just like being a troll.
@@het53 I missed the point you were making. I apologize. Please expound. XD
Truth never exists.
Only interpretations of inherently limited perceptions..
Therefore endless arguments.. Which is a good thing.. Can't watch movies and pron _all_ the time..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong Wouldn't the fact that truth never exists be always true? Is that an interpretation or just how logic works? You've made some assertions, I would like that you showed me where I was wrong.
I understand your point, however, the fact that someone can always argue is sometimes because they're stupid. It's not because they're right.
@@het53 I'm still confused :\
@@het53 _"And that is a quote. Copywrite."_
Do you mean as in :
"Copywriting is the act or occupation of writing text for the purpose of advertising or other forms of marketing."
Holy shit this guy invented Starfield!
At bottom, what all these arguments have in common is the desire to escape the emotional constraints of apparent reality. People don't want to die, they want to ESC the Matrix and live forever.
In a universe that IS a simulation there are no PCs. Every thing and every one IS an NPC.
In "The 13th floor" they had invented a simulation that ran on its own, and you could log in to the simulation and slip into the role of one of the persons there for a while. You had the full range of perception as if you are the person. And when you logged out, the person in the simulation just lives on its simulated life.
And then the man character had weird blackouts he could not explain, suddenly was at places that he did not know how he got there.
Up to the point that in these blackout times he must have done things he knows nothing about.
Until it comes to the point that he obviously committs murders, and the police gets suspicious.
You can imagine how that story proceeds.
Maybe have a look at the movie.
Life hack, set playback speed to 1.25 and Adam almost talks at a normal speed
I have come up with the perfect syllogism that proves god.
Only a god can create perfect hair.
Forrest has perfect hair.
Therefore, a god exists.
Boom.
I'm only half way through, and Adam is so wrong on EVERY single thing he says that I can't keep listening.
This happens with a lot of AE videos for me.
Adam, you should go and find a girl called Eve, then both go and find a Snake to talk to
"I appreciate the compliment." 🤣
He is stuck in his feelings for his God.
Just we don't have to believe his feelings are true or matter much.
One problem with *quantum physics as an argument for a god(s)* is that it is basically an argument from ignorance. Space and time being emergent properties, assuming that is true, says nothing to me about the existence of a god.
I appreciate the compliment??? How embarrassing, take your meds son.
I DO think I'm a brain in a jar. The jar is my skull.
Try not to jar jar
I enjoyed this comment way more than the video
Your skull isn't a jar, it's a mug for drinking mead out of
Ah! two of my most favourite youtubers :) this is atreat!
Forrest used the "I think therefore I am" claim incorrectly. He would have had to say "Solipsism is a nice thought experiment, but we have to accept that what we call physical reality exists and is perceivable, at least in some flawed way".
Gotta call you on one thing, Paul. Software is not necessarily deterministic (assuming the universe is not deterministic, at least). Sure, our usual hardware doesn't allow for true randomness. But such hardware exists (again, assuming quantum mechanics is actually non-deterministic)
He doesn't understand the simulation hypothesis. It is not the scientific consensus, and is actually considered unlikely. (LOL, it is also an hypothesis I 80% agree with.)
Even if we granted it as true, eventually you get back to the people who wrote the simulation, and have made 0 progress because now all the questions we have now apply to them. Even if you assume model rather than simulator, same applies. You still have to show the original simulator maker is god, plus you have to explain how and why he would dig down to our layer to make sure we have sex correctly.
No true statement will evet be falsified (by virtue of being true) but that doesn‘t mean that it *couldn‘t* be falsified, i.e. isn‘t falsifiable.
It looks like Adam was too busy ranting about philosophy to actually give you guys the full argument, but he's not the only person I've seen using simulation theory as an argument for God before. I once listened to a stream by Tim Pool (a conservative political commentator, if you're curious) where he made a similar argument but instead of focusing too much on the evidence for simulation theory, he also explained how it points to God... By essentially saying that anyone who could make a simulation the size of the known universe must be very smart and anyone who's very smart must be God because he said so. I'm not kidding. TMM and Logicked both did some pretty good dissertations of that video if you're interested.
Calling Tim Pool a political commentator is generous to a fault. He has zero understanding of politics. He's just a right-wing grifter.
What doesn’t make sense to me is how he has a Ph.D. but only has a high school understanding of Physics. I have my bachelor’s in biology and I had to take physics 1 and 2 for my degree..
