George Ellis - What Things Really Exist?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 янв 2023
- When you ask what things really exist, and you think deeply about this probe to apprehend what is out there, you see the whole world anew. What are the most general categories to understand the world? It’s such a simple question; how can it inspire such profound insights?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on existence: closertotruth.com/video/ellge...
George F. R. Ellis is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
In my effort to contextualize this conversation, I itemized the categories (beginning with 4 of them, ending with 6 in total). Others might also find this list helpful:
0:34 firstly the world of particles and forces
1:18 the world of human intentions and thoughts
2:46 The class of physical possibilities
4:36 Mathematics
7:55 The world of moral reality
8:34 Meta world
Every moment with George Ellis is a moment of clarity
In little less than 10 mins this guy has completely blown my mind with an unGodly amount of notions and ideas.
Beautiful, infinite discoveries, all mathematically true and beyond this temporal reality, wild.
I always grab my glasses whenever these videos start!
And I put them away to better concentrate on what they are talking about.
Finally, someone talking 99% sense on this channel.... Respect.
How his nonsense managed to completely outshine the 99% is astounding.
@@bobbabai Many prominent cosmologists believe in the "multiverse". A lot of people think believing in an infinite number of worlds exactly like this one and an infinite number of another exactly like this one but with the slightest variation "nonsense" too or should at least be considered metaphysics, not science.
@bobbabai mathematically that is right but in this reality, it doesn't help anyone, that's what Sabine H and Penrose or even Eric W are trying to say.
This guy is cool, like what he's got to say. Balanced and well presented
That nine and half minutes, passed at velocity c. Astounding capsule of thought.
Excellent series this Closer to Truth.
My warm gratitude goes to Lawrence Kuhn!
One may as well ask, 'what is existence?'
But here we are.
Interesting talk! Enjoyed it.
the last statment by george ellis was very very deep
I keep thinking I am very bad and deserve eternal punishment.
But actually, I am amazing. I can walk and talk and play the piano !
I do the cooking, cleaning, shopping and washing up. Brilliant.
I think that morals fall in the same category as his jumbo jet example - a concept shared across a group of people. While some morals concepts are more or less global, others are wildly different and change over time as societies change.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
― Zhuangzi
All these categories that George Ellis provides, I believe, can be subsumed under one umbrella category, *knowing how to be* (Dasein?). Martin Heidegger's Dasein is one possible expression of the concept, though his anthropocentric emphasis expresses it in the context of the human condition and culture. But the thing is, I think that this concept of *knowing how to be* (and the generalized form of Heidegger's Dasein) extends all the way to matter, physics, the quantum void, and the subatomic particles whose properties depend on the contexts in which they find themselves.
Within the domain of quantum mechanics, particles pop into and out of existence, within the possibility space of the quantum void (Ellis' third category), to manifest Ellis' first category, the world of particles and forces.
Ellis' reference to possibility space is particularly important not just for humans and other living organisms, but also for matter and the quantum void. *Knowing how to be* must surely be integral to making real that which is possible.
The world of human intentions and thoughts (Ellis' second category) relates to human culture and again, culture is the source of human *knowing how to be* (Dasein, principally as the context Heidegger intended).
*Knowing how to be* relates to semiotic/biosemiotic theory (CS Peirce and J von Uexküll) with meaning and association as the fundamentals that apply to every form of life.
*Knowing how to be* is the top-down direction of causation that engages with the bottom-up. The bottom-up constrains what the top-down can command. Semiotic theory is the top-down that is difficult to quantify and verify within the narrative of physicalism and bottom-up causation. Despite this difficulty, however, semiotic theory, as the science of *knowing how to be* , deserves a seat at the table.
The world of moral reality can be best understood in the context of culture. That which is moral is that which makes life worth living, and this relates to culture. But animals also show moral predispositions. Consider, for example, mothers of different species raising their young. Witness the alpha male of a troop of silverback gorillas as he gently guides his troop of nervous ladies and children across a highway (as per a video clip I saw). There's the innocent helplessness of the young, of many species, that would never survive without the caring interventions of their parents feeding them and protecting them. Prides of lions have their moral obligations within the pride, in hunting, sharing and protecting. Yes, questions of morality do indeed seem to extend also to the animal kingdom... though these would be invisible to those physicalists who dismiss animal behavior as "instinct".
