I love listening to Barry Loewer, he is always keen on presenting his ideas to the public in a clear and easily understandable manner, even when their deeper layers reveal high complexity and technical nuance. He is not afraid to admit when he's wrong, and is always sceptically open to raise difficult questions about not only what lies at the edge of our current scientific or philosophical understanding, but about some of the well-established views as well, particularly in metaphysics and philosophy of science. I am not acquainted with his philosophy as well as I would like to be, but I suspect there wouldn't be a lot of ground for disagreement between us.
@@ROForeverMan agree incoherencies in His views are repulsive. FOr me, Existent are abstracts defined in infinity - like point, or identity axiom, or neutral number. And those things don't need space- because what is that? You can have point and no space so it's not fundamental.
This video and the prior with Rudolph Tanzi are the kinds of science guys i really like learning from and i feel those whom are truly endeavoring the Truth. We're actually making way. Thank you much. I watch all the videos.
My personal opinion and also something that I believe we can all most likely relate to or find some element of peace from is the fact that back In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The A-Team
When I was young the world was more real. Movies, politics, religion, cars, planes, trees, animals, etcetera. As one becomes more familiar with the world, with the consistency of things, the world becomes less real. Laws are like this; they are the delusion of consistency that makes us consider the world less real. To be comfortable with the laws of science is to treat the world with familiarity, a familiarity that breeds contempt. Not contempt for the world but contempt for the Uncertainty of our place in it: arrogance. Young eyes refresh the newness and respect for the world. An unwillingness to trust what others say about it. The courage to find out for one's self what the world is like and our place in it. Who knows what is more real, the scientist or the child?
@@ROForeverMan thats what i get for trying to comment on a video in the middle of a 5k run in 90 degree heat. this wasn't the video i meant to comment on. my bad.
@@ROForeverMan I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not claiming idealism or materialism. I’m entertained by people who think they have the answer, such as yourself.
For the question of whether mathematics has some kind of physical reality or not, what is the connection of mathematics and physical nature, that mathematics can describe physical nature? How does materialism account for the mathematical description of physical nature, in the case that mathematics does not have a physical reality? Can abstract mathematics develop from physical determinism?
In Bhagbat Gita Lord Krishna says that He is the source of everything, everything means all matter and energy .Now He says material world is His inferior part i.e.matter and material energy are both inferior energy of Him and conciousness is His superior energy , in Mahabharata Lord shows Arjuna His universal form and Physict Openhymar said that verse of Mahabharata when he experimented his first atom bomb project.
@@kos-mos1127The sharp divide between the subjective and the objective. Science deals with the objective world and consciousness is a subjective phenomena hence the hard problem of consciousness and the endless speculation by philosophers and now even scientists. I think we are asking the wrong questions to begin with. Consciousness is not objective, the brain is, hence it can never be explained scientifically.
@@dare-er7sw Consciousness could be explained scientifically using the networks. The color blue for instance does not exists in reality its a 450 nm wavelength light. The brain adds meaning and context to the wavelength of light then outputs the sensation of blue to the visual cortex. The color blue is inside of our brain just like consciousness. It takes sensory input process it into output and feed the output back as input.
(3:50) *BL: **_The laws themselves don't have any power to make things happen; laws just describe what actually does happen."_* ... When it comes to "Existence," there are specific laws that absolutely DO have power over what can or cannot exist. Otherwise, every Planck unit of available space would be filled with something. The fact that *logical conceivability* regulates what can or cannot exist serves as solid evidence that these laws DO have power. In fact, there are *"5 Laws of Existence"* that regulate what can and cannot exist. The "1st Law of Existence" is the gatekeeper to existence with the "5th Law of Existence" deciding the fate of all that passes through the gate. Everything in existence is subject to these five laws, and whatever fails to abide by these laws is summarily rendered nonexistent. "Time" ensures that anything seeking existence has its day in court. Some candidates for existence may only survive for an instant (positronium) whereas others continue to exist even today (HD140283). However, the fate of everything (even "Existence" itself) is determined by the "5th Law of Existence."
