i'll get to this in more detail another day but i don't think i could sit down and have a coffee with this guy as half the time the coffee would be actually going up my nose 🙈😂
Philosophy grad here: possible worlds are tools for linguistic explanation and analysis. It doesn’t do to get too hung up on the idea there *really* are other existing parallel worlds. This stuff really is akin to the old scholastic discussions about how many angels on a pin head. But suddenly the discussion mentions God and theology, which is quite a jump and has no particular place here…unless you schlep into theology. But remember…these are just intellectual gymnastics and not to be used to condemn non believers or to drive a view on abortion etc
High school education level layman here whose only philosophy claim is "I think about things" and has taken a few MIT philosophy MOOCs. Rightly or wrongly I understand "possible worlds" as an opening phrase to a conversation- kind of like the conversation starter " how have you been?" I think anything is "possible" until it is proven that it isn't- although I am skeptical of "possibilities" outside my senses- unicorns, brain in a vat, those sorts of things.
Robert is very intelligent, can catch many peoples drifts, probably higher iq than me, can do speed math even, i remember an episode where somebody tested him, and what i also really respect is that Robert can engage in concepts that he doesn't really "believe". It really is important to be ecletic, as otherwise, indirectly reveals ones bias. If somebody really wants to get serious about phenomena, cosmology, science, than you should study bible, quran, kabala, and not just because you seek truth but rather because millions of other people are influenced by it... and of course, Metaphysics, theology( study of nature), philosophy(life style wisdom), teleology, nomenclatures, scriptures, science, sacred science, hermeticism, math, arithmetics, poetry, sociology. If you're a real deal researcher of today, then you should have everything covered, considering the convenienceof the computer and internet....but very few do. Very few are illuminated today. In fact, those who are, are denigrated and mocked. Smarts hits the target few can reach; genius the target none else can see.
(6:20) *BL: **_"People will say therefore that if you start with possible worlds, you can get to God's existence in the end"_* ... My version of "possible worlds" is based on *conceivability.* Any existential proposition must be *logically conceivable* if it is to exist (i.e., "nothing _preventing_ its existence"). If something is logically conceivable, then the odds for its existence cannot be set to zero. True, its existence may be deemed extremely unlikely, ... but the odds for its existence cannot be deemed impossible. *Example 1:* A "Unicorn" is *logically conceivable* because there are no logical barriers to its existence, therefore it is possible that it exists. White horses, horns, wings, rainbows, and flight all exist, so a "Unicorn" would simply be an animal that possesses all of these natural characteristics. *Example 2:* A "Square Circle" is *logically inconceivable;* therefor the odds for its existence are necessarily set to zero. A square and a circle are both perfectly conceivable, but a conflation of these two geometrical shapes is _logically impossible_ based on their independent definitions. ... So, a "possible world" is any propositional form of existence that can survive the rigorous test of _logical conceivability._
As soon as one takes his stance, the ontological argument for God's existence simply fails. But it's definitely not a radical stance. It's being skeptical that a tool used for reasoning has any bearing on reality. That's a standard perspective since at least Hume or Kant.
3rd time through, still no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps the biggest bucket of word salad I've ever listened to. I'll place personal ignorance as the chief cause for that.
For something to be possible it must be attainable from actuality. It is possible for a coin toss to come up heads. But once I've thrown a tails this is no longer true. It is true that it *once* was possible to throw a head, and this we call counter factual. Unfortunately current philosophy/modal logic ignores this basic truth. The idea is presented that possible worlds can exist that did not originate from our actual one. Lewis just takes this stupidity to its logical conclusion.
Well, I think the most plausible view is that possible worlds are alternative ways that the actual world could have gone, or could go, or could one day go, and they all share an initial history with the actual world, but they are not real or concrete. Lewis held to modal realism which states that literally all possible worlds exist, and they are the same kind of thing as the actual world or that they are as real as the actual world, i.e. they are concrete things or objects.
*"Well, I think the most plausible view is that possible worlds are alternative ways that the actual world could have gone, or could go, or could one day go, and they all share an initial history with the actual world, but they are not real or concrete."* ... That is a more accurate summation of "Possible Worlds." It can be evaluated at the individual, planet, or universe level.
ruclips.net/video/qizABmgE9Ss/видео.html&si=sz15Q93LUci1Gw_N Describe the vibe: Peace and beauty surround me Forever in eternity Touch my soul My life Come to see What I’ve come to be I am who i am Here I am Come to me Unafraid in love Flow like a river’s stream Into an ocean blue A drop in an ocean Of me and you
but you are like the one person always calling out the imagination, you've mentioned it at least twenty times, that's what Dr. Leftow is finally discussing (7:42), does the imagination have a "basic level"?
i'll get to this in more detail another day but i don't think i could sit down and have a coffee with this guy as half the time the coffee would be actually going up my nose 🙈😂
I AM Balungi Francis (Author) I WAS HERE
The idea of God is the fundamental hypothesis to begin with “thinking”…
And truth, and logic, right? Because God created logic, and everybody presupposes God when they make truth claims, or reason at all.
8 minutes of gobbledygook. Actual and existent.
Philosophy grad here: possible worlds are tools for linguistic explanation and analysis. It doesn’t do to get too hung up on the idea there *really* are other existing parallel worlds. This stuff really is akin to the old scholastic discussions about how many angels on a pin head. But suddenly the discussion mentions God and theology, which is quite a jump and has no particular place here…unless you schlep into theology. But remember…these are just intellectual gymnastics and not to be used to condemn non believers or to drive a view on abortion etc
High school education level layman here whose only philosophy claim is "I think about things" and has taken a few MIT philosophy MOOCs. Rightly or wrongly I understand "possible worlds" as an opening phrase to a conversation- kind of like the conversation starter " how have you been?" I think anything is "possible" until it is proven that it isn't- although I am skeptical of "possibilities" outside my senses- unicorns, brain in a vat, those sorts of things.