Stay within the bounds of your professional training at all times? Really? That's meant more for one's career and for professional settings, not necessarily to be applied to your entire life. I've never heard anyone else ever suggest that a general professional rule of thumb applied outside of the professional space, as long as you aren't falsifying credentials. And certainly not for casual discussion, again, as long as you are not falsifying credentials. It's neither arrogant or strange for someone to discuss, in this type of setting, something that they were not professionally trained for but have studied or read about or even briefly contemplated..
What we learn in grad school is to stay professionally within our lane, in regard to our career. That is very different from this situation. I don't think that was ever intended to be a rule for life.
No one should take you seriously if you start contradicting professionals on highly specific knowledge with no relevant credentials of your own - in a professional *or* casual setting. The guy is trying to be convincing here, not just playing devil's advocate.
@@Krikenemp18 Hes not contradicting experts. The hosts blatantly said they don't understand the physics and that they are not experts in the field. Going against a narrative about scientists, that a high percent of physicists are atheists, is not going against hot professionals.
What highly specific knowledge did he contradict? Please point it out.
Also, I never suggested contradicting experts in the field. But that didn't happen in this clip.
And you are making it sound like the only argument someone can make who hasn't been professionally trained is a "devils advocate", but that's not true either. Just because someone isn't professionally trained in something doesn't mean they are incorrect. You are basically basing your entire perception of a conversation/debate on an appeal to authority yet without any specific contradiction.
Now while I agree that stubbornly going against an expert in the field, when you have been corrected by that expert, would be silly. But that didn't happen in this discussion nor does that happen in every or any discussion. And sometimes amateurs know just as much as the "professionals". You have to take each case as unique.
A textbook example from this caller of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
A textbook example from this caller of - miscommunication - being a dangerous thing.
It sounded like Adam was trying to dance around Godel's Incompleteness Theorem about well-formed formal systems and their inability to prove the truth value of some statements using it's axioms.
e.g. This sentence is false.
If his argument was that the truth value of "god exists" cannot be assessed, then he may be on to something. However, the result would be that he cannot know whether god exists or not.
If he believes it is possible to know if a god exists, then it would require falsifiability.
What if your in a pre-programmed memory of a future event that hasn't been finished being coded yet to go to the "you" in the jar?
Ah, yes. The hubris of the highschool boy.
Ad homonym
@@Dr.JustIsWrong"Homonym" lol. Hilarious typo aside, nope. No one said he's wrong *because* he's a high school boy. Just pointing out that this kind of belief is much more common among high school boys for various reasons. This whole video describes why he's wrong.
@@puckerings oh, sorry, Poisoning the Well, then..
Address the arguments, is my point.
the video isn't relevant to my comment here.
“Oh wait, let’s not talk about determinism, I haven’t prepared for that.” Well Adam, doesn’t really matter, if it’s not deterministic, then it’s random. No need to skip this, it’s very easy. So pick one.
Deterministic and random aren't the only two mutually exclusive options. It could be a compatibilist mix. There could be self-determinancy. etc.
Adam clearly has no idea of how science works
They will desperately say anything to try to make their imaginary friend seem possible.
As ridiculous as this guy sounds, he's really no different from the average religious person I encounter. He believes what he believes for no reason whatsoever.
We're programmed to think we think.
It's simulations all the way down!
If we really were in a video game, then how come I can't turn the difficulty down? :(
Why do they need an argument for God? We don't need an argument for apples, dogs, giraffes, whales, or carrots. I don't think they realize that arguments are weaker than evidence
"If it's unfalsifiable it's not worth thinking about"........ is that statement falsifiable?😂 And falsifiability is nice, but we couldn't function making decisions based only on those things falsifiable. We regularly have to act and thus think,based on little to no information, and little to no time to falsify. Plus, creative work often come from not concerning oneself with whether or not it's falsifiable, in terms of art, or storytelling etc.. This position is very theoretical and mostly in regard to belief. But not necessarily "whats worth thinking about". Value judgment obviously either way.
He was saying that in the context of explaining the nature of reality, not making a general statement about every idea.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Possibly, I'm not so certain of that. And I would still disagree. It's obviously a value judgment either way.
@@jessereichbach588 A more complete quote of what he said is, "as far as the nature of reality, the underlying fabric of it, you have to be able to falsify what you're saying for it to be worth thinking about, and if there's no possible way for you to prove what you're saying is wrong, then it's not a valid argument for anything."
