@@MajestyofReason @Majesty of Reason - Since you claim Christianity is wrong, would you be willing to debate me on this important issue? Yours truly Mr DELICIEUX 😋
I wonder how long it’s gonna take me to get through this video. I keep pausing it to rant and rave to myself. 😆 I’m super passionate about this topic. I do wish I could be there, though I would never claim to be smart enough to share the room with these three gentlemen. Great stuff Joe! Keep it up brother!
Really enjoyed this thought experience. Both really intelligent people. Even as an athiest, it was very interesting to see the different concepts of time and how it fits into their theistic views
Oh great! We’ve just started God’s relation with time at school, looking briefly at topics like ET Simultainety, timelessness versus externality, and open theism. There are so many subtopics to this niche area! Anyway, looking forward to the video.
What other videos on philosophy of time do you have aside from the one with Ryan about eternalism and theism? Also, is there anything anyone can recommend on hypertime? Sounds very very interesting.
I wouldn't recommend Joe to go and have his time wasted, a lot of philosophers that go there or speak to people part of that podcast come back talking about how there intellectually dishonest Cosmic skeptic David wood Ask yourself and so fourth
@@snowforest1998 ironic though they I would say they are dishonest, not sure if cosmic skeptic ever even spoke about it but definetly david wood and he have been
@@snowforest1998 it's strange isn't it, we saw the same thing yet completely opposed thinking the other one is deluded it's a sharp irony that's why nowadays or back then i guess i watched both sides, my faith wavered but stayed in Islam, that was the only way to "beat" this deception game that no one can tell apart if they just watch one side
@@snowforest1998 though it gets tiring to do so, the other way is to also go back on the source material, but even then you get people who are completely opposed even then
@@Abdullah21038 Islam isn't the only way to beat deception hour god called himself the best of decievers, deception is an intricate part of Islam sorry
Surely if Hypertime exists, hyper^2time exists, and so on, ad infinitum? Surely this leads to an infinite regress, which are generally considered to be metaphysically "eww" to use a philosophical term?
Absolutely!🥰 (the one caveat: unfortunately I can only send them to people in the US.) We can set this up if you email me at majestyofreason @ gmail . com ❤️
A few problems I have with the discussion: The first is that it seems hugely unparsimonious to posit extra times with their own ontologies just to save theism from disconfirmation, and that is on top of already positing gods. In light of this, it seems much more parsimonious to simply remove gods from consideration here. A subset of that is the focus on the Abrahamic god in particular. Sam Lebens has quoted Bible verses to support his argument. Would a different god give lead you to a different conclusion? If so, why the focus on Abrahamism? He also mentioned Jehovah undoing sins. How would that work? Would everyone around you (and including you?) just forget the event happened? If not, in what sense is the sin "undone"? But the biggest problem I have, which is the closest to my heart, is the lack of physics in the discussion regarding the ontology of time. There were references to it, of course, but I think that, if you are at all realist about scientific discoveries, then any view that privileges the present has to be false. This holds from special relativity to general relativity, and I really don't see any way to avoid this. Someone mentioned Lee Smolin's opinion that theories with a privileged present are most likely to be true, but I would discount his opinion. He is a proponent of loop quantum gravity, whose predictions have basically been disproved with the simultaneous arrival (after accounting for the interstellar medium) of light and gravitational waves from neutron star collisions, as well as its failure to reproduce the calculation for Hawking radiation. As far as I know, there is no potentially correct theory of spacetime that privileges a present moment.
@@randomperson2078 Because it is an active field of research. Declaring by fiat that the passage of time is fundamental requires that you ignore all physics of the past 116 years. I am partial to a certain explanation, but I would not say it is a solved problem.
@@vampyricon7026 I don’t really regard the B theory of time as a challenge to *theism*. It is a legitimate challenge to Mullins’ understanding of theism, but Augustine was, as Paul Davies puts it, “The first explicit B theorist.” Incidentally, I read somewhere that he might have been a Christian thinker. These two thinkers (M & L) actually represent a minority among Jewish and Christian philosophy, which has often adopted alternative metaphysics to each other precisely because the Abrahamic religious scriptures don’t have an explicit metaphysic like, say, Madhvacharya, Buddhism, Platonism, etc. do. Hence the phrase, “Christianity is a religion in search of a metaphysic; Buddhism is a metaphysic in search of a religion.”
@@vampyricon7026 To continue on, I’m not quite sure that physicists understand that all discussion of time takes place within a set of presuppositions and assume a hard distinction between empirical science and rational philosophy that does not exist.