Mathematics is interesting, not sure how to frame it in the context of *knowing how to be* . On the one hand, maybe it's an expression of the symmetries that precipitate from the quantum void. On the other hand, maybe mathematics is the *meaning* that humans attribute to the numbers and relations that have no meaning when there is no-one around to observe and count them.
The bottom line, I suggest, is that Ellis' categories overlap and the universal that provides the umbrella category under which all of them can be embraced is the *knowing how to be*. For those who believe in God, yes, you have the option to express it in those terms, if you want, but that's not the direction I would take it.
I wonder if this *knowing how to be* is the sixth meta category that Ellis is describing.
What was the interruption about?
The understanding of George is so realistic and simple. Deep but so simply put. 🔥
What is there outside of the mind and before observation? This is the question
Acknowledgement to George Ellis, and thank you CTT.
The Ancient Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, and from Pythagoras to Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Dionysius, Eriugena, Eckhart, whom i am currently studying, have acknowledged these Metaphysical Truths. And emphasis must be due given for Why it has taken so long, concerning our day and age, to acknowledge too these Prinicples that our Ancestors have revealed long ago, I can only reason by saying an infiltration has occur in the modern 'pseudo science' aka the cult of atomism and the good quality concerning this negative manipulation acts in itself and filter so in distinguishing who is Truly worthy of the appellation 'Philosopher' and to that whom is a sophists(fake) to the modern concensus rather than 'Seeker of Truth'.
Ultimately: science, mysticism, feild theory, metaphysics, physics, theology are all talking about the the same things, differing only in mode and approach.
Sophists here who comment like Matt Woodling, kos mos, gruawolfe are not doing science although they claim to; while they disregard God, Metaphysics, Philosophy, The Sciptures, and are absolutely not whom they claim to be, are not genuine rather are band wagon jumpers.
Interesting.
George Ellis information is outdated.
@@kos-mos1127 metaphysics principles can never be outdated; it's not teleology which physics deals with.
You're a bad person; contemptible.
Closer to truth
possibility demand existence
The things that really exist are waves in the space-time continuum.
"Particle physics" is actually about waves !
I liked Emanuel Kan!!😂😂❤
Anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness "exists" is some context or another.
*"Anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness "exists" is some context or another."*
... Exactly. The litmus test for anything that exists is if it can be "removed." If it can be _removed,_ then it exists.
please tell me what "absolute nothingess" is !
@@osip7315 *"please tell me what "absolute nothingess" is !"*
... The absence of everything.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC where did "everything" go ?
@@osip7315 *"where did "everything" go ?"*
... It's all still here the last time I checked.
George Ellis encompasses everything concerning what all exists, which is sensible and easy to tolerate!
It's a start. The whole morality thing is dubious at best.
@@tschorsch perhaps the whole morality thing should be included in the social construct category.
😀 i dont have a words to describe this grandpa explanation, thank you.. 🤩
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP: what's the difference between categories 3 and 4? Couldn't make it out.
You're right, they are basically the same thing. I had to re-watch it to see. He actually fails to see how mathematics underlies everything.
❤️💯
If what is real is predicated on it being causally effective then it seems that time must be said to exist. Evil does not exist and we should instead consider what is rational/irrational with regard to the continued existence of the individual. .
This man is a Giant.
I see mathematics and physical 'laws' quite differently. To me these are descriptions and mathematics is simply a language. It doesn't define anything as real any more than any language does, it simply describes things. Whether or not the description is meaningful or useful works in exactly the same way as it does with any language. The statement "2 + 2 = 5" is intelligible, meaningful and accurate or inaccurate in exactly the same ways as the statement "the present king of France has a beard". Both descriptions follow the correct form linguistically but don't correspond to real objects or real relationships. There is a space of possible expressions in english that obey the grammar of English and describe reality, or possibilities in reality and there is a space of expressions in mathematics that are consistent with the rules of mathematics and describe real or possible relationships. That's all that the supposed world of platonic ideal is, it's a theoretical space of consistent expressions, but by itself it has no reality. A language simply describes real things and real relationships, or possible things and possible relationships, or it doesn't. Mathematics works the same way. We can't meaningfully talk about it being real in itself, we can only talk about it being consistent with it's own rules as a descriptive language, and whether or not it corresponding to real things or possible things and possible relationships in the real world. Such expressions can't define reality, they can only be consistent with it. The same goes for physical laws, as linguistic expressions.