Tell that to David Lewis, wherever he may now be
À good argument👏
"Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws" -Confucius
I can't understand this.
Robert is very intelligent, can catch many peoples drifts, probably higher iq than me, can do speed math even, i remember an episode where somebody tested him, and what i also really respect is that Robert can engage in concepts that he doesn't really "believe". It really is important to be ecletic, as otherwise, indirectly reveals ones bias. If somebody really wants to get serious about phenomena, cosmology, science, than you should study bible, quran, kabala, and not just because you seek truth but rather because millions of other people are influenced by it... and of course, Metaphysics, theology( study of nature), philosophy(life style wisdom), teleology, nomenclatures, scriptures, science, sacred science, hermeticism, math, arithmetics, poetry, sociology. If you're a real deal researcher of today, then you should have everything covered, considering the convenienceof the computer and internet....but very few do. Very few are illuminated today. In fact, those who are, are denigrated and mocked.
Smarts hits the target few can reach; genius the target none else can see.
Some things do not exist outside of a thinking mind.
Probabilities and possibilities and actualities, anything goes bruh. A convenient loophole to allow God back in through the back door
(6:20) *BL: **_"People will say therefore that if you start with possible worlds, you can get to God's existence in the end"_* ... My version of "possible worlds" is based on *conceivability.* Any existential proposition must be *logically conceivable* if it is to exist (i.e., "nothing _preventing_ its existence"). If something is logically conceivable, then the odds for its existence cannot be set to zero. True, its existence may be deemed extremely unlikely, ... but the odds for its existence cannot be deemed impossible.
*Example 1:* A "Unicorn" is *logically conceivable* because there are no logical barriers to its existence, therefore it is possible that it exists. White horses, horns, wings, rainbows, and flight all exist, so a "Unicorn" would simply be an animal that possesses all of these natural characteristics.
*Example 2:* A "Square Circle" is *logically inconceivable;* therefor the odds for its existence are necessarily set to zero. A square and a circle are both perfectly conceivable, but a conflation of these two geometrical shapes is _logically impossible_ based on their independent definitions.
... So, a "possible world" is any propositional form of existence that can survive the rigorous test of _logical conceivability._
As soon as one takes his stance, the ontological argument for God's existence simply fails. But it's definitely not a radical stance. It's being skeptical that a tool used for reasoning has any bearing on reality. That's a standard perspective since at least Hume or Kant.
What You Talkin About Willis????? 😂
...why do you even listen to Willis now ?... some screws could be missing..
In Bhagbat Gita God Sri Krishna shows Arjuna His cosmic form , in this form He also shows the multyverse, Paradise and hell.
Only alien civilization far from earth, another realm does not exist
3rd time through, still no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps the biggest bucket of word salad I've ever listened to. I'll place personal ignorance as the chief cause for that.
All possible worlds exist in the mind of God, it is God's mind who makes the actual world exist in combination with our individual choices.
For something to be possible it must be attainable from actuality. It is possible for a coin toss to come up heads. But once I've thrown a tails this is no longer true. It is true that it *once* was possible to throw a head, and this we call counter factual. Unfortunately current philosophy/modal logic ignores this basic truth. The idea is presented that possible worlds can exist that did not originate from our actual one. Lewis just takes this stupidity to its logical conclusion.
Dry wood is cells of fire energy packeg butt need fire for fire opening source have wee naw matchice lighter"
Well, I think the most plausible view is that possible worlds are alternative ways that the actual world could have gone, or could go, or could one day go, and they all share an initial history with the actual world, but they are not real or concrete.
Lewis held to modal realism which states that literally all possible worlds exist, and they are the same kind of thing as the actual world or that they are as real as the actual world, i.e. they are concrete things or objects.
*"Well, I think the most plausible view is that possible worlds are alternative ways that the actual world could have gone,
or could go, or could one day go, and they all share an initial history
with the actual world, but they are not real or concrete."*
... That is a more accurate summation of "Possible Worlds." It can be evaluated at the individual, planet, or universe level.
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yeah, we actually agree on many things, but it is often left unstated :)
ruclips.net/video/qizABmgE9Ss/видео.html&si=sz15Q93LUci1Gw_N
Describe the vibe:
Peace and beauty surround me
Forever in eternity
Touch my soul
My life
Come to see
What I’ve come to be
I am who i am
Here I am
Come to me
Unafraid in love
Flow like a river’s stream
Into an ocean blue
A drop in an ocean
Of me and you
This guy gets paid for this?
It's a great joy when we don't understand anything.. 😅
I ditto this.
*"It's a great joy when we don't understand anything.."*
... Could there be a "possible word" where we all DO understand?
but you are like the one person always calling out the imagination, you've mentioned it at least twenty times, that's what Dr. Leftow is finally discussing (7:42), does the imagination have a "basic level"?
@@gettaasteroid4650 Sorry, I have only opposed 'religion' and not the God concept. To me only religion is an imagination product.
It doesn’t matter--we'll never see or have direct knowledge.
Rambling rethoric NOT figure out reality about possible worlds . He shows his proposition concern possible worlds are a lot rambling.
Actual unicorns is a matter of brute force.. okay.. sight. Please interview me.
*"Actual unicorns is a matter of brute force.. okay.. sight. Please interview me."*
... Do you have a "rainbow poop" sample we can use to verify?