Why? The Purpose of the Universe with Philip Goff
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- My guest today is Philip Goff. Philip is a philosophy professor at Durham University. He's the author of Galileo's Error and Why the Purpose of the Universe.
Philip believes that science gives us objective reasons to believe that there's value in the universe and he comes at this from a very different angle than say Sam Harris, who reaches the same conclusion for different reasons in his book, The Moral Landscape. Philip relies heavily on the so-called fine tuning argument. So we talk a lot about that in this podcast. We also talk about Philip's theory of panagentialism and much more.
Check out New Merch: merchandise.colemanhughes.org
Pre-order my book:
"The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America" - bit.ly/462pySg
SPONSOR:
Ground News: Go to ground.news/coleman to see all sides of every story. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access or get their pro plan for as little as $1/month before Dec 31, 2023.
BetterHelp: Make your brain your friend, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/Coleman today to get 10% off your first month
FOLLOW PHILIP
Book - Why? The Purpose of the Universe’: bit.ly/4aqGWDp
Website: philipgoffphilosophy.com
'Mind Chat’ Podcast: / @mindchat
Social Media: / philip_goff
FOLLOW COLEMAN:
Check out my Album: AMOR FATI - bit.ly//AmorFatiAlbum
Substack - colemanhughes.substack.com
Join the Unfiltered Community - bit.ly/3B1GAlS
TH-cam - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Instagram - bit.ly/2SDGo6o
Podcast -bit.ly/3oQvNUL
Website - colemanhughes.org
#ConversationswithColeman #CWC #ColemanHughes #Podcast #Politics #society #Colemanunfiltered #Unfiltered #Music #Philosophy #BlackCulture #Intellectual #podcasting #podcastersofinstagram #TH-cam #podcastlife #music #youtube #radio #comedy #podcastshow #spotifypodcast #newpodcast #interview #motivation #art #covid #history #republicans #blacklivesmatter #follow #libertarian #art #socialism #communism #democracy #woke #wokepolitics #media #debate #left #right #immigration #culture #election #selfhelp #identitypolitics #conservatives #universe #philipgoff
When the world becomes too much to take, Coleman's sane, calm and intelligent discourses are a welcome relief. Thank you C. 💚
The thumbnail makes it look like Coleman grew some hair and combed an epic flow
😂😂😂😂😂
Jeff Kripal from Rice University would be fun to talk to. His short book, The Flip can be read in a few hours. I've taught this subject (meaning of life, etc.) to undergraduates for years and one of the favorite texts I've used is The Plague (Camus). It took me years teaching that book to realize that, against his own will (I think) the real hero is Fr. Paneloux. See if you agree. For me, the problem (as someone else said) is best seen as mystery rather than problem (a la Gabriel Marcel), or in other words, through poetry and symbol rather than reason. (See Tillich's little book, Dynamics of Faith on symbolism and its importance.). Look forward to your book.
Is the reason of "unsustainability" that Philip Goff uses to reject Nihilism, just a bloodless way of referring to the brute material fact that an individual indulging in Nihilism is (sooner or later) likely to come to a sticky end?
The problem with the moral landscape is that you can't use it to evaluate any moral actions. It is entirely possible for a seeming moral action to lead to a local maximum but a global minimum. If you can't see where the paths ultimately lead you have no basis to judge that it is a better path.
thanks as alwayssssssssssssssssssss
I disagree with the reverse gamblers fallacy critic of the multiverse. If we picked a random set of variables then it could apply. But you are not accounting that it is a directed result (we can only be alive where these variables allow life).
The roulette wheel example should be that you are purposfully shown footage from a camera from the casino control room where someone has a lucky streak. You would then be justified to ask, but how many years of footage from how many casinos did you trawle through to find this one.
Came here to make a similar comment.
My revised analogy was going to be: if you bumped into someone outside the casino and they told you a punter had won big inside, it would in fact be reasonable for you to assume that there were lots of gamblers inside with many games being played. Yours is more accurate though.
I'd also add that the argument isn't being made that fine tuning necessitates a multiverse, merely that the existence of the multiverse (which itself has external theoretical justification) would make the fine tuning of our own universe more believable, diminishing the presumption of design. If I was playing a fruity machine and I knew triple 7 was an incredibly improbable outcome, I would be much more likely upon winning to assume that the machine had been tampered with if it was the only machine in the building, as opposed to it being one of say 50 others which I knew to exist. My machine's result wouldn't inform me alone of the existence of other machines, but prior knowledge (or at least assumption) of the existence of other machines would make me less suspicious of my own improbable result.
(Edit - should have watched another 5 mins. If we're in a homogenous multiverse then that effectively means all the fruity machines are showing triple 7, and perhaps it would be fair to assume they'd been tampered with. Guess homogenous/heterogeneous is the crux)
What we think, our philosophy, does matter because our actions are guided by those thoughts/beliefs (ex: religious thoughts change behavior, so asking “why?” does matter!)
Science is certainly the best tool we have for understanding nature and for solving huge problems & advancing our civilization, but it isn’t the only tool we should keep using… we must keep asking “why?” (philosophy matters as well).