ALL THE THINGS REALLY EXIST
Me for example, i really exist, and i can make you feel my power.
Prove it
How do you know the particles and fields really exist?
You don't
Ask Japan. They can tell you how they know
Intention, emotions,…etc are just a kind of manifestation of something more sophisticated and complex.
they are not independent!
So the 4 kinds of existence would be : physical, social, possible, mathematical. I think some of these can be reduced to others depending on the perspective. In principle, we could explain "social causality" solely with the physical relationship between all particles. Some would argue that the physical world is entirely mathematical. Etc. I think Ellis' analysis is lacking in that way - at least he should tackle this quite obvious objection.
And that's wrong, it's physical, ethological (instead of social, ethological is much more important), possible and mathematical, which doesn't exist. So for Palto, it is the definition, the image, the idea, and the scientific knowledge which is the hardest to get.
What is the relevance of being able to say "this is evil"?
The person can simply respond by saying "yeah, this is evil, but I want to do evil"
Deep.
...Dr. Elias please I would like to offer some information. First Time/Space moves in a Turbulent Flow, which includes Vortices and Eddies. This would easily explain the incidents/accidents of life, in all our lives. Also the Multiverse are true in that we all make choices as we move with Time/Space. Everyone makes a choice
The choice we make has a rippling effect in Time/Space. Anyone tries to put run a light,tight schedule, etc, and as an end result causes an accident. Someone or others are left handicapped or die. Everyone's life is effected. An example of Multiverse. Had another slowed down, was more patient, no loss of life would have been experienced. I love the LORD and marvel at HIS creation, respectfully, ordinary Charles Struse Sr. Blessings
I think the intention of the question was - what fundamentally exists. Very truncated analysis. Similar to answers in the emergence video. It looks like every possible thing I can think of making using Legos or I can make fundamentaly exist. If that is the case, then it can be said that every possible physics allowed combination of space, time forces, fields, and particles exists and thus becomes trivially meaningless.
Yes, that's an excellent point that I think my brain hoped to make elsewhere but didn't manage it. Once you start accepting the possibilities of things as being the same "amount" of reasons as the things you can actually measure, the meaning of "things" and "reality" becomes empty.
Does thought exist without conciousness or Visa versa? 🎸❤
Consciousness can exist without thought, but not the other way around
@@xenphoton5833 how can consciousness exist without thoughts? That’s bizarre.
Consciousness is awareness . Of oneself and our actions .
Nothing exists in an absolute sense.
Patterns in the purely relative state manifest as the world of experience.
Intentionality doesn't necessarily have an effect in and of itself, though. It typically has to be actualized through a physical behavior. In fact, reality often operates contrary even to our best intentions. We also know that there can be unintended consequences to actions. So altogether there doesn't appear to be a one-to-one causal relationship in regard to intention.
I like the idea of a possibility space. I think it undermines the argument that math/physical laws are emergent, which has always seemed like a stretch. And that would mean - since the universe began according to particular laws and not others (that might and probably do not exist) - that "something" (i.e., those particular operational laws) would have to have pre-existed the universe.
Oh wow, he goes into moral reality! I agree 100%. The Torah is mathematical, ergo morality is fundamental! Morality itself is a possibility space.
It does the physical is simply the medium through which the intention us expressed as my intention to your points now demonstrates
A "possibility space" is essentially the same thing as a "latent space". This video effectively illustrates what a latent or possibility space is:
ruclips.net/video/aR6M0MQBo2w/видео.html
@@chrisbennett6260 Does an intention always result in a physical action? Or do you sometimes have intentions to do things that you don't follow through with?
@@alexgonzo5508 Appreciate it, thanks.
Wow. I think I agree with this guy. Makes total sense.
Very elegant thinker
The fascination with math and physics. We can say that math comes from brains that perceive pafterns, symettry, regularities and conversely non-symettry, singularity, irregularities etc. Mind creates language including the language of math. Language is biological and biology is derived from the physical. We can say math IS physics or physics IS math.
If life on the earth will go, then what will happen to the moral reality and gods?