I think he's wrong to the extent that you have to think about an idea before you can determine if it's falsifiable. But if you determine that it isn't, then it isn't very useful for answering the question at hand.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Id agree. That's kind of what I was getting at. To even begin to falsify, we first need to think abstractly. So we can't determine the validity until we first think about it.
But it's only not "useful" in answering the question at hand, if your metric is falsifiability and your need is fact based. This again seems like a value judgment as that isn't everyone's metric for belief. Value it relative, it doesn't need to be true to have value and be acceptable for someone to believe an unfalsifiable thing. And I am going to assume by "validity" he meant logically sound and rational rather than "acceptabe", but I am not wholly sure on that. Either way he's generalizing the value that he perceives. There are other values, reasons, that people have to accept something. And those reasons might make it necessary or warranted to accept an unfalsifiable .
I think he even said "being falsifiable is the necessary criteria for believing a thing. Period.". And sure that's true in terms of science. But that's certainly not true in terms of well, everything else in life. And he did follow that with "in order to be a scientific idea". But then directly followed that with "for it to be something you actually base your worldview on". So It sounds like he's saying, not only is it necessary for a scientific belief, but it's the metric for basing a worldview on, unconditionally. And that simply is not true in any way shape or form. If he just meant it in regard to science, sure. But that's not exactly what he said.
He also made an equivalence between the "minutia of logic" and "word salad" as if the minutia of logic don't matter. Sure minutia CAN mean trivial, but it doesn't only mean trivial, it means the precise fine detail. "Word salad" is a mass of words that don't really combine to mean anything. That isn't anything like the precise detail of logic, which when discussing logic, matters very much. It almost seemed as though, the conversation was stuck, and no one was really understanding one another, and he just wanted to dismiss the entire thing as "word salad". Which might just be a pet peeve of mine, as I find 90% of the time when people say it, it's because they simply don't understand what is actually being stated. And they project that confusion on the speaker/writer.
I understand why we don't accept the unfalsifiable in science. And I understand why for the most part, we try to base our confidence on the falsifiable. But in terms of if it makes a belief "valid", that's a whole different matter. Just as an example, if someone is so scared of death to a debilitating degree, so that they can't function day to day, then believing in an afterlife is a completely valid worldview for them. And it's not only warranted but beneficial given their circumstance. It might not be ideal, but that's secondary to being a functional human being I would imagine.
Anyway, yea I am not totally sure what he meant in this regard. But it sounded like he was generalizing, that a belief is only warranted if it's based on the falsifiable, universally. Maybe he just meant it in terms of science, but it's difficult to tell.
@@jessereichbach588
He’s talking about logic.
To put it simply, falsifiability is crucial if you care whether or not your beliefs are true.
If you don’t put any value on the truth of your beliefs, then you aren’t worth talking to if you want to convince someone else of them.
So, feel free to believe a bunch of unfalsifiable things, but you don’t get a seat at the grownups table.
Most people do care.
And no, it’s not valid to believe nonsense because it makes you feel better. Valid is defined as (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
“I am scared to die” is never a valid argument for the truth of an afterlife.
Caller: I think everything is pre programmed…oh sh**. I didn’t think we’d get to determinism so fast! 😅
When he says, “I think therefore I am” is unfalsiable, he is failing to demonstrate it’s true. Moreover, he is probing the point that the choice to believe an unfslsifiable claim is a matter of preference. There is no reason to believe that “I think therefore I am” is true other than it is satisfying. It is no more probable than that thought, itself, is sn illusion.
1. We're in a simulation.
2. ???
3. Profit!
"Things have physical properties that interact with one another in consistent manners, therefore GAAAAAAWWWWD."
Paul, we need more Ham and Aigs. Forrest, I'm waiting on another Reacteria.
Im sorry but i dont find it awesome for someone to live their life by accepting something w/o falsification criteria because belief informs actions and bias. We dont need more people just acting like this because it should be "cool" or "awesome" for people to be what they want to be. Fuck no. Id say its terrible that you believe this and i dont accept it. Nothing i can do about it, but its not cool.
Do people have the right to delude themselves?
Exactly, soon Forrest will be saying our taxpayer dollars need to pay for 50 year old men in diapers to go back to kindergarten if they identify as 5.
