Imagine them living together, talking to each other for hours about who's going to clean the dishes when they can't verify that the dishes actually exist.
Chosen One thats incredibly fallacious just because you don’t believe in objectivity, which doesn’t exist solipsism debunks that doesn’t mean you have to kill, infact we don’t randomly kill because of our inherent nature. Take a page from the social contract, in Thomas Hobbes's work Leviathan. We decide to not commit crime because we are altruistic and all have certain axiom we agree with hence society.
You at least did it while watching the 2 videos not while chanting the usual incantations, otherwise pardon me!... In the morning they are cooked well in curry don't they?
If there is no objective meaning or truth, then this is just nonsense. The belief that there is a you to kill is likewise meaningless. The entire quote breaks down if one takes nihilism to it's logical conclusions.
Alex you are so amazing in your intellectual way of thinking. I used to be like you many years ago in my philosophical discussions with my best friend, who was just like me. Then a stroke deprived me of my ability to form my ideas into speech from my thoughts, however I can still think clearly as a bell and I always enjoy your philosophical debates. Thank you so much for all your insights
God, I’m so sorry man. You are literally the embodiment of my worst fears - I’m terrified that something similar will happen to me. Best of luck, I hope that you’ve been able to reconcile with what’s happened.
Perhaps "I" is existence itself. "I" is self revealing and self evident. anything other than "I" you need some/any kind of verification you dont need verification for existence of "I". Perhaps "we" as consciousness are existence itself and everything other than "us" is object of consciousness and may not fundamentally exist.
Our brain cannot have the capacity to understand what it's own existence is really about, at least not at the level that we operate. It can only see a projection of its own state, not its own complete state, as that would violate the halting problem. These guys are desperately trying to do something that is fundementally impossible.
Jake Costanza I would argue that you don't know "for certain" that you exist, because that is dependent on the validity of logic. If logic only seems to hold, but we are actually in a universe in which it doesn't, then you could both seem to exist, and not exist at all, bc the laws of logic don't apply
@@MrAditya790 Even "I" is an assumption of self identity. Beneath that is the experience of "I". You are experiencing an existence for a "self". The fact that the experience is occurring is the only certainty.
1:08:00 Rachel's rebuttal of "why does it matter if you're happy" with "exactly ... it doesn't matter, if I'm happy" was brilliant. To the universe it doesn't matter if you're happy, but it doesn't matter, if you're happy.
Is it really brilliant though..? It seems she’s only proving she has no problem leaving the question unanswered. “Ignorance is bliss” **literally** incarnate
@@Sahilbc-wj8qk Pain in a dream is real to me. So is pleasure. For that matter, all my senses are real in dreams. Why must we be awake to experience reality? Discount your dreams at your peril if you have any.
I can't help but feel a little bad for Rachel - she is trying to get a word in, but the fellas are engaged in a philosophical joust. Still, i'd pay money to be able to sit down with the three of you.
Tbh I don't think she was trying to speak and got over talked. She didn't know wtf to say most of the time... She spoke when she had a thought. Neither of these guys oppressed her speech
Ugh. The sheer sophistic bullshittery of the phrase "metaphysical substrate" makes me want to puke. Just like most of the word salad that comes out of JBP.
Religious discussion usually revolves around the willingly ignorant, claiming some divine knowledge. As opposed to the this. The admittedly ignorant, who are wilfully attempting to ditch their ignorance.
Hey Pat Hope you and yours are well of course. I would have rather they stayed on topic but they went all over the place. The 'laws of logic" besides others became the topic(s). I didn't appreciate the bickering really, just my thoughts.
It was very good, but is it just me or is Rachel out of her depth compared to Stephen and Alex? She's clearly not unintelligent but she seems to keep approaching the subjects being discussed from a fairly basic point of view, often a step or two behind the nuances being discussed and not really adding much other than her opinion and feelings, which, while valid, are not really full of watertight philosophical arguments.
This gives me massive nostalgia, and some kind of FOMO as well. I remember my teenage years when talking about this stuff was the most exciting thing in the world for me. Hours spent with my best friends trying to make a point, it was beautiful. I still have conversations like this sometimes, but I feel like the excitement you have when you're a teenager and you're thinking about this stuff for the first time, and then when you find someone to talk about this with for the first time... That's a feeling I'll never forget, blissful, magical experience.
I've Understood Alex's train of thought the whole way through, even though he was never able to get to the points he wanted to make. Steven actually agreed with him mostly but he was getting so caught up in Alex's set ups he never heard him out on where he was going. Sadly this topic seemed a little out of Rachel's comfort zone, She wasn't as willing to humor the pointless questions for the mere sake of pointlessness (aka talking about Nihilism) She only wanted to bother with her personal purpose.
I definitely understood where Alex is coming from. And Alex definitely creates a good point in that epistemological nihilism makes sense even in terms of I think therefore I am because saying that requires some level of logical consistency.
It doesn’t matter if there is something or nothing to die for, it’s coming for you regardless of how you feel about it. I’d say having something worth dying for, gives you a reason to live. I stand by my beliefs in Christ. Not out of fear of death because it’s pointless to fear the inevitable, but because there is no real value while living if atheism is true. Only perceived quasi value.
But that's still subjective, and can't be claimed objectively (objective here meaning independent of sentient experience, not 100% knowledge, which is just such an infuriatingly useless definition).
37:00 it's a rare thing to disagree with Stephen, but boy oh boy, how does he not see that he is using logic to conclude from any form of experience any form of existence. That was kinda weird to watch
Loved the fact that Rachel was part of the conversation, I feel like she's the one that brought ordinary people into a complex philosphical discussion :-). While I can appreciate and enjoy theoretical discussions like these, they often do not feel applicable to my life. Even if there is no purpose or objectivity to life or the universe or whatever, that's just not something that I would really believe in my day to day life. Wonderful conversation, keep up the good work!
Branwen Watson Alex’s argument stands that it’s not because a truth is uncomfortable that you shouldn’t believe it or discard it. That would be cognitive dissonance.
Then why not just act like there is a god even though lets say there isnt one....its the same cognitive dossonance you are doing...just avoiding a ideology which u beleive in
@@branwenwatson well not necessarily lets just say a deist god... I gave an example on assumption saying lets say if that is the case hypothetically. Its definitely a cognitive dissonence.. Exactly what alex said....but atheists tend to do it when it comes to living a nihilistic life
I got told that joke by some staff at a butcher shop in a shopping centre where I go to do my shopping. I just thought it was a good opportunity to share it. Three people liked it so far.
There is one way this video could've been better: If a rare Aron Ra (cowboy hat variant) randomly peeked over the fence, wiggled his eyebrows at the camera, then disappeared.
Talismantra The purple color scheme of the master ball would match Aron's heavy metal-ness. But he is Aron RA - not to be confused with Aron the little steel Pokémon.
Rachel: let's take that the world exists and is navigable as a practical necessity and go from there Alex and Stephen: no no, let's argue over the semantics instead XD no but really this is actually very interesting
It’s amazing to see my favorite RUclipsr all in the same spot. All of you have helped me learn about the real world and thinking for myself. I thank you.
That's because Alex only believes in certain things or aspenct when they apply to what he wants. He creates his own right and wrong and truth which is not truth but trying to bend his subjective claims to appeal too the world around him. I don't even thing he believes have the BS that comes out of his mouth.
@@StallionFernando I don't think there's anything wrong with caring only about what matters to you? I wouldn't call his claims subjective either when they're entirely logical
I’m with Alex that you cannot claim absolute knowledge of self-existence (the way they want to) without first ackwnowleging that the reason it’s “self evident” that you exist (as rationality rules stated) is because you cannot both exist and not exist - thus the laws of logic come first. Also, they were trying to say that acknowledgement of self-existence is separate from the use of senses to determine everything else (including laws of logic), but that’s just not the case… you know you exist because you sense it. The act of recognizing thoughts/consciousness is a sense in and of itself. Separately, I agree with the other two with respect to the question of purpose, though, that you don’t need an absolute basis for it.
@A.J. actually they most likely do, since the chicken egg is just the adaptation of the chickens ancestors passed down to the chicken. And whenever that "first" (there is technically no "first" anything) chicken was conceived, well I think you can guess what they hatched from.
Don Sample what it should be is 1) i know something exist. Im not even sure i exist considering we dont have an accurate definition for “existence” do i exist if im in a video game right now? And someone is controlling me?
I'm a Christian and I enjoy watching all your vids Alex. I find myself agreeing more with you rather than Steven. Idk what it is but your arguments make more sense.
charles norelli Thank you! And yes, I agree. But we can all agree on one thing, that being civil and having an open discussion is good. We all wish positivity on each other as well.
31:00 This is a ridiculous tangent. The laws of logic are not observational laws, about the physical world, they are axioms that define how a system functions and are thus independent of physical reality. For example, the law of noncontradiction: suppose you had never heard of a bachelor before but I told you it meant an unmarried man. If I asked you if a married bachelor existed, without measurements you could say no, as there is no referent that could ever be identified with both qualities. This is simply how the systems of language and reasoning work. This is a Bruggencate level argument, and follows the familiar tune of ‘You don’t accept [insert worldview], well then you can’t account for the laws of logic so therefore you’re wrong!’
Yeah that was a painful tangent. Everyone who ever studied math knows how this works. However, Stepven has a point that he is not phrasing properly. I would slightly twist his idea that logic is falsifiable(which doesn't make any sense) and I would say that USEFULNESS of a particular logic in scientific philosophy MIGHT be observable! And I think that Steven has been arguing this all along, but just didn't phrase it rigorously enough for Alex. I'm like Alex and I like to be very rigorous with these things, but I think I captured Steven's idea rigoroudly enough. Currently I don't have a well thought out philosophy on this idea though. Intuitively this makes sense, but rigorously there might be problems I'm not seeing.