The further we move from the earth we become atoms. The same way we can observe Atoms as we break down structures
I believe that the ONLY thing that ANY ONE person can know with CERTAINTY is "I Exist".... not just because I "Think", but, because "I" am the one asking asking that question re existence, reality, etc. EVERY THING else beyond my "self" MAY be just my experience of a "Virtual Reality"... aka a Dream!
So you deny all certain knowledge?
Maybe so, but in that context we can just re-phrase the question as, what things should take as existing, or consider to exist, given a consistent view of the world. I doesn't remove the problem of still needing to engage with our experienced reality.
@@simonhibbs887
Consistency is an interesting point because it’s somewhat ironic that you bring up arbitrary value judgements like what we “should” do.
@@deanodebo For goodness sake please don't do that. I didn't say we should do anything, it was a question which clearly could be answered differently by different people with different assumptions about our relationship to the world and reality. There was nothing arbitrary about it.
@@simonhibbs887
“There was nothing arbitrary about it”
How can one determine the criteria for what he SHOULD do if not by way of arbitrary value judgments?
'Exist' is just a human word/concept. Nothing actually exists. Or better, everything exists and doesnt exist at the same time.
Brilliant 10/10
Argghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh focus fade-in.
The "only thing" the existence of God, the belief in the existence of God, the belief in the belief in, the doubt in the belief.....has lead to is the evolution and existence of modern civilizations.. IMHO.
Ol' George Ellis has read some Kant!
about the mathematics i would think that, that would have to do with the dimension but i been wrong before.
Physics and Maths have to be the same across the Universe for the Universe to function as designed. However, we know far less about Physics than we think we do and certainly understand far less about Physics than we do Maths. There's a 5th state not quite scraped on enough that is necessary to understand it all.
Nature, Reality, and illusions are the three categories.
Natural- created by nature like Stars, planets, life on earth etc.
Reality - created by humans with natural raw materials, can be experienced
Illusions - concepts created by human thoughts, can not be experienced, beliefs like God, nations, religions etc
reeks of bs
The problem with this kind of assertion is that real has a definition in which reality is a derivative. The assertions of the author only work if one expands the definition. Real is not what all is possible, it has to do with tangibility. Just to give an example string theory posits there can be 10E500 universii types, but since string theory is a possibility then one can argue reality is composed of an infinity number of universes with astornomically large numbers of types, but physics always warne us that infinities of result from contradictions within a set of theories.
I don't really think that in effect we've progressed much philosophically from the 17th century and the work of Descartes, "I think therefore I am". Can anyone better this when trying to explain reality or what really exists? I know we've progressed exponentially in technology etc but all we're really sure of is the "voice" in our head and our consciousness, everything else could be illusion.
"Intelligent Design" Is it scientific method for the existence of The God??? Please make a video on this.
How is it a method ? It’s a conclusion , not a method . ( and in my view, a consumption without evidence )
If we can realise realistically, there exists the fundamental partticles, fundamental forces. These fundamental particles and the forces brought human beings into existence. Gravitational forces, strong forces, weak forces and electromagnetism play crucial role in every day life. Every creativities and creations of human world, every inventions to innovations to every designings and developments, every productions to manufacturings of human world is due to every forces and particles. Through our every inventions and innovations we have developed laws of science, laws of physics to understand the reasons behind every causes to every changes behind our existence, behind the existence of every material phenomenons. We have developed mathematical theories to simplify every complexities and complications of universe. We have even discovered nothing existed, nothing exists and nothing would exist without big bang. May be the next day, some people, would discover some other fundamental theories that has lead to the existence of every realities.
By design humans will never get answers to these questions
Firstly, you’d have to prove design. And secondly you have to prove we can’t
Interesting but ultimately unsatisfying of course . .
This is a refreshing concept. Donald Hoffman should watch this video.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
Every possible concrete thing either has no parts (and thus has the structure of the empty set) or has parts (and thus has the structure of a non-empty set). These concrete things make up all possible worlds and all possible worlds are real worlds because there is no difference between possible and real. Oh, and all these structures are in principle described by set theory, which is the foundation of mathematics.
It depends how you define "really." They never did that.
really means independent of an observer
@@ajsirch How can anything be independent of an observer when observer humans are an essential part of the equation?
