@Schroedinger cat paradoxon: On Interpretation section 1, part 9, Aristotle seems to solve this and similar ones by saying that: " A sea-fight must either take place tomorrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place tomorrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place tomorrow. Since propositions correspond with facts, it is evident that when in future events there is a real alternative, and a potentiality in contrary directions, the corresponding affirmation and denial have the same character. This is the case with regard to that which is not always existent or not always nonexistent. One of the two propositions in such instances must be true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is false, but must leave the alternative undecided."
Wait, how? I don't see it from his lecture. In the many world the probability of those world has to be 1. Then, you put "essence" into the picture, each of them are not 1, but all of them add to 1.
@@namapalsu2364 yeah it doesn`t follow from this lecture I just don`t see how the probabilities of two different events could be both 1, isn`t it inconsistent, i didn`t ever heard of it in normal QM probabilities have a normal distribution and all of them add up to 1. My point was that if essences have a causal influence on these probabilities, than these distributions (and thus the laws of QM) are violated but it seems like Koon`s operating on the other level, maybe he doesn`t claim the normal QM probabiblities change? Only the probabilies in the Everett interpretation? If you have a better grasp, please share
@@McRingil Check out a blog called "The Quantum Thomist" by an Oxford Quantum Physicist and Thomist Philosopher, Nigel Cundy. He also has a corresponding book which is excellent on the subject if you wanna go in depth.
in my most humble description the unified field or unified whole is 'part of' the mind of God. I say it is part of to leave room for the mind of God to extend in ways we cannot conceive of. This reality takes place in His mind, and that is the central problem to everything we cannot understand about the world. The 'simulation' if you will, is the mind of God, not a computer or binary system. And in this mind, there are various dimensions that can emerge to hold data momentarily to solve all the equations keeping conservation of energy un-violated. There are other dimensions, for example the dimension of probability like the Gaussian probability system that distributes random events over time. It remains un-violeted since the beginning of the world we know. And all of these are aspects of the way God thinks. It is eventually where the theory of everything will need to go to show any substantial and usable equations. I realize these things may seem wild and unfounded to some but they are simple and true, and also revealed in various parts of scripture. What the quantum reveals is that we are not in control of the system and yet it shows us where we do have control: at our local level of action and intent.
so does this mean that the atomism of propositional logic ought to traded in for some sort of "looking at the wholes rather than smallest parts kind of logic"?
22:50 Yep, that sounds like the solution to me. There's no deeper "why", we're just matter in motion. That may be unsatisfying, but the universe is under no obligation to be satisfying to us. Sucks to suck.
@@csongorarpad4670 The two are not in conflict, unless you are smuggling in a bunch of libertarian free will baggage that you haven't yet demonstrated.
@@NotCapitalist Your statement presupposes free will. You're doing a performative contradicting by implying that free will doesn't exist. Also.. "matter in motion" is the most ignorant statement that I've heard in a while. Do some reflection and be more skeptic about your own beliefs rather than take your presuppositions for granted and as objective truth
@@csongorarpad4670 It doesn't though. Even if free will doesn't exist at all, I could make the exact same statement for the exact same reasons. The fact that I made a statement "consciously" only implies free will if consciousness implies free will, which hasn't been demonstrated. Moreover, there are other interpretations of free will (i.e. compatabilism) that allow for a form of non-libertarian free will in a deterministic universe. I'm sorry the idea that you are made of matter offends you, but so far as I'm aware there's insufficient evidence for anything else & the "matter in motion" model explains all available phenomenon. I'm always happy to be proven wrong, so if you have sufficient evidence to show the existence of something non-material about the human mind or body I'd love to see it. Without such evidence, though, the simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence is the materialistic one.
![David Nystrom: Ovid [Torrey Honors Context Lecture]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FQaykZo_TuU/mqdefault.jpg)
![David Nystrom: Ovid [Torrey Honors Context Lecture]](/img/tr.png)
![Dr. Vince Bantu: Egyptian Christological Identity [Torrey Honors Institute]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tua_21nIToM/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a theoretical physicist and this has been incredibly eye opening. Thank you!
This is just another proof that catholic philosophers > all
amen brother
Haha
@Schroedinger cat paradoxon: On Interpretation section 1, part 9, Aristotle seems to solve this and similar ones by saying that: " A sea-fight must either take place tomorrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place tomorrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place tomorrow. Since propositions correspond with facts, it is evident that when in future events there is a real alternative, and a potentiality in contrary directions, the corresponding affirmation and denial have the same character.