Me: yeah I think I’m following this conversation Rationality Rules and Cosmic Skeptic: we are three parallel universes ahead of you, and none of them necessarily exist
On this point, yes. He’s brilliant but I fear he is heading down the Jordan Peterson rabbit hole. He can sometimes be unable to answer “how are you?” without tying himself in knots. He may not be wrong, but it spirals out of control.
@@Nick-Nasti I'm not necessarily opposed to deep thinking in spite of the fact that there's a potential (smallish) danger that it can lead to rabbit holes. What does concern me very much is when a person injects presuppositions about unjustified beliefs such as beliefs in alleged sky daddies and sky mommies (deities) into discussions of the nature of reality and existence.
Gonna solve these problems for you guys: Premises: 1. There are experiences. 2. There is an experiences of a self and non-self. 3. The experience of a self is experienced as a self experiencing the self and non-self. 4. There are experiences from the self experienced as outside the self. 5. The experiences of the self are experienced as being not completely controllable. 6. The self experiences goals. 7. The achievement of a goal is a possible experience of the self. 8. A goal always encompasses an experienced desire to change the experience of the self. 9. The desired change is possible with control over the experience to the degree that makes the change possible in the desired way. 10. It is possible to enhance the control over the experience of the self by conceptualizing in a practical way. 11. The more a conceptualization of experience enhances your control over your experience to change it from any current experience to any prospectively desired experience, the more likely it is to be called "objectively true". Conclusion: 12. Objective truth is, what increases your control over your experience to the maximum extent. 13. Truth is, what works.
Possibly one of the best and accessible conversations I've heard on Nihilism, I particularly like the game analogy at then end and think I'm with Rachel in that knowing that as far as we can tell that we are trapped within the game is enough for me. Pondering the reality of things outside it seems pointless unless we ever discover a way we might escape it.
My train of thought is precisely the same with Alex's. It was quite the experience watching him trying to make his definition of objectivity clear for the other two.
i love the sound of these conversations, like the argument, the calm, controlled eloquence and yet i cannot help but sense crumbling edges on all these sharp arguments.
Well done, Alex, at 44 mins. You nailed why logic is necessarily a priori even to self evidently true axioms, because even axioms are built on the foundation of the laws of logic. You were right to press in about it. Bravo. You're hands down my favorite atheist, because of moments like this. I'm a Christian, so it of course makes sense that as a Christian I can believe easily in the laws of logic as ontologically absolute, as they are grounded in the ontology of the self existent yaweh. Epistemology is a much harder nut to crack for everyone, and I think it is relevant to go back to the laws of logic as the ground to work from. Great job.
1:34:00 I find this chess analogy is the most important point in the video. We're all stuck together on this planet and we're all playing the same "game".
If you reject the laws of logic as being absolute, then you cannot even say that you know you exist. Because if the law of identity doesn’t exist, then you could not even identify your own identity. There would be no distinctive self to know. Every time you select words to form a sentence, you assume and illustrate the law of identity. And qm isn’t illogical. The fact that you would attempt to use qm as an example of something that exists but not exists shows that ye do not understand qm. But then again, few people do. Cosmic Skeptic I actually agree with you that he must assume the laws of logic in order to argue that he knows he exists.
"And qm isn’t illogical. The fact that you would attempt to use qm as an example of something that exists but not exists shows that ye do not understand qm." Could you elaborate?
27:50 It's not that the laws of logic can or cannot be demonstrated to be true. That's absurd. The laws of logic define the playground where the idea of truth can have meaning at all. All we do when we assign truth value to statements is just adding them to the logical playground. So we can play with them. We cannot play a game on the rules of itself.
Yes you can. And I'll use math as an example. It's the most logically stable field within logic. Gödel used math to prove an idea within math. He used the playground to define the rules of the game and he used logic to do so. Further, I think it's very dangerous to suggest that the laws of logic is how we define Truth. We don't. It's logical (and should be treated axiomatically) that we're limited. And limitation produces uncertainty. So any claim or idea put forward by any of us is neither objectively true nor false as far as we're concerned. Especially when you consider the fact that you're using a system to derive facts. Because all systems are a priori limited. So how can an idea such as Truth emerge from a meta-stable system given that Truth (objective) lacks uncertainty. In other words, how can you build a system based on certainty if all your tools are made of uncertainty? That's why I think logic destroys itself if you think it defines truth. You can only define logical statements as a priori Truth if you *assume that it is*. In simple words.. Truth exists granted that we exist in a predefined space. Logic is the means through which we derive ideas on Truth (or at least try to). That's why I think Descartes was brilliant; he realised he knew nothing of anything and everything, and so chose to put it plain and simple: I think therefore I am. That's as far as you can get.
@@sisyphus645 you are right to mention Gödel in this conversation, but I think you miss the point of his incompleteness theorem, which states that in any sufficiently rich logical system, there exists true but unprovable statements. A very similar result, perhaps simpler to grasp, is Tarski's undefinability theorem, which states that no logical system can define its own notion of truth. However, that does not mean that you can't prove the laws of logic correct (to be more precise, sound), but that means that you cannot do so in logic itself. To be more exact, there is no such thing as a unique "logic", instead there are multiple logical frameworks with various levels of expressivity. If you want to prove properties of a logical framework (such as soundness), you need another, richer logical framework, so you just shift the problem.
@@simonr7097 But isn’t the richer logical framework based on the simpler logical framework? To me, it sounds like deriving the laws of calculus from first principles. All in all, aren’t you just using your ideas to prove other ideas you have? I think the only way you can prove a logical framework is if you’re omniscient. That way you don’t use limited lenses, and you can (dis)prove the Truth value from a given system. Also, I would argue that Gödel’s theorem DEFINES the limitation within math, nothing more. Like I mentioned in my previous reply, in order to CREATE a system you need a limitation. We are a priori limited so all our frameworks are too. Math’s limitations come from what we call axioms such as a + b = b + a and so on. But, given that it’s limited, it’s subsequently unprovable. Therefore, you can’t call these statements true/false. Edit: Can you please elucidate your idea of proving logical frameworks? I feel like I’ve totally misunderstood it
@@sisyphus645 By "logical framework" I mean a set of symbols and associated meaning that allow you to make statements, and a set of rules that allow you to derive new statements from existing one. For example first-order logic allows you to state things like "all men are mortal", and has rules to derive "Socrates is mortal" from the appropriate premises. However first-order logic is limited, and does not allow you to make statements about "all sets of men" for example. But there exist richer logical framework that will allow it, such as higher-order logic. These richer frameworks are not derived from the simpler one, they are extensions of them that can state or even prove things that are not even expressible in the simpler framework (to use a crude analogy, you cannot "derive" video from a still picture). When it comes to proving properties of logical frameworks, there are two main properties: soundness (if I take true premises and apply rules to derive a new statement, that statement will also be true) and completeness (all true statements are derivable). Soundness is the least you can ask of a system, while completeness is essentially impossible for any practical logical system (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). But even proving soundness requires you to think outside of the logical framework and therefore shift the problem. It is a bit difficult to apply these concepts to logic in the philosophical sense, because there our "symbols" are the natural language, which is constantly evolving and whose meaning is not precisely defined. You could say that natural language is the most expressive language of all and therefore whatever rules of philosophical logic we have can never be proved sound. However we should be careful, Gödel and Tarski's theorems are not meant to be applied in such a poorly-defined context.
I literally started clapping at 44:25 after your statement "It would be logically contradictory to experience 'inexperience'". That just put the nail in the coffin for me, and I can't see how these guys could possibly refute that. Stephen's use of the words "therefore" "thus" "so then" "if__, then __", or "because" just proves your point. He's fundamentally using logic without even realizing he is.
Not really... bcoz our perception of logic and the law of non-contradiction comes from our subjective experience of the world. To apply that to our "experience in a vaccum" doesn't make any sense.
Nothing about the belief in itself presupposes the laws of logic. What does presuppose the laws of logic is the logical *argument* he provides as a justification for that belief (duh). As it turns out, screaming incoherent gibberish in a conversation isn't the best way to communicate ideas, so we're kinda stuck with language and logical arguments whenever we find ourselves in a conversation. However, this is a problem with our mode of communication, It says nothing about whether or not our subjective experience of consciousness is more fundamental than logic.
Allen Antony I would disagree with the statement “our perception of logic... comes from our subjective experience of the world”. This inherently presupposes that logic is what Stephen called “scientific objective truth”, but it really isn’t. Logic, mathematics, definitions, axioms, and theorems are an entirely different kind of knowledge and truth. These aren’t things we observe. For lack of a better term, they are things we “create” in the metaphysical. As it turns out, if objective reality exists, then we would expect it to be logical, because it was by definition objective.
Yasir Azhari I would agree with you, except that it isn’t even possible to communicate his belief even in PRINCIPLE, without assuming the laws of logic. It’s not merely a problem with our language or ability to communicate. It’s a problem with the belief itself. The rules of logic come first, because they cannot (even in principle) come second because they couldn’t be reasoned to without reason itself.
Jason Martin I wouldn't say "come second" but rather that they're not required for conscious experience. The rules of deductive inference and the fact of conscious experience are part of a set of Properly Basic Beliefs that we can't help but operate on. We can't justify our belief in/ adherence to the law of non-contradiction because it plays a part in our very definition of "justification" and "truth". If I state a proposition "There exists some conscious experience" the truth of this statement in a formal sense depends on the laws of logic. If I take conscious experience as a concept and consider the logical possibility of it's existence, that's still reasoning and so it also requires logic. However, the raw, primitive, reality of conscious experience itself is always in the "back of your mind", just like the law of non-contradiction. It's not arrived at through a process of reasoning.