@@browngreen933 Suppose everyone died, would the four categories of extant things still exist?
@@ajsirch Certainly they wouldn't exist in the same way that we conceive and conceptualize them.
@@ajsirch Concrete things would still exists.
i beg to differ: i know it! therefore im...
Due to the poor editing, are they both reading a teleprompter?
sounds like it. with a director.
Brian green your obviouslyv entitled to your position which in truth iis yourself .
with what your mentally settled with as being true
and that's all their is to
and this more than likely refers to every commentaor on this video including the interviewer and the one being interviewd on some level
when all humanity dies what exists
Everything but humanity
What things don't exist? Robert's body in this video.
Using God as an argument is the antithesis of Occam's Razor.
human will of political government is moral relativism, while God's sovereign will is moral absolute? substantive choices made to God's sovereign will are moral, political choices for human will are not?
5 worlds!
Only quantum’s if energy, discrete machines exist.
god exists, but so does "not god", can this be reconciled ?
Here is a great answer from PBS- What really exists? ONLY MATH! ruclips.net/video/F__elfR3w8c/видео.html
thinking is more powerfull that the thing
None of you exist until you comment on my comment. Is that how it works?
How does it feel to finally exist?
@@tonyatkinson2210 like seeing my name in the phone book. ❤ THANK YOU!!! And congratulations on your new existence too!
I'm not so sure about the causal power of human intentions/consciousness/social context.
Sure, that's one way of describing the causes and effects we see in the world: I consciously intend to raise my arm, and my arm goes up (as John Searle says). But there is another, parallel, complete causal story that just talks about the neurons in my brain firing in a certain pattern which, maybe interacting with input through my sense organs, causes my arm to go up.
So we seem to have two different causes for the same event: a mental cause (my intention) and a physical cause (the neurons in my brain interacting through action potentials and neurotransmitters). Looks to me like the mental events are epiphenomenal, they're not adding anything to the causal story, they're just providing an easily recognisable high-level account.
I'm not defending eliminative materialism here - I really am conscious, and no one will persuade me otherwise - but I'm unconvinced by the causal power of consciousness.
As for platonism...it looks to me like the physical world has a certain structure that can be decoded by humans in the form of mathematics (which might be decoded by another species in another form). The mathematics that doesn't describe the physical world seems to me to be what our minds are able to imagine or extrapolate from patterns existing in reality. And the structure of nature constrains what those extrapolations can be, so they are discovered rather than invented, without them existing independently of the physical world.
As for moral realism...nah. One can construct rational moral arguments along utilitarian lines which don't demand any mind-independent moral facts. If we regard human suffering as a shared value, a "common currency", and if we can agree that rationality is our only hope of making justifiable decisions about our actions, then we can reach a consensus that genocide is wrong. We don't need mind-independent moral facts to avoid relativism, we just need a consensus based on shared experience.
There is the smell of the destructive irrational meanness of the apes (somehow)!
is it the sequence of the videos or did the irrational apes re-edited the videos!
*"Existence"* is anything that does meet the definition of *"Nonexistence."* If you can conceive something, then whatever it is qualifies as something that _can_ exist. - even if it has no physical substrate, dimensional properties, or measurability. *Example:* A single mathematical point has no substrate, no dimension, and it cannot be measured, ... but it _still exists!_
And for those who claim that "Nonexistence" is conceivable, ... it is not. Conceivability requires _something_ to be conceived. Nonexistence does not meet the criteria.
Rambling gibberish
So far, a mathematical point only exists an imperfect concept in a meat brain. It exists as a complex set of neural states and activities that fool themselves into believing it is actually something real.
Non-existence is conceivable, imperfectly like every other concept.
@@tschorsch *"So far, a mathematical point only exists an imperfect concept in a meat brain. It exists as a complex set of neural states and activities that fool themselves into believing it is actually something real."*
... *Pop Quiz:* Which of the following two conditions accurately represents "Nonexistence:"
*(1)* The absence of everything.
*(2)* The absence of everything except for a single mathematical point.
@Phoenix *"Everything we see in the objective reality or matrix is made out of light holograms (Pixels) including: wood, iron, stone, meat, human body"*
... A hologram of what? What else is "Existence" (reality) that it needs to be presented as a hologram and not simply "reality?"