This is the case with regard to that which is not always existent or not always nonexistent. One of the two propositions in such instances must be true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is false, but must leave the alternative undecided."
Great talk! Thank you very much, Professor Koons.
Thanks for putting this up!
Fascinating lecture. Great stuff.
Amazing! Very eye opening!
What about uncertainity prínciple and causality?
the problem is if essences would really actualize the potencies it would violate their probabilities
Wait, how? I don't see it from his lecture.
In the many world the probability of those world has to be 1. Then, you put "essence" into the picture, each of them are not 1, but all of them add to 1.
@@namapalsu2364 yeah it doesn`t follow from this lecture
I just don`t see how the probabilities of two different events could be both 1, isn`t it inconsistent, i didn`t ever heard of it
in normal QM probabilities have a normal distribution and all of them add up to 1. My point was that if essences have a causal influence on these probabilities, than these distributions (and thus the laws of QM) are violated
but it seems like Koon`s operating on the other level, maybe he doesn`t claim the normal QM probabiblities change? Only the probabilies in the Everett interpretation? If you have a better grasp, please share
@@McRingil Check out a blog called "The Quantum Thomist" by an Oxford Quantum Physicist and Thomist Philosopher, Nigel Cundy. He also has a corresponding book which is excellent on the subject if you wanna go in depth.
@@fiveadayproductions987 gonna check him out, thanks
I read "Rob Koons" and "quantum." I pressed "like."
Notice the "Biola University" ... There's no more "like" button.
What's wrong with Biola?
in my most humble description the unified field or unified whole is 'part of' the mind of God. I say it is part of to leave room for the mind of God to extend in ways we cannot conceive of. This reality takes place in His mind, and that is the central problem to everything we cannot understand about the world. The 'simulation' if you will, is the mind of God, not a computer or binary system. And in this mind, there are various dimensions that can emerge to hold data momentarily to solve all the equations keeping conservation of energy un-violated. There are other dimensions, for example the dimension of probability like the Gaussian probability system that distributes random events over time. It remains un-violeted since the beginning of the world we know. And all of these are aspects of the way God thinks. It is eventually where the theory of everything will need to go to show any substantial and usable equations. I realize these things may seem wild and unfounded to some but they are simple and true, and also revealed in various parts of scripture. What the quantum reveals is that we are not in control of the system and yet it shows us where we do have control: at our local level of action and intent.
so does this mean that the atomism of propositional logic ought to traded in for some sort of "looking at the wholes rather than smallest parts kind of logic"?
Alex Rogovik wholes and parts refer to objects.
@@jmdomaniii does it?
@@abdulrahmanbajodah1502 i mean yeah; plus atoms in logic aren’t possible smallest with definitions
😂 nah. metaphysics is not the future...
Things that don't go together:
Oil and water.
Pineapple and pizza.
Aristotle and Quantum mechanics.
22:50 Yep, that sounds like the solution to me. There's no deeper "why", we're just matter in motion. That may be unsatisfying, but the universe is under no obligation to be satisfying to us. Sucks to suck.
Are you going to ignore the other 22 minutes?
>We're just matter in motion
>I consciously wrote this comment
Pick one
@@csongorarpad4670 The two are not in conflict, unless you are smuggling in a bunch of libertarian free will baggage that you haven't yet demonstrated.
@@NotCapitalist Your statement presupposes free will. You're doing a performative contradicting by implying that free will doesn't exist.
Also.. "matter in motion" is the most ignorant statement that I've heard in a while. Do some reflection and be more skeptic about your own beliefs rather than take your presuppositions for granted and as objective truth
@@csongorarpad4670 It doesn't though. Even if free will doesn't exist at all, I could make the exact same statement for the exact same reasons. The fact that I made a statement "consciously" only implies free will if consciousness implies free will, which hasn't been demonstrated. Moreover, there are other interpretations of free will (i.e. compatabilism) that allow for a form of non-libertarian free will in a deterministic universe.
I'm sorry the idea that you are made of matter offends you, but so far as I'm aware there's insufficient evidence for anything else & the "matter in motion" model explains all available phenomenon. I'm always happy to be proven wrong, so if you have sufficient evidence to show the existence of something non-material about the human mind or body I'd love to see it. Without such evidence, though, the simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence is the materialistic one.