@@kos-mos1127 *"Laws are descriptors they do not have power to make anything happen."* ... Power, in reference to laws, is not limited to "making" something. With laws, the power is in reference to control and authority. *Example:* The "1st Law of Existence" mandates that anything seeking existence must first be logical conceivable. That means this 1st Law has control over what can or cannot exist, and there is no power than can negate or supplant this law.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The law of conceivable just describes the physical transformations that matter can and cannot make."* ... Matter must be comprised of something. It did not appear via magic or supernatural beings. There is information that orchestrates matter just like it does with everything else. *"It has no power of matter."* ... If I decided whether you live or die, do I not have total power over you? If "laws" determine what can or cannot exist, is this not the same?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Matter is not comprised of anything it clumps into larger and larger structures. You do not decide if I live or die. That kind of power only last as long as I am alive so it is not power. The laws are descriptors and do not determine anything..
Everything we know is a mere descriptor of what exists. The dualist and the determinist arguments are currently both unsatisfactory to me. I think the infinite universes with every possibility being actualized is ridiculous, but superior to the idea that a supreme being determines everything. So I’m a bit stuck, which is one reason I join Robert trying to get closer to truth.
You start with what we know & how it works .. and unless proved otherwise it is the base reality. Then .... Natural Functions & thermodynamic systems prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by an intelligence. The Mind of an Intelligence is UNNATURAL & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit). The Mind of Man is NATURAL (brain) & UNNATURAL ( soul). Consciousness is simply a function of the Mind of an Entity. There are only two existences/realities: 1. Physical -- matter & energy, laws of nature 2. Nonphysical -- realm of the soul/spirit.
@@ROForeverMan how can this concept of God be at the end of explanatory ladder.. For this case of God has auto sufficient.. Unfortunately before God can exist the concept of existence has to exist first. The phrase God creates existence is, a logical contradiction-you can not create the thing that needs to be there in the first place for you to be and do anything at all...
@@ROForeverMan you don't geg it probably you'll never get it!!!! You're denying the cab driver once you reached your destination.... But obviously I'm waisting my time with you...
@@ROForeverMan do you have a wiggle room in your mind! Have you ever speculate anything in your life or you just take granted existence by faith alone!??
@@ROForeverMan look I don't know anything about your papers, what's sort of authority that you may have# hear me out please probably you conflate essence&existence symptoms in your God!! Lend an ear to Sarte once quoted 'existence preceded essence even if you' re God like agent..... Man kind cannot handle infinite regress, contingent. Beings come to a halt some point in time where your God taking in control 'one simple question to you, why do you not plurilise the concept of deity since nothing including God (s) accountable his existence or creta themselves so to speak......
@@ROForeverMan Yes, and there are many aspects to this. Nothing is simply more fundamental than anything else, in fact there is no anything else apart from nothing. It's the 'ground of being'. Something comes from nothing.
If we are visited by aliens I suspect that our laws of physics are not universal (lol), as no one can come from another solar system traveling thousands of light years with the physics we know. As a physicist I have no doubt that 'our' physics is particularly to the human point of view (lol) and works well in our cognitive sensorial environment. A non-physicalist point iof view shows that the physics we have does not account for the most subjective phenomena of Counsciousness .
Ha! The problem of aliens visiting our world can be resolved much easier. It might be that science gotnthose distances to other stars thousands of times too large... Just think of it. If our Sun was 1mm in diameter, the earth would be at 10 cm from it, but Pluto would be around 4.3 meters from it. The whole solar system would be 10 meters in diameter... The next visible star, Alfa Centauri A, would be nearly of the same size as Sun but 30 km away... So, what keeps all those stars in their places if there is such vast and substances free (Vacuum) Space between them??? And would a 1 mm object be visible from 30 km? What happened to the Law of Distance/Size Correlation??? Now, if Sun was 100 times further, it would be so small that we couldn't tell it apart from other stars... But in the Universe, where Sun was 1 mm in diameter, 100 times further would mean that Sun is around 11 meters from where it is now... But science says, the closest star, the one that is the size of Sun, actually is 280 thousand (!!!) times further... Something is very off in this story. And discrepancies grow when we explore the topic further. Many of the visible stars, if the Universe was reduced to size where they each separately were 1 mm in diameter, would be 500 - 1000 (and more...) km away from observer and be perfectly visible... This cannot be true... So, maybe aliens are traveling much, much, much shorter distances and then, even with 1% of the Speed of Light they might get to the next closest star in few months time... Think about it... I will have to make a video about it...