*"It’s like a light show (simulation) that is running inside a matrix or a computer based reality. A matrix inside the Base reality!"*
... Who programmed this "simulation," that we are in, what is this simulation "simulating," and are the ones who programmed this simulation also in a simulation? And the ones who programmed that simulation, are they also in someone else's simulation?
If possibilities are more real than real things, doesn't that mean unicorns exist?
You decide
6:22 Bob is there anything else in that platonic realm like relationships or logical possiblilities ... so that world your world four your category. 7:47 GE: I like my colleague Nancy Mruphy believe that there is in some sense also a abstract or platonic world of moral reality that the moral reality is laid down in some sense and this is because if you don't have such a thing you are unable to characterize and act as genuinely evil or genuinely good if you don't believe in a moral reality you either have to follow the moral relativists and say well Hitler behave that way that was acceptable in his society the genocide in Rwanda that was acceptable in that society you cannot say it is evil if you don't believe in a moral reality independent of time and culture and place. 8:27 so this becomes your fifth world, ... 👍GE: it becomes my fifth, yes. (you also talk about a meta world) okay the question is what is the is the foundation of all of these worlds and the age-old theological position on this which is that these in turn are based in the nature of God they are in the mind of God something like that and I think some such unifying explanation is a satisfying explanation which satisfies the Occam's razor of view of life a very simple foundational view which underlies the nature of these things now that relies on all sorts of other kinds of argument and the thing which is absolutely clear this cannot be proved to correct belief that this is ture is a faith statement and there's no way it'll ever be proven by science by philosophy it will always be something which you adopt as a faith hypothesis that also the attempt to show it is incorrect also can it be you cannot prove this does not exist God does not exist and when some scientists try to say science proves God does not exist that is an intellectually incorrect statement it's false philosophy and that has ben know since the time of Emmanuel Kant.
Convince me that love,
is not mathematics?
I that comes down to your definition
@@chrisbennett6260
Is that an attempt to convince me?
@@chrisbennett6260
It all depends on how narrowly one defines love.
In fact love is all-encompassing, but it's only there if you seek it, and know that you found it because it is always true, and it never changes, only expands.
You’d need to define what you mean by love . It’s a star game concept that means different things to different people
@@tonyatkinson2210
I'm challenging people's belief in the definition of love, as well as mathematics
*GEORGE ELLIS~! (Immanuel KANT~! Philosopher! Got to love it! Respect it too!) What's MISSING here? Quantum graduation, escalation = for every 'action' .. there is an ''equal'' and ''opposite'' REACTION! = **Quantum discipline existence toward an ''apex'' .. TARGET .. then .. degradation (*? Time ?*) ., as being [ *Time* ] .. traversing a path through a ''vortex current'' within an escape continuum .. (Infinity) .. module resulting toward .. a force of ''dissipation arrival'' ! No? ., WELL?.. ( Gee Whiz! .. Tried my best here~!) (*Peace!) COMPRENDE``!`` .. 'Si?'
Wow. It might have been helpful if this video articulating the notion that science cannot disprove the existence of God had been published and viewed in advance of all those videos wherein some scientist claims to have disproved the existence of God.
Just saying.
Would be good
Which scientists have said they can prove his doesn’t exist . I’m an atheist and I know of no scientist that is saying this
this guy lives in the 18th century
They are so sensitive and emotional, they are so worried about AI, it could become sentient and suffer without knowing that.
full of humanity too !
How utterly crushing must be the beauty of Math that those who are good at it get so easily seduced into a Platonic Dualism
I’m curious. Do you think “3” is objective or subjective?
@@deanodebo if I add one cloud with another cloud, do I then have one cloud or two? 1+1=2?
@@xenphoton5833
Ok so you didn’t answer the question which indicates perhaps your worldview doesn’t have an answer.
If you’re an honest interlocutor then questions get answered in the order they’re put on the table.
You’re appealing to numbers. The quantity 2 that you used to describe how many clouds you’re referring to - is that number 2 objective or subjective?
@@deanodebo It's descriptive. Mathematics is a language and numbers are descriptive attributes we can reason about abstractly when doing pure mathematics, or assign to corresponding objects in the real world to describe and reason about real physical relationships (such as in geometry) and behaviour (as in physics).