There is a slight problem with the game rule analogy, the rules are things we absolutely know (because we made them up purposefully and are written somewhere for reference) but in the case of science, we don't know everything science tells is us true completely for sure, moreover the scientific method starts with the premise that everything science tells you is subject to question and change if it happens to be mistaken, its because we are figuring out the rules of the game from within the game without access to the rulebook, we infer, deduce and test the rules, but we don't know them.
This reminds me of so many stoned conversations i had with my college roommate. Such great times. I literally haven't talked to John in 5 years, and i find myself adulting more than getting stoned these days, but I guarantee if we found ourselves in the same room tomorrow we would fall seamlessly back into philosophical debate.
I love how at the end Alex says "I hope you've gotten something out of this conversation" lol. Its a conversation that concluded in Nihilism being true. Which means I have gotten nothing.
@@nathanielbixby5733 Haven't watched the video in almost a year. I can't really remember exactly how it ended but I remember feeling more or less convinced of nihilism at the end of it. Not really interested in a debate in youtube comments about it.
I honestly sympathize with Alex because I ask those questions too, and it puts me in a state of meaninglessness where everything seems to have no meaning at all. But yeah, Rachel was right when she said that's no way to live a life. It's a crippling kind of view of the world. Definitely not a practical one. But it's so good for a philosophical discussion. I loved Stephen's patience through all of Alex's questions. He was the one engaging him all the time and went into a deep rabbit hole with Alex while Rachel tried to make sense of it all by looking at it from an average critical thinker's perspective. I was so glad she had brought up the game-rules analogy. Everything became so much clearer from there.
Please make a video about people who identify as christians but actually have a deistic worldview. This is a common occurance in my home country (Germany) and I'd like to know if the same is true for the UK and the USA. This is a problem which needs to be adressed, since these people involentarily support a belief system that they do not agree with. Love your channel, keep up the good work.
Well the thing is that many christians in Germany are amearly cultural christians and if asked never realy thought about a deity. That is why they come up with the deistic worldview. That and because the catholic church is more and more flirting with the deistic view in order to stop people from leaving. The PR-section of the RCC does quite a lot to depersonalise god in the public because makeing clear statements about god would make them volurable, that is why many Germans are just - let's say ill informed about the positions of christianity. And if you confront them, they will regurgetate, what they have learned in school or their parents, but that in general is the washed down version of christianity where god has become more an idea rather than an acting force. I was brought up in a catholic house, strict, praying eveyr meal and before bed. Going to church every sunday, high holiday and attended a form of sunday school. My mother works for the catholic church in our district. Yet when I started to read about religion, it's history creation and doctrines, no one was able to answer any catholic positions. Even my sunday school teacher (a mon Segniore and personal friend of the former Pope John) was struggeling so answer openly what the catholic stance is - until I confronted him with the handbook of the catholci church, which he quickly tried to put down as not usefull because it's to complicated. I would argue that at least for Germany the reason why so many people are more of a deist than a theist, is purels because the churches (beeing it lutheran or catholic) need to humor the idea of a deistic god because they feaf losing a huge amount of money. They are not deistic because they chose to but because they truly think taht is the churches position. As for the UK - I lived in the UK for 3 years - I have little information but I want to share it with you nonetheless. I visited a public boarding school (for any other person other than brit, a public school is a private run school - weird I know). So that was my frist interaction with another religious mindset other than the RCC. The royal church of england is less of a political force but a philosophical idea people atend to due to the social experiance. I've not met many - what I would call practicing - christians. Most who went to chapel-services did so becuase it was a cultural aspect of their traditions. This was in Devon so quite a rural area of the UK. So maybe it is different in the north. As for Ireland, well more and more people leave the RCC due to their political stances, yet consider themself christian. So many irish christians are deeply faithfull but have a slightly differrenet idea about god than the RCC (which you as a german might have been brought up in). After a long study of christianity and to an extent all 3 abrahamic religions I turned out atheist, because there was no claim of god which was not contested by either sientific facts, or another verison of the same religion claiming the complete oposite. That just led me to conclude that religion is man made and has no supperior knowlage. BUT I still humor arguments about religons and try to learn about their cultural influance, this led me to think, that because there is no "real christianity" and no "real christian", everyone who claims to be christian believes in a personal deity which might be less intrusive than the bible god but still has characteristics and demands a certain behavior. hope that answered, a bit of your question, and why many Germans sound like deist but are christians.
"The laws of maths and the laws of physics are so different." Alex I agree. The laws of logic and math are more of a strategy that humans use to understand and perceive the universe. The laws of physics and logic aren't even on the same plain of reality. They're expressed and shown in our physical world but that's the only known overlap.
I disagree. Maths and physics are based on fundamental assumptions. In order to produce a scientific theory you must first assume certain things to be true, likewise for maths, the tool that physicists use. These all stem from logic, considered to be the most fundamental foundation to maths reasoning. I feel this argument lacked proper context, but it is nonetheless important if we are to consider that logic is at the foundation of all we know. I encourage you to open a discrete mathematics textbook if you'd like more background to my argument.
I always thought of maths as being a tool we invented to help explain things while the sciences are just observations of the universe, then again I know little to nothing about maths so that is probably wrong.
Epistemological Nihilism is very interesting, and it makes me think about the very foundations of maths and the laws logic, and how to say that they are objectively "true". Because it seems to me, based on what little I know, that the beginnings of these rules are describing what all of us have observed, and have been used to prove new laws, which in turn prove more laws. It's like how in Geometry class (american 10th grade/year math) you learn about mathematical proofs of certain properties which use the basic mathematical rules to prove the more complex mathematical rules.
Coffee Caesar The laws of logic don't need to be objectively true. They just need to be functionally true. They need to be a useful way of understanding reality. When applied in science they just work. That's all we need. All this philosophising is a waste of time. If something works then it's as correct as we need it to be. We don't need to invent metaphysical philosophy to explain them. If something doesn't work anymore, if some law of logic turns out to be more a hindrance than a help in analyzing the world around us, then we discard it for something better. This is similar to mathematical axioms. They are not provable they are merely definitions. But they are useful. If they weren't we would have switched them out for something more useful.
Great arguments on all side. I really liked the discussion at the end with the chess piece example - it rounded it out nicely and gave a clean and clear elucidation of the discussion up to that point. I lean towards the concept that I think you all ended up 'mostly' agreeing on there epistemological nihilism (with the likely exception of knowledge of self-existence) is both correct and useless from a day-to-day perspective. Just as the chess piece, we can't "step out of the game" and so discussion about things like 'purpose' (which necessarily encompasses morality, which is why I side with Steve there) can only meaningfully be discussed within that context and it should be taken for granted that any discussion not on the topic of epistemology itself make this fundamental assumption.
Watching this for a second time. I'm absolutely fascinated by the talking points in this video! It's truly made me want to study philosophy! (If only I had the credits to get into uni!)
I felt so hard for Alex, he kept trying to make sound points based on logic, and then the other two kept breaking down reality until it was possible to both exist in some form and be impossible to exist in any form. Once they broke down reality to that point, Alex returned to his point of "Well if nothing is certain then morality is subjective" while working off their baseline for what is provable. Then Steven and Rachel just started ignoring his points that came from extreme nihilism even though they were just using it beforehand. Honestly the most annoying thing Rachel could've said in this conversation was "Why does it matter, let's just not talk about it". As a viewer this ruined the payoff of nearly two hours listening because she was too unwilling to talk about things for the sake of talking about them.
Yes but I would also like to add that it is a fallacy in itself by begging the question. How can one prove existence? Already has aprioi notions and assumes the existence so it can’t help but to beg the question.
Sorry I dont agree. If we experienced something being what it is and what it is not our laws of logic would be different. The laws of logic are just a description of what we experience. Therefor they do not preceed our experience
You're right. Because claiming that you know about your non-existence needs knowledge about not-contradiction law, which is inferred from experience. I would remove "I" from list of Cartesian axioms as well. Only thing we are can be sure about is that there is experience of something. Existence of somebody who have these experiences is inferred from experiences as well. Only existence of current experience is self-evident axiom. The rest is inferred from axioms, assumptions and experiences about which we cannot be sure.
Incorrect. This is the main problem. He can not claim that the laws of logic are false/not objective. He is using logic to do this and he is making a truth claim. Of course, you could even infer that if aliens made our universe, then it works the way it does because it has no other way of working (since they would have made it in the best way), thereby proving that this is the only universe-type and logic works in the form we see.
Well I can imagine universe where violation of non-contradiction law could be possible or at least not relevant to anything you experience. Imagine universe where your only input to consciousness is totally chaotic and doesn't make any sense. In such universe where nothing is consistent, you cannot tell there is non-contradiction law.
Marcin Łapiński ~ In nihilism is true, then there is only contradictions as perfect equality is not defined. Also why does it have to be TOTALLY chaotic? If perfectly uniformity is an impossible then it does NOT imply that is something perfectly disordered (or even that perfect disorder is possible) - a problem I have with nihilism as it is analogous to this comparison. Also law of non-contradiction only applies to binary equality which is why superposition is possible (because quantum physics is not binary) and why fuzzy logic is possible.
Jon Leb except there's no need for the laws there... The only thing specifically logical being used is the definition of an implication, and even that is irrelevant. There's just one claim, and a justification for it. There's no "getting from" A to B.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas you think but apparently can't read (or comprehend)? Where-ever did you get the idea that i disagree with the STATEMENT "i think therefore i am"?! -.- All i'm saying is that such a statement is nothing but a claim, and thus doesn't require anything extra, such as laws of logic.
Alex, I'm so glad I watched this video! I agree with you 100%! I get stuck in these same questions and people don't get it! I'm so glad I'm not lonely insane...