@@randomperson2078 Well, yes, that is why I prefaced the argument with "if you are at all a realist about scientific discoveries". If you believe science discovers real things about the world, then you are inevitably driven towards B-theory and eternalism, or you'll have to say that relativity is wrong, not in the sense that it is incomplete, but incorrect even within its supposed domain of applicability.
Huh. I’m really leaning towards God’s being able to change the past. Also, I wonder how this might interact with eschatology. Could it be that Jim will be in Hell forever, but hyper-will go to Heaven?
I very, very, very tentatively and slightly lean towards presentism. I don’t call myself a presentist but rather a “lukewarm presentist”, since I have some serious doubts pertaining to truthmakers as well as relativity theory. But nonetheless, I still slightly lean towards presentism. As for hypertime, I think it’s impossible. (Sorry Sam!! Lol)
@@MajestyofReason yeah, totally. Hypertime makes for some really interesting thought experiments, but also seems like it’s more at home in a Marvel movie ;)
Asking if God is bound by time seems kind of like asking if God is bound by existence? It seems rather nonsensical. As far as our (every one of us) experience goes, we all operate within the bounds of time. Existence apart from it might not be coherent. I'm not sure. Either way, God exists.
@Cosmic Lifeist I think Joe has a Q and A video addressing this question with timestamps in the description so you can go right to it. He would be more fit than I to answer this question. Philosophy is just a hobby of mine.
I first want to deny that the series of events Ryan experienced is the only series that could produce him. I think I see those events as analogous to data points on which an AI model is trained and which produces a Ryan-like entity. In that case, God's power would be to shuffle the data such that it still produces the same Ryan "model" That said, I find all of this incredibly ad hoc in the sense that its purpose seems to be exclusively for supporting a presupposed theological position. I just don't get any sense that either of these gentlemen are seeking the fundamental truth of the matter. Lastly, I feel STRONGLY that presentism is false and I think it's as unbelievable as the god who cares about shellfish, real estate, and magic. To me, the fundamental truth of time will be found in a laboratory, not an armchair.
What a bizarre defense of radical empiricism. I can’t imagine MoR meant to like such aggressive Anti-Philosophy as “Not in an armchair but in a lab.” If it’s true, then basically all Philosophy of Religion collapses besides maybe ID debates. Critics thereof even disagree whether or not it’s testable, and if not we are forced to conclude that deductive statements which are necessarily true are in fact false. 1. If empiricism were true and rationalism false, deductive statements would be false. 2. But deductive statements are necessarily true. (2+2=4; 1. If A, then B. 2. Not B. 3. Therefore, not A.) 3. So empiricism is false.
@@randomperson2078 is there something you want to engage on? Or are you happy with the imaginative narrative you've constructed from a single cheeky sentence?
@tkwtg You've managed to put a lot of words in my mouth. I don't believe they're being dishonest or disingenuous; you added those uncharitable details entirely by yourself. To say it differently, the entire project presented here SEEMS (as in, it appears to be the case to ME looking from the outside in) to be just another apologetic. "What is the fundamental truth of time (and can we even know it)" versus "how do I craft a philosophy of time such that it makes my arguments for god not incoherent" SEEM to be very different questions. While those are not the words used by Joe's interlocutors to describe their goals, it SEEMS that the second question is the one being answered here. From MY perspective when we answer the second question we are more likely get results similar to the Ptolemaic model.
Agreed, I'm utterly unconvinced by these "theological motivations", basically it goes : "I believe in some god and I think it would be cool is my god could do X, therefor X".
This interview kept me smiling the whole time. It got better and better as it went. Thank you for hosting this discussion Joe!
Much love❤️
@@MajestyofReason @Majesty of Reason - Since you claim Christianity is wrong, would you be willing to debate me on this important issue?
Yours truly
Mr DELICIEUX 😋
That rewriting of Genesis at 52:00 in a hyperway... Man, this is interesting and also very funny
I wonder how long it’s gonna take me to get through this video. I keep pausing it to rant and rave to myself. 😆 I’m super passionate about this topic.
I do wish I could be there, though I would never claim to be smart enough to share the room with these three gentlemen.
Great stuff Joe! Keep it up brother!
This is amazing. It's one of my favourite youtube videos ever. Tho maybe that's just because I didn't watch more of your videos...
Finally, this will be really amazing! Thanks Joe for this.
Really enjoyed this thought experience. Both really intelligent people. Even as an athiest, it was very interesting to see the different concepts of time and how it fits into their theistic views
1:15:30 wow this is great
Oh great! We’ve just started God’s relation with time at school, looking briefly at topics like ET Simultainety, timelessness versus externality, and open theism. There are so many subtopics to this niche area! Anyway, looking forward to the video.
I'm curious as to how that is being taught.