@@deanodebo A bit of an oddball question, but no matter. I'm not sure it falls into either category, because 1, 2, and 3 is are just labels. Symbols we made up and have assigned to specific state of affairs that we recognise. We could have made up other symbols, and of course in fact we did. The Chinese use 一 , 二, 三 for instance. So it seems the symbols themselves are arbitrary and that makes them subjective I guess. But we discovered that we can make the state of affairs "3" different ways. We can add 1 and 1 and 1, or 2 and 1, or 1 and 2 and the end result is 3. No matter what symbol you use, so that makes those discoveries objective facts.
The fact that "god" is an unfalsifiable premise imparts no specific truth to it. To clarify: there is not, and cannot be, proof of something that does not exist.
That’s not how falsification works. To clarify; there is, and can, not be proof of something that does not exist because there is not, and can exist nothing that does not prove it does not exist. Prove god does not exist.
@@charlie-km1et I think you need to restate whatever you meant because, as is, it doesn't make sense.
@@charlie-km1et To clarify further: "proof" is only applicable to that which does exist. There is no proof of something that does not exist. The logic is inescapable. Thus, I will not be challenged to "prove" that something does not exist. You prove that it does or stop typing.
@@markpmar0356 Then you should be attempting to explain the five (or whatever number you prefer) "fundamental things" without God included. George Ellis mentioned that hypothesizing a God would fulfil Occam's Razor for these things. What is this unknown unifier to you?
"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god"
@@markpmar0356 What exactly do you mean by "prove"? What probability threshold are you assigning the word "prove" to?
They have complete misunderstanding of space, basically they talk about what the don’t understand, and the interpretations of so-called evolution is wrong too, there’s evolution but the interpretations are wrong.
Qualify your understanding ie your concepts of the conception of evolution further
He believes possibilities phich momentum exist but inst phich reality. It is his abstraction in phich reality. He doesnt knows fundamental law phich . Phisc reality are underteminate because unpredicted conscieness unfit reality. Guys elementary phich lacks true proceedings.
Only the physical exists. All his other categories depend on that. Without physical reality the other categories disappear.
Yes and at the same time without the presence of awarness the phyiscal would have no presence of existence to start with
@@chrisbennett6260 Wrong. A stone exists whether you are aware of it hitting you in the head or not.
@@notanemoprog who says so ,you say do ,but that hat stone has no relation to you you if you are absent ,
but you think what you want to think ,it aint no thing but a chicken wing
@@chrisbennett6260 Chicken wings FTW!
@@chrisbennett6260 ldealist? Lmao
We don't know that particles exist. Particle are just gravity spinning inside holes in space like bubbles in water. Then there is only 1 force as well, the other forces are the same as the first force. Mathematics definitely doesn't exist, it's silly to think that mathematics is real. What really exists? The Aether, and Gravity are the only two things required to get everything out.
I thought Einstein was a genius but in one swoop you’ve unified all of physics . We done, sir. I can’t wait until you get your paper published and peer reviewed by other experts. When you win the Nobel prize, I’ll remember this comment as your first steps towards being regarded as the greatest scientist of the 21st century .
@@tonyatkinson2210 Peer Review doesn't work, and maths isn't a form of proof. So Nobel Prize is an insult to me... apart from the money which I could use to create a computer simulation of the universe using just the Aether, and gravity.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591
Math isn’t a form of proof but you want a computer to model your universe ? I’d like to see that done without math .
@@tonyatkinson2210 You can program a computer using the physics of the universe without maths. If you tell a computer that 1 + 1 = 3 it will give you 3. Is that maths? It is following rules.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591 I think the rules of the universe are a bit more elaborate . Just modelling gravity requires numerous formulas . The data is vast and results in its own mathematical problems , particularly I’m with interpreting output . Then your going to have to make calculations to check the models are outputting correctly . Computer programs are - by and large , mathematical in nature .
And of course your proof . Will have to be mathematically sound . You can’t have a model that produces galaxies that do t look like galaxies. You need math to compare them
They categorise things too!
that is conscious that is not conscious,…
It’s extra luxury not doubt.
They said: If they are super intelligent machines then maybe they are super suffering !
luxury of emotions, luxury of intelligence,…. luxury of everything!
Do the apes re-edit the videos, there is something not normal as if the irrational apes use the destructive irrational meanness!