I'm with Alex regarding logic. if i exist, i can not not exist. it can't be "i think therefore i am" without the law of identity a=a. that's why i put logic in the bedrock with existence of self. Also, i believe that, in this forced game which is stated by existence, we are directed toward happiness. it's evolutionarily wired value system. that's why happiness is the ultimate purpose for a conscious homo sapien -unless wired otherwise-. I've been struggling with a question though: if our happiness or values are all what's important, why not play a dominance game? if i'm the strongest man and i can escape punishment, why not turn into a tyrant? or maybe, why not torture animals just for fun? why care about sentient beings? why not enslave weak people if i'm sure i can without harming myself? etc..
There's a big point to notice here that everyone seems to miss. The Cogito was NOT an argument as Descartes presented it -- Descartes accepted it as a foundational axiom. It is invalid if it is taken as an argument. If taken as an argument, its purpose is to show the self exists, at least to the self. In its premise, 'I Think', it has assumed the consequence. If treated as an argument, and cleaned up of all invalid structures, the MOST you get is "Something exists." Depending on how we define exists, we can construct scenarios that account for the individual experiencing but not existing, though in such cases something still exist.
I think I know where the problem with the laws of logic vs the knowledge of self lies. You can't know you exist without assuming the laws of logic, period. In saying, "I think, therefore I am," you are defining consciousness, stating that you possess it by and then logically coming to the conclusion that something must exist in order to think/ be conscious, an assumption that you *must* derive from the laws of logic. You come to the logical conclusion that you can't think and not exist, so you derive from that logic, "I think, therefore I am." So, knowing that you can't even prove your own existence without assuming logic's existence, you can't know *anything* for sure, therefore epistemological nihilism must be true, and the other two follow shortly thereafter.
Alex I love how committed you are to integrity and truth, that you are striving above all to be honest and consistent. You're making a really good argument for the morality of being truthful.. When you're arguing that there is no objective morality to begin with.
I really get what Alex was saying. To say that I think therefore I am, you have to have used logic. If it was just I think or I am then that is just a pure statement. But I think therefore I am requires the logical step of thinking that thought necessitates existence. So logic must precede existence in order for you to come to that conclusion.
Why do people think that laws of logic are somehow more 'real' than empirical physical laws? Laws of logic are 'meta' information about what we observe in the world. Laws of logic are culturally determined, although, given that we all observe (mostly) stuff on our Earth, they tend to converge to a great degree. They stop converging when we begin to observe weird stuff and when we live within weird stuff (relativistic spaceship and applied quantum mechanics), we will adopt the thinking which the maths of those physics require. Our laws of logic will work differently to what we understand now as laws of logic. We will for example not accept anymore that stuff cannot be A and non A at the same time, because it can in those dimensions. The laws of logic should be the most relative of them all.
As a former Christian who is now an atheist I find this conversation amazing!!! Nobody’s yelling, being a baby or doing any childish things,your thinking out loud. This stuff for a simpleton like myself is complicated and requires a lot of thought. It’s helping me think through my dumb thoughts. I’m having a hard time grasping morals and purpose now that I’m an atheist. So I luv this!
@@maartenneppelenbroek Perhaps a more charitable reading might suggest he was talking about the concepts rather than the things-in-themselves, which would presuppose their existence as actual things?
Thank you guys so much for making this video, i have been hopelessly drowning in Pessimistic Nihilism for years, and this discussion has helped me so much.
Alex is incredibly smart. This is probably my favourite part: "It would be logically contradictory for me to say that I'm experiencing non-experience." Which proves that the laws of logic must be foundational and perfectly true in order for us to believe anything else. Well done, Alex. I'm a Christian but I love listening to people talk about truths like this.
Imagine them living together, talking to each other for hours about who's going to clean the dishes when they can't verify that the dishes actually exist.
yeah, it was fun and all when they were eating
In the meantime, the fence needs fixing and the table needs oiling or varnishing.
You just make the assumption they do
Chosen One thats incredibly fallacious just because you don’t believe in objectivity, which doesn’t exist solipsism debunks that doesn’t mean you have to kill, infact we don’t randomly kill because of our inherent nature. Take a page from the social contract, in Thomas Hobbes's work Leviathan. We decide to not commit crime because we are altruistic and all have certain axiom we agree with hence society.
@Chosen One There's optimistic nihilism.
As much as I enjoyed this discussion, there was no point ;) Thanks for the conversation Alex and Rachel!
As much as I enjoyed this comment, there was no point :)
Haha that was clever but also pointless
You're all so right. My comment had no point...
your 2nd comment also had no point
Is that independent of human opinion?
Nice to have someone on with long flowing hair and pouty lips. Alex and Rachel aren't bad either.
porta bahahah
Truth cannot exist outside the laws of logic.
He reminds me of a British Jason Momoa
@@cinemaster9012 It can. Truth isn’t defined by our knowledge of it.
XDDDDD
I would leave a comment, but doing so would be meaningless. ;)
but you have... why?
The entire atheist community is here haha.
@Rosey We are all taking a break from our daily baby eating contests :)!
enlighted Jedi Are you serious? I could have sworn I didn't skip breakfast.
You at least did it while watching the 2 videos not while chanting the usual incantations, otherwise pardon me!... In the morning they are cooked well in curry don't they?
I recall having a similar conversation to this when I was a lot younger, there were drugs involved.
Lsd or mushrooms?
@@Flashyfinancier yes
@@markcaesar4443 which one?
@@Flashyfinancier Either, both have been used in the past.
@@markcaesar4443 thanks for clarifying sir
why do they keep on pointing at a pile of air and call it a cup,
it doesn't make any sense to me?
me to! where is the cup?
Underrated comment
Yes, well done, underated comment also
“The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.”
- Unknown
My favorite quote
@J G Care to explain or just grandstanding?
If there is no objective meaning or truth, then this is just nonsense. The belief that there is a you to kill is likewise meaningless. The entire quote breaks down if one takes nihilism to it's logical conclusions.
More appt would be: ".. Whatever prevents you from being killed".
I'd get great meaning out of running away from a venomous snake for example...
Vayne Carudas Solidor I think this is a meaning as in description or definition.
Nihilism means nothing to me
So what does nothing means?
@@eula_gaming it's a pun
something something something r/woosh^2
@@eula_gaming nothing neans reality
i think you destroyed your own argument.
Alex you are so amazing in your intellectual way of thinking. I used to be like you many years ago in my philosophical discussions with my best friend, who was just like me. Then a stroke deprived me of my ability to form my ideas into speech from my thoughts, however I can still think clearly as a bell and I always enjoy your philosophical debates. Thank you so much for all your insights
🤣
God, I’m so sorry man. You are literally the embodiment of my worst fears - I’m terrified that something similar will happen to me. Best of luck, I hope that you’ve been able to reconcile with what’s happened.
@@28nihilist why is this comment funny
@@johndave8017 😂
@@johndave8017 it's like the meme, "then i took arrow to my knee", but jokes aside it's really sad what happened to this guy.
I know two things for certain:
1) I exist
2) I don't really know what "exist" means
Perhaps "I" is existence itself. "I" is self revealing and self evident. anything other than "I" you need some/any kind of verification you dont need verification for existence of "I". Perhaps "we" as consciousness are existence itself and everything other than "us" is object of consciousness and may not fundamentally exist.
Our brain cannot have the capacity to understand what it's own existence is really about, at least not at the level that we operate. It can only see a projection of its own state, not its own complete state, as that would violate the halting problem.
These guys are desperately trying to do something that is fundementally impossible.
Yeah, understanding is limited to perception
Jake Costanza I would argue that you don't know "for certain" that you exist, because that is dependent on the validity of logic. If logic only seems to hold, but we are actually in a universe in which it doesn't, then you could both seem to exist, and not exist at all, bc the laws of logic don't apply
@@MrAditya790
Even "I" is an assumption of self identity. Beneath that is the experience of "I".
You are experiencing an existence for a "self". The fact that the experience is occurring is the only certainty.
1:08:00 Rachel's rebuttal of "why does it matter if you're happy" with "exactly ... it doesn't matter, if I'm happy" was brilliant.
To the universe it doesn't matter if you're happy, but it doesn't matter, if you're happy.
What is matter? ... only joking. :-)
Great comment. Agreed
Is it really brilliant though..? It seems she’s only proving she has no problem leaving the question unanswered.
“Ignorance is bliss” **literally** incarnate
@@thetannernation maybe the brilliance is in knowing which questions to seek answers to
@@stevenweatherly2768 I would agree with that. I think that’s consistent with what I’ve said
*me:* Gee, I haven't had a good headache in a while.
*youtube:*
But how do you know you have a headache? 😊
@@zer-op2gq because pain .
You only feel pain in reality not in dream.
@@Sahilbc-wj8qk Pain in a dream is real to me. So is pleasure. For that matter, all my senses are real in dreams. Why must we be awake to experience reality? Discount your dreams at your peril if you have any.
I can't help but feel a little bad for Rachel - she is trying to get a word in, but the fellas are engaged in a philosophical joust.
Still, i'd pay money to be able to sit down with the three of you.
She is not reallyknowledgeable on the subject and she doesn't care anyway so whatever.
Truth Matters no u
The Fuzzician
She is well fit 👌
Tbh I don't think she was trying to speak and got over talked. She didn't know wtf to say most of the time... She spoke when she had a thought. Neither of these guys oppressed her speech
She knows she's the reason they're jousting, she's flattered.
You can get as far as “I think” without granting logic absolutes, the “therefore” part you can only have if you grant the logical absolutes.
We should drop the I and just say "think" just for simplicity
@@kyjaalamps5193 Big Think
Holy Redundant, Bat Man!
Me talking to myself in my car everyday.
Cheryl Fultz haha so true
@gary Wilhelm are you sure you go to work? Do you exist? Does work exist? Are you work? Is work you?
exactly
@@zinniaward8549 "Are you work"
You work and your identity are two different things.