I despise root canals. I don't like to suffer. However when the suffering is over it becomes a very tolerable memory. I wonder if this might not be the case with all suffering. To extend the idea, since I'm a Christian, and can consider those root canals in light of a very long, highly agreeable existence, do you think that might for you mitigate the seeming un-rightness of suffering?
Does panagentilism (sp?) actually answer the question of why consciousness evolved or simply push the question back one step? Say consciousness evolved because even particles have rudimentary desires and agency. Isn’t there an equal mystery underlying that question of why all matter has agency to begin with, or why basic particles wanted higher consciousness to develop? I know you can do this with literally any viewpoint, but I’m not sure panagentilism provides a believable Unmoved Mover.
A purpose is an ascribed label given to a thing by a human being, contextualized primarily by its utility (or potential threat it poses) *to* a human being by default for obvious reasons.
Us trying to figure out what the universe is *for* is kinda like a single celled organism trying to assign a role to the rock whose crevices it's sliding over unwittingly.
I'm more interested in mapping out the most accessible regions of the rock and putting them to practical use. Seems more productive.
I strongly disagree. Purpose is an observable attribute a certain object posses. You can simply observe cellular and biological functions of the human body to get a elementary understanding in “purpose”. What is the “purpose” of the mitochondria? How about the large intestine? The same logic can give insight into the “purpose” of the universe.
@@lionblood1268 In what manner do those questions and any potential answers mechanically affect any kind of improvement or change in reality?
Ultimately you can intellectualise literally anything, and it's probably why despite Philosophy, Social Economics and the like being major academic fields, their global collective efforts have done extremely little to improve social cohesion in any form in any part of the western world.
@@Henchman.24 If one lives and embraces their purpose many dysfunctional elements seek to take hold. For instance a man with a family is more likely to stay away from dysfunction because his purpose is to raise his family. One who has not come to grips with the true nature of reality will potentially neglect his duties.
So you can not have free will without conciousness to be aware that there are choices- rather than simple direct fufillment of desire (the kid to the cookie example).
In the novel 'Dune' the Benne Gesseritt say- "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is an experience to be realized!". We should be more concerened by prolonging life than wondering about how the Universe got started. It's like wondering what your face looked like before you were concieved.
I like that quote from Dune. I would disagree with the statement that we shouldn't be concerned with origins (my paraphrase). In fact, the answer to the issue of origins has a great impact on how we see the future and our place in it. If we're just random chance, a distant relative to birds, or chimpanzees, than nothing really matters. Do whatever it is you want, because tomorrow we all die. If we are, however, a product of a gracious, loving, yet just, Creator, who will one day bring to account what we've done in this life, than things have a lot more weight to them. The way we treat each other, the way we conduct our businesses, the issues of truth and love. I can go on, they're all in play when we consider the truth of our origins. I hope this help and it didn't come off preachy.
I may be naive, but I find arguments from finetuning to simply reveal a lack of acknowledgement of our limited imagination. Why could there not be another configuration of the universe (limited to hydrogen, limited to subatomic particles or whatever other possibility) that could give rise to another type of sentience? From our molecule-based perspective, anything beyond our current tuning may seem inconceivable to people like Goff. But as with origins of life, we have a sample number of 1. To base all assumptions on our own universe is as fallible as the inverse gamblers fallacy is as an argument for or against the multiverse theory.
Good companion video: Cosmologist, Brian Cox's recent appearance on the Joe Rogan show.
Some notes on nihilism:
• Existential nihilism - existence has no inherent meaning or purpose
• Moral nihilism - no actions are better or worse than any others
• These two claims are completely independent - either one can be true while the other can be false
• Example 1: The world could exist for a reason, while all the actions that take place in that world are meaningless
○ This would make moral nihilism true but existential nihilism false
• Example 2: The world could exist for no particular reason, while the actions taking place within that world are meaningful relative to one another
○ This would make existential nihilism true but moral nihilism false
○ This is the one I find most likely
• Or both could be true, or both could be false
• Even if I accepted moral nihilism, it would depend on the level of analysis: local vs. cosmic
○ Cosmic moral nihilism might be true in the sense that one's actions at a local level make no difference in the ultimate fate of the cosmos
○ Yet at a local level of analysis, actions do make a difference for the unfolding of the story of humanity
○ If the lens is focused on humanity, we have one conclusion
○ If the lens is focused on the entire cosmos, we have another conclusion
Can we hire you to speak in San Antonio?
It's hard for us as the created to tell the creator that he made the universe wrong, we can imagine universes that better explain the purposes that we map onto him with our own biased interpretations. But if a God of some sort is real, which this guy basically argues, then we wouldn't be able to fully understand his purpose for creation. us created limited beings cannot fully understand the mind of a universe creator. Also the idea that the universe itself is conscious warrants serious evidence. Different living beings show different signs of different levels of consciousness, but what of the non-living non-organic matter? How would this explain moral truths? is it just as wrong to kill an animal as it is to kill a human? The moral questions are not adequately explained with his counter proposals. I think this guy has an excellent critique of naturalism, but leaves some wanting in terms of explanations for the universe.