Is the god being posited as actual or hypothetical?
@@Autists-Guide Hypothetical. It is within the discussion of whether the concept of a perfect being is a coherent one.
@@calebp6114
Cool.
And the answer is yes.
😄
What other videos on philosophy of time do you have aside from the one with Ryan about eternalism and theism? Also, is there anything anyone can recommend on hypertime? Sounds very very interesting.
Dude please go on the Thought Adventure Podcast, I would like to see the mix of 2 worlds and all the riveting discussions
I wouldn't recommend Joe to go and have his time wasted, a lot of philosophers that go there or speak to people part of that podcast come back talking about how there intellectually dishonest
Cosmic skeptic
David wood
Ask yourself and so fourth
@@snowforest1998 ironic though they I would say they are dishonest, not sure if cosmic skeptic ever even spoke about it but definetly david wood and he have been
@@snowforest1998 it's strange isn't it, we saw the same thing yet completely opposed thinking the other one is deluded it's a sharp irony that's why nowadays or back then i guess i watched both sides, my faith wavered but stayed in Islam, that was the only way to "beat" this deception game that no one can tell apart if they just watch one side
@@snowforest1998 though it gets tiring to do so, the other way is to also go back on the source material, but even then you get people who are completely opposed even then
@@Abdullah21038 Islam isn't the only way to beat deception hour god called himself the best of decievers, deception is an intricate part of Islam sorry
Surely if Hypertime exists, hyper^2time exists, and so on, ad infinitum? Surely this leads to an infinite regress, which are generally considered to be metaphysically "eww" to use a philosophical term?
Very technical, very philosophical that "eww."
Sick soccer skills G
Your content is so remarkable!
Quick question: do you do signed books? and if so, what would the best way for me to get one? :)
Absolutely!🥰 (the one caveat: unfortunately I can only send them to people in the US.) We can set this up if you email me at majestyofreason @ gmail . com ❤️
@@MajestyofReason sweeet!
I love you Joe
Much love 💗
A few problems I have with the discussion:
The first is that it seems hugely unparsimonious to posit extra times with their own ontologies just to save theism from disconfirmation, and that is on top of already positing gods. In light of this, it seems much more parsimonious to simply remove gods from consideration here.
A subset of that is the focus on the Abrahamic god in particular. Sam Lebens has quoted Bible verses to support his argument. Would a different god give lead you to a different conclusion? If so, why the focus on Abrahamism? He also mentioned Jehovah undoing sins. How would that work? Would everyone around you (and including you?) just forget the event happened? If not, in what sense is the sin "undone"?
But the biggest problem I have, which is the closest to my heart, is the lack of physics in the discussion regarding the ontology of time. There were references to it, of course, but I think that, if you are at all realist about scientific discoveries, then any view that privileges the present has to be false. This holds from special relativity to general relativity, and I really don't see any way to avoid this. Someone mentioned Lee Smolin's opinion that theories with a privileged present are most likely to be true, but I would discount his opinion. He is a proponent of loop quantum gravity, whose predictions have basically been disproved with the simultaneous arrival (after accounting for the interstellar medium) of light and gravitational waves from neutron star collisions, as well as its failure to reproduce the calculation for Hawking radiation.
As far as I know, there is no potentially correct theory of spacetime that privileges a present moment.
I would like to be a B theorist, but lean towards The End of Time nonsense. I’ve yet to hear a serious B theorist explain the passage of time.
@@randomperson2078 Because it is an active field of research. Declaring by fiat that the passage of time is fundamental requires that you ignore all physics of the past 116 years.
I am partial to a certain explanation, but I would not say it is a solved problem.
@@vampyricon7026
I don’t really regard the B theory of time as a challenge to *theism*. It is a legitimate challenge to Mullins’ understanding of theism, but Augustine was, as Paul Davies puts it, “The first explicit B theorist.” Incidentally, I read somewhere that he might have been a Christian thinker.
These two thinkers (M & L) actually represent a minority among Jewish and Christian philosophy, which has often adopted alternative metaphysics to each other precisely because the Abrahamic religious scriptures don’t have an explicit metaphysic like, say, Madhvacharya, Buddhism, Platonism, etc. do. Hence the phrase, “Christianity is a religion in search of a metaphysic; Buddhism is a metaphysic in search of a religion.”
@@vampyricon7026
To continue on, I’m not quite sure that physicists understand that all discussion of time takes place within a set of presuppositions and assume a hard distinction between empirical science and rational philosophy that does not exist.
@@randomperson2078 Well, yes, that is why I prefaced the argument with "if you are at all a realist about scientific discoveries". If you believe science discovers real things about the world, then you are inevitably driven towards B-theory and eternalism, or you'll have to say that relativity is wrong, not in the sense that it is incomplete, but incorrect even within its supposed domain of applicability.