Literally
Now I need an extra dose of ‘metaphysical substrate’ to counterbalance my nihilism.... I’ll go clean my room.... but it’s pointless, dammit! 😅
Ugh. The sheer sophistic bullshittery of the phrase "metaphysical substrate" makes me want to puke. Just like most of the word salad that comes out of JBP.
I do have to say that this is a far better conversation than any religious discussion I have ever heard.
Religious discussion usually revolves around the willingly ignorant, claiming some divine knowledge. As opposed to the this. The admittedly ignorant, who are wilfully attempting to ditch their ignorance.
Hey Pat
Hope you and yours are well of course.
I would have rather they stayed on topic but they went all over the place. The 'laws of logic" besides others became the topic(s). I didn't appreciate the bickering really, just my thoughts.
Subjective , determined, opinions no more valid than the contrary.
Agreed.
It was very good, but is it just me or is Rachel out of her depth compared to Stephen and Alex? She's clearly not unintelligent but she seems to keep approaching the subjects being discussed from a fairly basic point of view, often a step or two behind the nuances being discussed and not really adding much other than her opinion and feelings, which, while valid, are not really full of watertight philosophical arguments.
This gives me massive nostalgia, and some kind of FOMO as well. I remember my teenage years when talking about this stuff was the most exciting thing in the world for me. Hours spent with my best friends trying to make a point, it was beautiful. I still have conversations like this sometimes, but I feel like the excitement you have when you're a teenager and you're thinking about this stuff for the first time, and then when you find someone to talk about this with for the first time... That's a feeling I'll never forget, blissful, magical experience.
I've Understood Alex's train of thought the whole way through, even though he was never able to get to the points he wanted to make. Steven actually agreed with him mostly but he was getting so caught up in Alex's set ups he never heard him out on where he was going. Sadly this topic seemed a little out of Rachel's comfort zone, She wasn't as willing to humor the pointless questions for the mere sake of pointlessness (aka talking about Nihilism) She only wanted to bother with her personal purpose.
I felt exactly the same!
I definitely understood where Alex is coming from. And Alex definitely creates a good point in that epistemological nihilism makes sense even in terms of I think therefore I am because saying that requires some level of logical consistency.
A bit late to the party, but I think this is a good assessment of the discussion as a whole.
They were not brave (or stupid) enough to go with him the whole way
they are geeks. any excuse to invite a girl
If there is no heaven nor hell then that means I have nothing to die for, and everything to live for.
Next Level
Most atheist live like that, most religious still promote gratification after death.
It doesn’t matter if there is something or nothing to die for, it’s coming for you regardless of how you feel about it.
I’d say having something worth dying for, gives you a reason to live.
I stand by my beliefs in Christ. Not out of fear of death because it’s pointless to fear the inevitable, but because there is no real value while living if atheism is true. Only perceived quasi value.
But that's still subjective, and can't be claimed objectively (objective here meaning independent of sentient experience, not 100% knowledge, which is just such an infuriatingly useless definition).
There's a Ricky Gervais interview where he makes that argument really well
You have nothing to live for. I don't think you understand what net zero means...
Steven: How do we know that this mug exists?
Mug: Am I just a joke to you?
They are ignoring the girl cup...discrimination?
@@kevincarey2467 the cup had more to say than her.
37:00 it's a rare thing to disagree with Stephen, but boy oh boy, how does he not see that he is using logic to conclude from any form of experience any form of existence.
That was kinda weird to watch
Loved the fact that Rachel was part of the conversation, I feel like she's the one that brought ordinary people into a complex philosphical discussion :-). While I can appreciate and enjoy theoretical discussions like these, they often do not feel applicable to my life. Even if there is no purpose or objectivity to life or the universe or whatever, that's just not something that I would really believe in my day to day life. Wonderful conversation, keep up the good work!
Branwen Watson Alex’s argument stands that it’s not because a truth is uncomfortable that you shouldn’t believe it or discard it. That would be cognitive dissonance.
@@teymourtb meaning is subjective.
Then why not just act like there is a god even though lets say there isnt one....its the same cognitive dossonance you are doing...just avoiding a ideology which u beleive in
@@asathelogiclaman637 This raises the question which God you should choose to pretend that he/she exists.
@@branwenwatson well not necessarily lets just say a deist god... I gave an example on assumption saying lets say if that is the case hypothetically.
Its definitely a cognitive dissonence.. Exactly what alex said....but atheists tend to do it when it comes to living a nihilistic life
Atheism ➡️ Nihilism IF you’re intellectually honest.
If two vegans got into an argument, would it still be considered a "beef"? LOL
I got told that joke by some staff at a butcher shop in a shopping centre where I go to do my shopping. I just thought it was a good opportunity to share it. Three people liked it so far.
Trolltician: Did you mean "Dad(as in Father) or did you hit a wrong key as you meant to write "Bad"?
Okay!
If a person with no comedic brilliance rehearsed a dead joke in the lowest of hanging fruit forums, is it really a joke?
RUclipsr: I don't know, nor do I care where you're based, or who you are. So your opinion of my one-liner counts for nothing.
There is one way this video could've been better:
If a rare Aron Ra (cowboy hat variant) randomly peeked over the fence, wiggled his eyebrows at the camera, then disappeared.
ohh a Shiny Aron Ra, special cosplay edition - you'd want to save your master ball for that!
Talismantra The purple color scheme of the master ball would match Aron's heavy metal-ness. But he is Aron RA - not to be confused with Aron the little steel Pokémon.
no matter how shiny
Rachel said it and put it so simply and it was overlooked: “Because our knowing it or not knowing it does not change our lives.”
Spot on
Rachel: let's take that the world exists and is navigable as a practical necessity and go from there
Alex and Stephen: no no, let's argue over the semantics instead
XD no but really this is actually very interesting
Yeah, in these two discussions I thought Rachel got talked over or ignored a lot
This
It’s amazing to see my favorite RUclipsr all in the same spot. All of you have helped me learn about the real world and thinking for myself. I thank you.
It looked like Rachel and Steven were having a great time, and Alex was just frustrated the whole time.
me when I talk to my christian parents XD
@@martinaba8472 Haha religion so uncool and unmodern haha
That's because Alex only believes in certain things or aspenct when they apply to what he wants. He creates his own right and wrong and truth which is not truth but trying to bend his subjective claims to appeal too the world around him. I don't even thing he believes have the BS that comes out of his mouth.
@@martinaba8472 an argument you'll always lose.
@@StallionFernando I don't think there's anything wrong with caring only about what matters to you? I wouldn't call his claims subjective either when they're entirely logical
The "chicken or the egg?" question has evolved into: "Which comes first? The acceptance of the laws of logic or the knowledge of self-existence?"
I’m with Alex that you cannot claim absolute knowledge of self-existence (the way they want to) without first ackwnowleging that the reason it’s “self evident” that you exist (as rationality rules stated) is because you cannot both exist and not exist - thus the laws of logic come first. Also, they were trying to say that acknowledgement of self-existence is separate from the use of senses to determine everything else (including laws of logic), but that’s just not the case… you know you exist because you sense it. The act of recognizing thoughts/consciousness is a sense in and of itself. Separately, I agree with the other two with respect to the question of purpose, though, that you don’t need an absolute basis for it.
Was it the egg or the chicken tho pls help me understand my brain 🧠 hurts
@@firstyles the chicken is the egg, both came first.
Hope that clears it up
@A.J. Eggs predate Chickens. Chickens are not the only creatures to have ever layed Eggs. #Facts
@A.J. actually they most likely do, since the chicken egg is just the adaptation of the chickens ancestors passed down to the chicken. And whenever that "first" (there is technically no "first" anything) chicken was conceived, well I think you can guess what they hatched from.
I know at least two things with complete certainty
1) I exist
2) I don't know everything.
But u don't philosophically
Don Sample what it should be is 1) i know something exist.
Im not even sure i exist considering we dont have an accurate definition for “existence” do i exist if im in a video game right now? And someone is controlling me?
I don't think you actually could know that you don't know everything
Nick Sbordone -- by saying that you can't know something, you are acknowledging that there is something you don't know.
Don Sample You still can't know that for sure. You could have suppressed knowledge of everything
I would watch the entire video...but there's no point anyway
what video? Are you sure it exists?
I enjoy it, regardless if thats a reason to do it
I’m 10 minutes in and I’m not really seeing the point
But how do you know there is no point?
I'm a Christian and I enjoy watching all your vids Alex. I find myself agreeing more with you rather than Steven. Idk what it is but your arguments make more sense.
Alex Xavier Good on you for watching discussions with people who think differently than yourself. It can be harder than people make it out to be.
charles norelli
Thank you! And yes, I agree. But we can all agree on one thing, that being civil and having an open discussion is good. We all wish positivity on each other as well.
Steven is like a tutor to Alex.
what's the tea lady doing there?
Alex could sell me Snake Oil and I'd buy 100% of his stocks
It's been a year. Still a Christian?
A fascinating conversation. The game analogy at the end was very helpful in understanding this whole topic more deeply.
In my brain:
Rachel - breathe oxygen;
Alex - ultimate intensity;
Stephen - hardened brick wall;
My brain - help me!
I don't understand this comment, can someone please explain? Thanks.
this was very refreshing honestly, big ups to all three hosts
31:00
This is a ridiculous tangent. The laws of logic are not observational laws, about the physical world, they are axioms that define how a system functions and are thus independent of physical reality. For example, the law of noncontradiction: suppose you had never heard of a bachelor before but I told you it meant an unmarried man. If I asked you if a married bachelor existed, without measurements you could say no, as there is no referent that could ever be identified with both qualities.
This is simply how the systems of language and reasoning work. This is a Bruggencate level argument, and follows the familiar tune of ‘You don’t accept [insert worldview], well then you can’t account for the laws of logic so therefore you’re wrong!’