I had similar thoughts! Where does our idea of right and wrong come from, and how are we justifying it beyond mere consensus? Also, his argument that God wouldn’t have the right to allow suffering seemed to totally miss the transcendent nature of an omnipotent creator. His utilitarian doctor analogy highlighted the misunderstanding for me. Of course one human doesn’t have the right to kill another innocent human, but when we’re talking about the rights of the creator of the universe, we have to start at square one, don’t we? Virtually every sane human would agree it’s wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, but if the question is does the creator have the *right* to destroy his creation I think it’s easier to argue yes than no. If I invent a robot that saves 1,000 lives per year, then decide after 5 years I want to dismantle it and shred the blueprints, do I not have that right?
They were arguing against an all-loving G-d. If this G-d has some other sense of love, what’s the point in claiming it’s all-loving?
We wouldn't arguing about if we were in one of the other universes that was not finely tuned so it seems like a moot point - I actually am a physicist. It is selection bias. With no observer, it does not exist. Physics can only talk about observable objects. We would only exist in universes that can support our physical existence, I don't get the problem, yeah it is unlikely if you consider all imaginable states, but the other states are not allowed and just an artifact of computer models. We have run into this problem before. Atoms can only have electrons in certain allowed states due to a statistical reasons. We could imagine an electron between shells, but it would never be observed because it is not an allowed state. Why wouldn't fine tuning be the same? Universes only exist with an observer (no reason to call that god, observer only mean something that creates physics and starts finding the patterns).
I know both Coleman Hughes and Philip Goff pretty well, especially Coleman.
But I haven't really thought about them sitting down together.
This might very well be an interesting discussion.
What do/did others think?
I've not encountered Goff before this conversation. He seems to have interesting philosophical ideas. I'm assuming he is a better writer than a speaker. The digression is strong.
I like that Coleman is able to out-hippy Goff :)
Shit
Coleman, please have Bernardo Kastrup on the show. I promise you will be fascinated by his philosophy.
"There are brute 'oughts' that underly 'is'-claims"
You and Sam Harris are disregarding the existence of hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is an imperative tied to the brute fact of a desire, e.g.: If I want to live, I have to breathe. I would suggest that ALL of the brute 'oughts' you're talking about actually take this form.
The guest just gave a nonsensical answer.
How is Sam disregarding though ? I think he'd agree with you.
It seems to me the brute (or cap) oughts are a mix of hypothetical *and* categorical imperatives. E.g: breathing in order to live is also a great global rule
I would look forward to having you the president of some university You use dialogue to get to the essence of an idea.
Not sure how reverse gamblers fallacy is related to infinite number of multiverse probability to eventual get constant right. If one source create universe infinite number of time (assming it is not always the same constant) it will for sure give universes with exact constant. That doesn't have anything to do whether we observe it or not (fact that we observe it is just consequence of that not other way around). But even if we exclude this week point about constant, this conversation is one of weakest so far. And this guy looks like somebody that tries to say something new on topic of meaning but doesn't not contribute in any meaningful way. Looks like attention/money grabber.
To Philip Goff, I say: prove it. To Coleman Hughes, I extend a challenge: try going a whole podcast without saying you went to Columbia.
it is a cash grab that's all it is
Every scientific way you can measure intelligence validates the existence of racial differences.
That is why it matters.
Color blind politics is LITERALLY a religion.
Nothing about that invalidates colour blindness. The problem is that due to the denial of it the outcomes of colour blindness are perceived to be a result of discrimination.
Your head look huge than your body.
Only the constant, absolute and true God, who has revealed himself in the Holy Bible and is worshipped by Protestant Christians, can give purpose, meaning and worth to a person's life.
Every other belief system, either theologically false or relative/subjective/superficial, cannot give life a purpose, meaning or worth.
You can't know if that's true that only your particular brand of spaghetti monster can satisfy you. Please try every other religion and sect and then get back to us. But don't post anything until you've finished.
Worshipped by ALL Christians - not just the Protestant types (and I am one - Protestant, that is).
Telling people they are worthless unless they believe a man resurrected 2000 years ago is disgusting. If you need to believe that to feel valuable, great, don't dare impose it on others.
@@bubbafowpend9943
How do Protestant Christians tell people they are 'worthless'?
Without God, can life have purpose, meaning and worth?
And why do you think they impose their belief on others?
@@bubbafowpend9943
I impose nothing on anyone.
If you choose to be an unbeliever, then do so, but know that when you stand before God, you have no excuse for your disbelief.
All people have worth, but only the believer knows their worth as children of God.
How can an unbeliever, who views life as meaningless, still claim it to have worth?
This was a pretty lazy or crude conversation. Missing many important points and jumping from one conclusion to another without really considering the consequences of their conclusion.
Calling a god a sick motherf*cker because you have preconceived ideas about how things have happened, seems pretty ignorant, prideful and kindergarten level reasoning to me.
Same as, life seems so empty if it all came by chance (including the fine tuning) so therefore we are just going to make up our own theology or religion.
All of the points have been talked about and dealt with in great lengths by other great thinkers. Nothing new has been discussed or proposed during this podcast.