Huh. I’m really leaning towards God’s being able to change the past.
Also, I wonder how this might interact with eschatology. Could it be that Jim will be in Hell forever, but hyper-will go to Heaven?
That’s a fascinating application of this!🙂
20min in and this is AWESOME. The kind of discussion I've been wanting on this topic.
Btw, presentism is false.
🤣🤣🤣
Awesome content Joe! Just curious what your perspective on time is?
I very, very, very tentatively and slightly lean towards presentism. I don’t call myself a presentist but rather a “lukewarm presentist”, since I have some serious doubts pertaining to truthmakers as well as relativity theory. But nonetheless, I still slightly lean towards presentism. As for hypertime, I think it’s impossible. (Sorry Sam!! Lol)
@@MajestyofReason yeah, totally. Hypertime makes for some really interesting thought experiments, but also seems like it’s more at home in a Marvel movie ;)
@@MajestyofReason I forgive you!!! Perhaps in the hyperfuture you'll have thought differently!
Thanks again for a great discussion.
@@MajestyofReason Why presentism? And why the doubts regarding relativity?
You should replace Messi at PSG man! Haha
Asking if God is bound by time seems kind of like asking if God is bound by existence? It seems rather nonsensical. As far as our (every one of us) experience goes, we all operate within the bounds of time. Existence apart from it might not be coherent. I'm not sure. Either way, God exists.
@Cosmic Lifeist I think Joe has a Q and A video addressing this question with timestamps in the description so you can go right to it. He would be more fit than I to answer this question. Philosophy is just a hobby of mine.
@Cosmic Lifeist Gods speed to you! I'm a Christian by the way!
@Cosmic Lifeist also th-cam.com/play/PLlVH-ThCazKlzLxRmn39RqmLzTMnbr0zm.html
Have a discussion of the justification of hell, try to get Bassam Zawadi
If the future exists you are already dead ,buried,resurrected.God is then bound by time also
I first want to deny that the series of events Ryan experienced is the only series that could produce him. I think I see those events as analogous to data points on which an AI model is trained and which produces a Ryan-like entity. In that case, God's power would be to shuffle the data such that it still produces the same Ryan "model"
That said, I find all of this incredibly ad hoc in the sense that its purpose seems to be exclusively for supporting a presupposed theological position. I just don't get any sense that either of these gentlemen are seeking the fundamental truth of the matter.
Lastly, I feel STRONGLY that presentism is false and I think it's as unbelievable as the god who cares about shellfish, real estate, and magic. To me, the fundamental truth of time will be found in a laboratory, not an armchair.
What a bizarre defense of radical empiricism. I can’t imagine MoR meant to like such aggressive Anti-Philosophy as “Not in an armchair but in a lab.” If it’s true, then basically all Philosophy of Religion collapses besides maybe ID debates. Critics thereof even disagree whether or not it’s testable, and if not we are forced to conclude that deductive statements which are necessarily true are in fact false.
1. If empiricism were true and rationalism false, deductive statements would be false.
2. But deductive statements are necessarily true.
(2+2=4; 1. If A, then B. 2. Not B. 3. Therefore, not A.)
3. So empiricism is false.
@@randomperson2078 really lost some IQ points reading you
@@randomperson2078 is there something you want to engage on? Or are you happy with the imaginative narrative you've constructed from a single cheeky sentence?
@tkwtg You've managed to put a lot of words in my mouth. I don't believe they're being dishonest or disingenuous; you added those uncharitable details entirely by yourself. To say it differently, the entire project presented here SEEMS (as in, it appears to be the case to ME looking from the outside in) to be just another apologetic. "What is the fundamental truth of time (and can we even know it)" versus "how do I craft a philosophy of time such that it makes my arguments for god not incoherent" SEEM to be very different questions. While those are not the words used by Joe's interlocutors to describe their goals, it SEEMS that the second question is the one being answered here. From MY perspective when we answer the second question we are more likely get results similar to the Ptolemaic model.
@Majesty of Reason - Since you claim Christianity is wrong, would you be willing to debate me on this important issue?
Yours truly
Mr DELICIEUX 😋
Email him
Junk philosophy, good for a sci fi movie.
Conclusion: All things are possible if you believe in magic.
It was going well until the god-bollocks started.
Agreed, I'm utterly unconvinced by these "theological motivations", basically it goes : "I believe in some god and I think it would be cool is my god could do X, therefor X".
I hope Sam Lebens is not supportive of the occupation and monstrous treatment of the Palestinian people :S