Yeah that was a painful tangent. Everyone who ever studied math knows how this works.
However, Stepven has a point that he is not phrasing properly. I would slightly twist his idea that logic is falsifiable(which doesn't make any sense) and I would say that USEFULNESS of a particular logic in scientific philosophy MIGHT be observable! And I think that Steven has been arguing this all along, but just didn't phrase it rigorously enough for Alex. I'm like Alex and I like to be very rigorous with these things, but I think I captured Steven's idea rigoroudly enough.
Currently I don't have a well thought out philosophy on this idea though. Intuitively this makes sense, but rigorously there might be problems I'm not seeing.
Yh I felt this. The laws of logic are axioms. Axioms can't be justified in themselves. Case closed.
Me: yeah I think I’m following this conversation
Rationality Rules and Cosmic Skeptic: we are three parallel universes ahead of you, and none of them necessarily exist
Alex makes the best arguments.
Objective should not be confused with consensus or verifiable.
On this point, yes. He’s brilliant but I fear he is heading down the Jordan Peterson rabbit hole. He can sometimes be unable to answer “how are you?” without tying himself in knots. He may not be wrong, but it spirals out of control.
@@Nick-Nasti
I'm not necessarily opposed to deep thinking in spite of the fact that there's a potential (smallish) danger that it can lead to rabbit holes.
What does concern me very much is when a person injects presuppositions about unjustified beliefs such as beliefs in alleged sky daddies and sky mommies (deities) into discussions of the nature of reality and existence.
According to the laws of British Rail timetables ...trains exist and don't exist at the same time.
Just sayin' :P
Browncoat_G lol good one 👌
I'm so late to this but man, this comment is the realest thing I've seen all day lmfao.
If I wait at the platform and the train never arrives, did it ever really exist?
Best comment on the video
Gonna solve these problems for you guys:
Premises:
1. There are experiences.
2. There is an experiences of a self and non-self.
3. The experience of a self is experienced as a self experiencing the self and non-self.
4. There are experiences from the self experienced as outside the self.
5. The experiences of the self are experienced as being not completely controllable.
6. The self experiences goals.
7. The achievement of a goal is a possible experience of the self.
8. A goal always encompasses an experienced desire to change the experience of the self.
9. The desired change is possible with control over the experience to the degree that makes the change possible in the desired way.
10. It is possible to enhance the control over the experience of the self by conceptualizing in a practical way.
11. The more a conceptualization of experience enhances your control over your experience to change it from any current experience to any prospectively desired experience, the more likely it is to be called "objectively true".
Conclusion:
12. Objective truth is, what increases your control over your experience to the maximum extent.
13. Truth is, what works.
There is no "experience of self". There is experience of stories in which the self appears as a character.
I could not get the 11th point. Objective truth come out of nowhere
All you did in your "conclusion" was define a phrase you already used in your premise. You're begging the question lmao.
Damn it, I love these discussions.
Storytime Symphony repent and turn to Jesus and lol means Lucifer our lord be born again
k
Hi Alex, you're great! Thank you so much for all your videos!
Possibly one of the best and accessible conversations I've heard on Nihilism, I particularly like the game analogy at then end and think I'm with Rachel in that knowing that as far as we can tell that we are trapped within the game is enough for me. Pondering the reality of things outside it seems pointless unless we ever discover a way we might escape it.
My train of thought is precisely the same with Alex's. It was quite the experience watching him trying to make his definition of objectivity clear for the other two.
i love the sound of these conversations, like the argument, the calm, controlled eloquence and yet i cannot help but sense crumbling edges on all these sharp arguments.
Can you please explain what you mean by "crumbling edges on all these sharp arguments?" Thanks.
Well done, Alex, at 44 mins. You nailed why logic is necessarily a priori even to self evidently true axioms, because even axioms are built on the foundation of the laws of logic. You were right to press in about it. Bravo. You're hands down my favorite atheist, because of moments like this. I'm a Christian, so it of course makes sense that as a Christian I can believe easily in the laws of logic as ontologically absolute, as they are grounded in the ontology of the self existent yaweh. Epistemology is a much harder nut to crack for everyone, and I think it is relevant to go back to the laws of logic as the ground to work from. Great job.
@{X} would you like my reply to be coherent or incoherent?
Alex got the coolest topic!
and definitely the darkest one
1:34:00 I find this chess analogy is the most important point in the video. We're all stuck together on this planet and we're all playing the same "game".
Kinda wish they'd've let Rachel talk more, not interrupted and talked over her. She had some really good points.
Agreed
She didn't contribute much, dude
“Life’s is pointless anyway” was my mantra during my exam period
Life's is?
If you reject the laws of logic as being absolute, then you cannot even say that you know you exist. Because if the law of identity doesn’t exist, then you could not even identify your own identity. There would be no distinctive self to know. Every time you select words to form a sentence, you assume and illustrate the law of identity. And qm isn’t illogical. The fact that you would attempt to use qm as an example of something that exists but not exists shows that ye do not understand qm. But then again, few people do.
Cosmic Skeptic I actually agree with you that he must assume the laws of logic in order to argue that he knows he exists.
Even with the laws of logic you can not know you exist. You can only surmise due to the fact that you sense and interpret the world around you!!!
"And qm isn’t illogical. The fact that you would attempt to use qm as an
example of something that exists but not exists shows that ye do not
understand qm."
Could you elaborate?
Jay wrong, because you couldn’t sense if you didn’t exist in the first place. Therefore you can know with absolute certainty that you exist.
Thank you I was screaming this at my screen well atleast the in order to say you exist you have to assume the law of non-contradiction part
It's actually very interesting topic, but interesting part is to argue that we need logic laws, you used them. You cannot argue without logic.
27:50
It's not that the laws of logic can or cannot be demonstrated to be true. That's absurd.
The laws of logic define the playground where the idea of truth can have meaning at all.
All we do when we assign truth value to statements is just adding them to the logical playground. So we can play with them.
We cannot play a game on the rules of itself.
Couldn't have said it any better.
He misunderstands what logic is.
Yes you can. And I'll use math as an example. It's the most logically stable field within logic. Gödel used math to prove an idea within math. He used the playground to define the rules of the game and he used logic to do so. Further, I think it's very dangerous to suggest that the laws of logic is how we define Truth. We don't. It's logical (and should be treated axiomatically) that we're limited. And limitation produces uncertainty. So any claim or idea put forward by any of us is neither objectively true nor false as far as we're concerned. Especially when you consider the fact that you're using a system to derive facts. Because all systems are a priori limited. So how can an idea such as Truth emerge from a meta-stable system given that Truth (objective) lacks uncertainty. In other words, how can you build a system based on certainty if all your tools are made of uncertainty? That's why I think logic destroys itself if you think it defines truth. You can only define logical statements as a priori Truth if you *assume that it is*.
In simple words.. Truth exists granted that we exist in a predefined space. Logic is the means through which we derive ideas on Truth (or at least try to). That's why I think Descartes was brilliant; he realised he knew nothing of anything and everything, and so chose to put it plain and simple: I think therefore I am. That's as far as you can get.
@@sisyphus645 you are right to mention Gödel in this conversation, but I think you miss the point of his incompleteness theorem, which states that in any sufficiently rich logical system, there exists true but unprovable statements. A very similar result, perhaps simpler to grasp, is Tarski's undefinability theorem, which states that no logical system can define its own notion of truth. However, that does not mean that you can't prove the laws of logic correct (to be more precise, sound), but that means that you cannot do so in logic itself. To be more exact, there is no such thing as a unique "logic", instead there are multiple logical frameworks with various levels of expressivity. If you want to prove properties of a logical framework (such as soundness), you need another, richer logical framework, so you just shift the problem.
@@simonr7097 But isn’t the richer logical framework based on the simpler logical framework? To me, it sounds like deriving the laws of calculus from first principles. All in all, aren’t you just using your ideas to prove other ideas you have? I think the only way you can prove a logical framework is if you’re omniscient. That way you don’t use limited lenses, and you can (dis)prove the Truth value from a given system. Also, I would argue that Gödel’s theorem DEFINES the limitation within math, nothing more. Like I mentioned in my previous reply, in order to CREATE a system you need a limitation. We are a priori limited so all our frameworks are too. Math’s limitations come from what we call axioms such as a + b = b + a and so on. But, given that it’s limited, it’s subsequently unprovable. Therefore, you can’t call these statements true/false.
Edit: Can you please elucidate your idea of proving logical frameworks? I feel like I’ve totally misunderstood it
@@sisyphus645 By "logical framework" I mean a set of symbols and associated meaning that allow you to make statements, and a set of rules that allow you to derive new statements from existing one. For example first-order logic allows you to state things like "all men are mortal", and has rules to derive "Socrates is mortal" from the appropriate premises. However first-order logic is limited, and does not allow you to make statements about "all sets of men" for example. But there exist richer logical framework that will allow it, such as higher-order logic. These richer frameworks are not derived from the simpler one, they are extensions of them that can state or even prove things that are not even expressible in the simpler framework (to use a crude analogy, you cannot "derive" video from a still picture). When it comes to proving properties of logical frameworks, there are two main properties: soundness (if I take true premises and apply rules to derive a new statement, that statement will also be true) and completeness (all true statements are derivable). Soundness is the least you can ask of a system, while completeness is essentially impossible for any practical logical system (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). But even proving soundness requires you to think outside of the logical framework and therefore shift the problem.
It is a bit difficult to apply these concepts to logic in the philosophical sense, because there our "symbols" are the natural language, which is constantly evolving and whose meaning is not precisely defined. You could say that natural language is the most expressive language of all and therefore whatever rules of philosophical logic we have can never be proved sound. However we should be careful, Gödel and Tarski's theorems are not meant to be applied in such a poorly-defined context.