4:08 perhaps this is covered later, but I think Forest is misunderstanding simulation theory. As I understand it, the hypothesis rests on asking, "if our universe were a construct which aped a larger reality, but was different in certain ways, what would we expect to observe?" Then drawing parallels between physics and known artificial realities, i.e. computer simulations.
Hearing that idea and then saying "oh, so you're saying we're just a computer program and nothing we know is real," it's just... no, dude. First of all, what goes on inside a computer aren't non-physical or magical processes. It's still real particles moving around and interacting with each other, so in that sense it is still "real," just not necessarily in the same way as how it might appear as observed through the display or interface. Second, I feel like calling the universe a "computer simulation," is woefully reductive. It's (hypothetically) an artificial computation process, yes, but the phrase "computer simulation" strikes me as a bit of an implicitly hostile strawman which would poison the well against simulation theory and make it look more absurd than it really is.
Simulation theory is predicated on the notion that energy is finite, and so even an incomprehensibly capable computational construct such as the hypothetical one that runs the universe, would still have limitations of some sort. As in known constructed realities, these limitations would manifest in predictable ways observable from both the inside and the outside. This isn't something that can be designed out of observability, as Forest would imply. You can only design around the hardware limitations, but they will always be observable.
This is a very, very long way of saying that Forest is a bit more hostile to the idea of an artificial universe than what I think is warranted by a skeptical outlook. It IS falsifiable by providing symmetry breakers between points of comparison, though at our current level of understanding it does live mainly in the realm of philosophy, along with panpsychism.
_energy is finite_ Yeah, it's so finite that the sum _appears_ to be zero.
Any Turing complete computer could run any simulation. It may take a eon of computation time to compute one second of simulation time, but we would never know. The limitations could thus be hidden from us. The simulator doesn't have to simulate at the same rate that we are experiencing.
But how would you differentiate between a limited simulation and an unlimited simulation that is simply programmed to appear simulated, and either from a non simulation that just happens to have the same characteristics? At best it sounds like you might be able to say that this is not this particular type of limited simulation, but not what it actually *is* . So, for instance, is energy/computational power *actually* finite or limited? Well, looking around us, we say "yes, apparently so", but if this is just a simulation of a limited universe run from a non limited universe we wouldn't know that. Worse, because we are simulated as being constrained we could also be *prohibited* from thinking that a non limited universe is possible when it is in fact quite possible.
Of course any simulation that was designed to prevent the simulated "things" in it from recognizing the signs of the simulation would still blow up falsification.
He wasn't interested in what the caller was saying, which is fair, but it definitely led to him just getting annoyed and becoming annoying. There is also a simulation hypothesis that does not require that our reality is aping any higher reality -- we could just be part of a calculation that's attempting to maximize entropy, and the simulators have no idea what sentience or consciousness are, let alone that they have spawned these effects inside their process, which they probably have no interface into. Entirely unfalsifiable, I agree, but worth stating in the range of possibilities. If I have a perverse suspicion like this caller does, it's that we're one in a trillion trillion experiments or calculations running somewhere by agents we could never fathom for reasons we will never know, and our entire universe gives them not a single second thought as it runs on some media we can't possibly conceive.
Adam reminds me very much of the guy who argued to me the uneducated layman is better equipped than the experts to assess a field because the experts are only experts in one field, while the layman knows pretty much nothing about a whole **bunch** of stuff, as do the experts in addition to being experts in their fields
The thing he is talking around minute 20 is called a quantum entanglement....
Those have to be created, in the wild very few if any quantums are entangled.
Kristi Burke and Mindshift also offer excellent reasons to question Christianity and address it's many problems.
Something could be unfalsifiable and be either true or false. There is no distinction between the two possibilities, thus it becomes moot.
No, there is a distinction, and it isn't moot. It is simply unknowable.
you guys don’t understand. he’s doing super duper advanced quantum physics. physicists are only interested in regular quantum physics.
The caller should have pushed back on the 92% statistic. Where did that poll come from? Which countries were involved? Who responded? What were the questions? Were the responses private? It is possible that if every theoretical physicist around the world were asked whether they thought some level of causal agency or cosmic overmind was possible, the statistic might be vastly different. A physics professor might lose her tenure if asked publically whether she believed in God. But privately, honestly, she might be open to the idea of consciousness as primary.
Forrest tends to shut down quantum discussions, not by finding flaws in the argument, but by attacking the education level of the caller. He's not wrong, but it's not fun either.