I literally started clapping at 44:25 after your statement "It would be logically contradictory to experience 'inexperience'". That just put the nail in the coffin for me, and I can't see how these guys could possibly refute that. Stephen's use of the words "therefore" "thus" "so then" "if__, then __", or "because" just proves your point. He's fundamentally using logic without even realizing he is.
Not really... bcoz our perception of logic and the law of non-contradiction comes from our subjective experience of the world. To apply that to our "experience in a vaccum" doesn't make any sense.
Nothing about the belief in itself presupposes the laws of logic. What does presuppose the laws of logic is the logical *argument* he provides as a justification for that belief (duh). As it turns out, screaming incoherent gibberish in a conversation isn't the best way to communicate ideas, so we're kinda stuck with language and logical arguments whenever we find ourselves in a conversation. However, this is a problem with our mode of communication, It says nothing about whether or not our subjective experience of consciousness is more fundamental than logic.
Allen Antony I would disagree with the statement “our perception of logic... comes from our subjective experience of the world”. This inherently presupposes that logic is what Stephen called “scientific objective truth”, but it really isn’t. Logic, mathematics, definitions, axioms, and theorems are an entirely different kind of knowledge and truth. These aren’t things we observe. For lack of a better term, they are things we “create” in the metaphysical. As it turns out, if objective reality exists, then we would expect it to be logical, because it was by definition objective.
Yasir Azhari I would agree with you, except that it isn’t even possible to communicate his belief even in PRINCIPLE, without assuming the laws of logic. It’s not merely a problem with our language or ability to communicate. It’s a problem with the belief itself. The rules of logic come first, because they cannot (even in principle) come second because they couldn’t be reasoned to without reason itself.
Jason Martin
I wouldn't say "come second" but rather that they're not required for conscious experience. The rules of deductive inference and the fact of conscious experience are part of a set of Properly Basic Beliefs that we can't help but operate on. We can't justify our belief in/ adherence to the law of non-contradiction because it plays a part in our very definition of "justification" and "truth".
If I state a proposition "There exists some conscious experience" the truth of this statement in a formal sense depends on the laws of logic. If I take conscious experience as a concept and consider the logical possibility of it's existence, that's still reasoning and so it also requires logic. However, the raw, primitive, reality of conscious experience itself is always in the "back of your mind", just like the law of non-contradiction. It's not arrived at through a process of reasoning.
The traffic pauzes when Alex starts talking.
Haha
That's probably because his microphone is closer to his mouth so he's voice is louder so the volume of his microphone is set lower than the others
There is a slight problem with the game rule analogy, the rules are things we absolutely know (because we made them up purposefully and are written somewhere for reference) but in the case of science, we don't know everything science tells is us true completely for sure, moreover the scientific method starts with the premise that everything science tells you is subject to question and change if it happens to be mistaken, its because we are figuring out the rules of the game from within the game without access to the rulebook, we infer, deduce and test the rules, but we don't know them.
Steven is thicc
The god I don't believe in sure blessed me, huh? Jokes aside, I'll put the cookie down. Diet from tomorrow :p
do you have any free will over that decision though?
He's on a bulk by the looks of things
T H I C C as 🅱uck
He looks like he is either VERY good at surfing or VERY good at electric guitar, but not both.
This reminds me of so many stoned conversations i had with my college roommate. Such great times. I literally haven't talked to John in 5 years, and i find myself adulting more than getting stoned these days, but I guarantee if we found ourselves in the same room tomorrow we would fall seamlessly back into philosophical debate.
I enjoyed it. Would love to see this discussion when you're all at least 40 .
I love how at the end Alex says "I hope you've gotten something out of this conversation" lol. Its a conversation that concluded in Nihilism being true. Which means I have gotten nothing.
you have arguably lost everything
It did?
@@nathanielbixby5733 Seemed like it to me anyways.
@@skullkrusher4418 Can I ask what made you think that?
@@nathanielbixby5733 Haven't watched the video in almost a year. I can't really remember exactly how it ended but I remember feeling more or less convinced of nihilism at the end of it. Not really interested in a debate in youtube comments about it.
Great to see you all together. Love Rachel 💟
I honestly sympathize with Alex because I ask those questions too, and it puts me in a state of meaninglessness where everything seems to have no meaning at all. But yeah, Rachel was right when she said that's no way to live a life. It's a crippling kind of view of the world. Definitely not a practical one. But it's so good for a philosophical discussion. I loved Stephen's patience through all of Alex's questions. He was the one engaging him all the time and went into a deep rabbit hole with Alex while Rachel tried to make sense of it all by looking at it from an average critical thinker's perspective. I was so glad she had brought up the game-rules analogy. Everything became so much clearer from there.
Please make a video about people who identify as christians but actually have a deistic worldview. This is a common occurance in my home country (Germany) and I'd like to know if the same is true for the UK and the USA. This is a problem which needs to be adressed, since these people involentarily support a belief system that they do not agree with. Love your channel, keep up the good work.
Well the thing is that many christians in Germany are amearly cultural christians and if asked never realy thought about a deity.
That is why they come up with the deistic worldview. That and because the catholic church is more and more flirting with the deistic view in order to stop people from leaving.
The PR-section of the RCC does quite a lot to depersonalise god in the public because makeing clear statements about god would make them volurable, that is why many Germans are just - let's say ill informed about the positions of christianity.
And if you confront them, they will regurgetate, what they have learned in school or their parents, but that in general is the washed down version of christianity where god has become more an idea rather than an acting force.
I was brought up in a catholic house, strict, praying eveyr meal and before bed. Going to church every sunday, high holiday and attended a form of sunday school. My mother works for the catholic church in our district. Yet when I started to read about religion, it's history creation and doctrines, no one was able to answer any catholic positions.
Even my sunday school teacher (a mon Segniore and personal friend of the former Pope John) was struggeling so answer openly what the catholic stance is - until I confronted him with the handbook of the catholci church, which he quickly tried to put down as not usefull because it's to complicated.
I would argue that at least for Germany the reason why so many people are more of a deist than a theist, is purels because the churches (beeing it lutheran or catholic) need to humor the idea of a deistic god because they feaf losing a huge amount of money. They are not deistic because they chose to but because they truly think taht is the churches position.
As for the UK - I lived in the UK for 3 years - I have little information but I want to share it with you nonetheless.
I visited a public boarding school (for any other person other than brit, a public school is a private run school - weird I know). So that was my frist interaction with another religious mindset other than the RCC. The royal church of england is less of a political force but a philosophical idea people atend to due to the social experiance.
I've not met many - what I would call practicing - christians. Most who went to chapel-services did so becuase it was a cultural aspect of their traditions. This was in Devon so quite a rural area of the UK. So maybe it is different in the north.
As for Ireland, well more and more people leave the RCC due to their political stances, yet consider themself christian. So many irish christians are deeply faithfull but have a slightly differrenet idea about god than the RCC (which you as a german might have been brought up in).
After a long study of christianity and to an extent all 3 abrahamic religions I turned out atheist, because there was no claim of god which was not contested by either sientific facts, or another verison of the same religion claiming the complete oposite. That just led me to conclude that religion is man made and has no supperior knowlage.
BUT I still humor arguments about religons and try to learn about their cultural influance, this led me to think, that because there is no "real christianity" and no "real christian", everyone who claims to be christian believes in a personal deity which might be less intrusive than the bible god but still has characteristics and demands a certain behavior.
hope that answered, a bit of your question, and why many Germans sound like deist but are christians.
"The laws of maths and the laws of physics are so different." Alex
I agree. The laws of logic and math are more of a strategy that humans use to understand and perceive the universe. The laws of physics and logic aren't even on the same plain of reality. They're expressed and shown in our physical world but that's the only known overlap.
I disagree. Maths and physics are based on fundamental assumptions. In order to produce a scientific theory you must first assume certain things to be true, likewise for maths, the tool that physicists use. These all stem from logic, considered to be the most fundamental foundation to maths reasoning. I feel this argument lacked proper context, but it is nonetheless important if we are to consider that logic is at the foundation of all we know. I encourage you to open a discrete mathematics textbook if you'd like more background to my argument.
@@ryanmeneses8534 they are all subjective then.....
I always thought of maths as being a tool we invented to help explain things while the sciences are just observations of the universe, then again I know little to nothing about maths so that is probably wrong.
The cups right there I can see it from South Africa!
How do you know it's not CGI? ;-)
Epistemological Nihilism is very interesting, and it makes me think about the very foundations of maths and the laws logic, and how to say that they are objectively "true". Because it seems to me, based on what little I know, that the beginnings of these rules are describing what all of us have observed, and have been used to prove new laws, which in turn prove more laws. It's like how in Geometry class (american 10th grade/year math) you learn about mathematical proofs of certain properties which use the basic mathematical rules to prove the more complex mathematical rules.
Coffee Caesar The laws of logic don't need to be objectively true. They just need to be functionally true. They need to be a useful way of understanding reality. When applied in science they just work. That's all we need. All this philosophising is a waste of time. If something works then it's as correct as we need it to be. We don't need to invent metaphysical philosophy to explain them. If something doesn't work anymore, if some law of logic turns out to be more a hindrance than a help in analyzing the world around us, then we discard it for something better.
This is similar to mathematical axioms. They are not provable they are merely definitions. But they are useful. If they weren't we would have switched them out for something more useful.
Great arguments on all side. I really liked the discussion at the end with the chess piece example - it rounded it out nicely and gave a clean and clear elucidation of the discussion up to that point. I lean towards the concept that I think you all ended up 'mostly' agreeing on there epistemological nihilism (with the likely exception of knowledge of self-existence) is both correct and useless from a day-to-day perspective. Just as the chess piece, we can't "step out of the game" and so discussion about things like 'purpose' (which necessarily encompasses morality, which is why I side with Steve there) can only meaningfully be discussed within that context and it should be taken for granted that any discussion not on the topic of epistemology itself make this fundamental assumption.
Dale Bewan repent and turn to Jesus and lol means Lucifer our lord
@@A-Ylover0FtheLordJesus Fuck you and your belief, you christian bigot!
Unless if your comment was actually sarcasm
I am seriously jealous that you have people who think on our level
who you can just chill with and have in-person discussions like this with.
If the law of non-contradiction is false, then it is also true, and given that it is true, it is not false.
But what if true and false just have no meaning.
They are given meaning by us. They cannot have no meaning if we give them meaning.
This comment makes me happy
I make myself happy in response to my interpretation of these words
But then how was it false to begin with?
I think, therefore I am, is a logical move. 'Therefore' is a logical word. That A leads to B, requires that logic works.
This is such a flashback to my uni years of being in a pub garden. I love discussions like this.
Watching this for a second time. I'm absolutely fascinated by the talking points in this video! It's truly made me want to study philosophy! (If only I had the credits to get into uni!)
I felt so hard for Alex, he kept trying to make sound points based on logic, and then the other two kept breaking down reality until it was possible to both exist in some form and be impossible to exist in any form. Once they broke down reality to that point, Alex returned to his point of "Well if nothing is certain then morality is subjective" while working off their baseline for what is provable. Then Steven and Rachel just started ignoring his points that came from extreme nihilism even though they were just using it beforehand.
Honestly the most annoying thing Rachel could've said in this conversation was "Why does it matter, let's just not talk about it". As a viewer this ruined the payoff of nearly two hours listening because she was too unwilling to talk about things for the sake of talking about them.
15:53 Really tickled me how he moves the cup a few inches for seemingly no reason
I've got to agree with Alex here, in order to assert that one exists, one must first grant the laws of logic
Holy shit yes! Because the laws of logic exist independently of our experience. They are truth preserving claims.
Yes but I would also like to add that it is a fallacy in itself by begging the question. How can one prove existence? Already has aprioi notions and assumes the existence so it can’t help but to beg the question.
Sorry I dont agree. If we experienced something being what it is and what it is not our laws of logic would be different. The laws of logic are just a description of what we experience. Therefor they do not preceed our experience
"I know I exist, but I don't know that I also don't not exist."
You're right. Because claiming that you know about your non-existence needs knowledge about not-contradiction law, which is inferred from experience.
I would remove "I" from list of Cartesian axioms as well. Only thing we are can be sure about is that there is experience of something. Existence of somebody who have these experiences is inferred from experiences as well.
Only existence of current experience is self-evident axiom. The rest is inferred from axioms, assumptions and experiences about which we cannot be sure.
Incorrect. This is the main problem. He can not claim that the laws of logic are false/not objective. He is using logic to do this and he is making a truth claim. Of course, you could even infer that if aliens made our universe, then it works the way it does because it has no other way of working (since they would have made it in the best way), thereby proving that this is the only universe-type and logic works in the form we see.
Well I can imagine universe where violation of non-contradiction law could be possible or at least not relevant to anything you experience. Imagine universe where your only input to consciousness is totally chaotic and doesn't make any sense. In such universe where nothing is consistent, you cannot tell there is non-contradiction law.
Marcin Łapiński ~ In nihilism is true, then there is only contradictions as perfect equality is not defined. Also why does it have to be TOTALLY chaotic? If perfectly uniformity is an impossible then it does NOT imply that is something perfectly disordered (or even that perfect disorder is possible) - a problem I have with nihilism as it is analogous to this comparison. Also law of non-contradiction only applies to binary equality which is why superposition is possible (because quantum physics is not binary) and why fuzzy logic is possible.
SoloStudios The correct way to say it is “I know I exist (in this moment) therefore I know that I cannot also not exist (in this moment)”.
Amazing to see how far ur channel has gone.
Alex is trying to say that it takes the laws of logic to get from ‘I think’ to ‘therefore I am’. Good point 👏🏾
I don't think rationality rules gets it. I'm in minute 54 and he's still not aware of what alex is trying to say.
@@reynal_omnicide9217 Well he's stuck in rationality. Even Plato and Aristotle knew there were things that were true they could not rationalize.
Jon Leb except there's no need for the laws there... The only thing specifically logical being used is the definition of an implication, and even that is irrelevant. There's just one claim, and a justification for it. There's no "getting from" A to B.
@@irrelevant_noob i think, therefore i am.
maybe you think but you arent? or maybe you arent and can still think?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas you think but apparently can't read (or comprehend)? Where-ever did you get the idea that i disagree with the STATEMENT "i think therefore i am"?! -.- All i'm saying is that such a statement is nothing but a claim, and thus doesn't require anything extra, such as laws of logic.
Alex, I'm so glad I watched this video! I agree with you 100%! I get stuck in these same questions and people don't get it! I'm so glad I'm not lonely insane...
I have to too
I'm with Alex regarding logic. if i exist, i can not not exist. it can't be "i think therefore i am" without the law of identity a=a. that's why i put logic in the bedrock with existence of self. Also, i believe that, in this forced game which is stated by existence, we are directed toward happiness. it's evolutionarily wired value system. that's why happiness is the ultimate purpose for a conscious homo sapien -unless wired otherwise-.
I've been struggling with a question though:
if our happiness or values are all what's important, why not play a dominance game? if i'm the strongest man and i can escape punishment, why not turn into a tyrant? or maybe, why not torture animals just for fun? why care about sentient beings? why not enslave weak people if i'm sure i can without harming myself? etc..
where is the abortion discussion video with Rachel? Video description says link when available but obviously it has been a long time and not posted
Wow where do I find people like this in real life? this is like my friendship goals
:/
r/INTP
There's a big point to notice here that everyone seems to miss. The Cogito was NOT an argument as Descartes presented it -- Descartes accepted it as a foundational axiom. It is invalid if it is taken as an argument. If taken as an argument, its purpose is to show the self exists, at least to the self. In its premise, 'I Think', it has assumed the consequence. If treated as an argument, and cleaned up of all invalid structures, the MOST you get is "Something exists." Depending on how we define exists, we can construct scenarios that account for the individual experiencing but not existing, though in such cases something still exist.
"If a man says to me, looking at the sky, 'I think it is going to rain, therefore I exist', I do not understand him."
I think I know where the problem with the laws of logic vs the knowledge of self lies. You can't know you exist without assuming the laws of logic, period. In saying, "I think, therefore I am," you are defining consciousness, stating that you possess it by and then logically coming to the conclusion that something must exist in order to think/ be conscious, an assumption that you *must* derive from the laws of logic. You come to the logical conclusion that you can't think and not exist, so you derive from that logic, "I think, therefore I am." So, knowing that you can't even prove your own existence without assuming logic's existence, you can't know *anything* for sure, therefore epistemological nihilism must be true, and the other two follow shortly thereafter.
Alex I love how committed you are to integrity and truth, that you are striving above all to be honest and consistent. You're making a really good argument for the morality of being truthful.. When you're arguing that there is no objective morality to begin with.
I really get what Alex was saying. To say that I think therefore I am, you have to have used logic. If it was just I think or I am then that is just a pure statement. But I think therefore I am requires the logical step of thinking that thought necessitates existence. So logic must precede existence in order for you to come to that conclusion.
logic could come in to existence with thought and therefore not precede it
I found it like a miscommunication between analytic philosopher vs continental philosopher.
Why do people think that laws of logic are somehow more 'real' than empirical physical laws? Laws of logic are 'meta' information about what we observe in the world. Laws of logic are culturally determined, although, given that we all observe (mostly) stuff on our Earth, they tend to converge to a great degree. They stop converging when we begin to observe weird stuff and when we live within weird stuff (relativistic spaceship and applied quantum mechanics), we will adopt the thinking which the maths of those physics require. Our laws of logic will work differently to what we understand now as laws of logic. We will for example not accept anymore that stuff cannot be A and non A at the same time, because it can in those dimensions. The laws of logic should be the most relative of them all.
As a former Christian who is now an atheist I find this conversation amazing!!! Nobody’s yelling, being a baby or doing any childish things,your thinking out loud. This stuff for a simpleton like myself is complicated and requires a lot of thought. It’s helping me think through my dumb thoughts. I’m having a hard time grasping morals and purpose now that I’m an atheist. So I luv this!
It's hard to grasp something that doesn't exist.
@@maartenneppelenbroek Perhaps a more charitable reading might suggest he was talking about the concepts rather than the things-in-themselves, which would presuppose their existence as actual things?
@@irish_deconstruction I guess, if you're a proponent of anthropocentrism.
I remember this discussion from my college days...in 1986. The reality of all this is you just have to hang the sense of it and try and keep busy.🤯
Thank you guys so much for making this video, i have been hopelessly drowning in Pessimistic Nihilism for years, and this discussion has helped me so much.
What is pessimistic nihilism?
Thank you for bringing the brilliant image of quantum mechanics giving you the middle finger into my mind.
What?
I do like this sort of conversation but it gets incredibly frustrating when I can't join in.
Alex is incredibly smart. This is probably my favourite part:
"It would be logically contradictory for me to say that I'm experiencing non-experience."
Which proves that the laws of logic must be foundational and perfectly true in order for us to believe anything else. Well done, Alex. I'm a Christian but I love listening to people talk about truths like this.
This channel is honestly my favorite RUclips channel of all time, no over exaggeration.
Don't change a thing alex
Rationality rules got crushed here
56:34 - when CosmicSkeptic states what i have been yelling at my screen across from space and time.
Ahhh, spending time in self isolation listening to semantic arguments about the existence of a cup, bliss! But what do I mean by bliss?...