@@ROForeverMan Firstly, the Universe is eternal, and so is intelligent life. Some of these possible intelligent societies might be having an extremely deep understanding of reality for so long that they themselves no longer remember how they came to it... Secondly, your comment has no relevance to this discussion.
The laws of physics are not bestowed upon reality. They define our reality. In the same way that if I happen across a bit of luck, it's not because luck is fundamental, luck just defines a positive event.
Not sure I understand how one can start to know what exists until one understands the laws of quantum mechanics and the wave function when understanding this is understanding laws and the professor does not believe laws are real. It does does seem that once a philosopher becomes comfortable they are pretty much doomed.
@@kos-mos1127 You can't prove that since you can't define that in the first place. There is nothing you can verify from an atheistic point of view since "you" are just a clump of matter randomly floating in space and being together without purpose. And you, as a contingent thing NEVER can say from your position what is or not. If there is no consciousness there is nothing that can verify and define if presupposition is true or false. Even in the base of math - first-order logic and ZFC you have one of the 9 Axioms which are base for ENTIRE science which is Axiom of Choice, there is no math, even some substrata to it which doesn't have Axiom of Choice or similar which needs consciousness. Moreover - can u determine the dot? Dot represents the point that is abstract and exists, dot not - you can't define it, I can zoom it infinite times and it will not be round forever, always having substructure, since you can't reach infinity. SO you lost. Consciousness and platonic logic is all that exists, no matter in or outside the universe.
@@jesusmygodmylove I can say what is and what is not from my position. To verify something exist firsts it has to be real. There is no way to verify that something is not real. The Cosmos was around long before someone was conscious of it. Logic is based on axioms and is predicated on that reality is real and not something that exists in the mind. Without that acknowledgment there can be no rational thought. Dot is a round mark or spot not some mysterious object. Infinity is not a thing it means not finite. Anything that is conscious is finite because consciousness requires a context or boundary. So the Cosmos is all that is, ever was and will be.
@@kos-mos1127 "I can say what is and what is not from my position" - so you are God, but you are not or you are speaking from the Not contingent thing which makes you an atheist and makes you unaware or aware straight up liar. Probability is all you have, there is no deterministic model except theism. You are a contingent thing nothing more - your action is met with a change in other contingent things so you cannot have reliable data and a deterministic starting point. Heisenberg destroyed atheistic "I know", determinism and rationalism. Stop bullshiting. You have chosen this crappy position to live with that or change it. "The Cosmos was around long before someone was conscious of it." - for being you need consciousness that will verify it SO you unacknowledged God. Or I can make a point infinitely far before Cosmos and make 13,9 bln or whatever number you want and compare it to infinity. Any number from an infinity point of view IS zero. So stop blabbering. " Logic is based on axioms and is predicated on that reality is real and not something that exists in the mind. " - I literally pointed out you want axioms to be based on observation and choosing. there are INFINITE numbers of universe structures that can exist and from it, only this one is chosen so it implies choice by will observer. Where I said that exists in mind is the predicate of reality which is actually your point otherwise you have no idea what position you hold - you take it from pocket? I take it from my consciousness and my existence of me. you cannot SAY what is or not. All you have is logic you can define what is or not. And the reality is the only area to verify and abstract - from Latin abstract is to separate. You have ZERO answers to anything I said. "Dot is a round mark" - and under any microscope, 99,9% of what u call dots are not round, they are irregular shapes, Under an Atomic microscope, there is no dot except an atom of H which is a proton and a proton has an internal build with quarks, quarks are not dots like strings and elements under. THEY ARE not real - these are incomplete constructs that are not what we define. There is no deterministic definition of anything you call real. Nothing you call "real" you can define - all is incomplete with a dose of precision. You blabber that because you have eyes but under a microscope, I can zoom whatever I want and energy level in comparison to space will make it IMPOSSIBLE to abstract what is or not! The same upscale in space and the same in time. You speaking like you are still in 1890 where all is deterministic. You are 130 years backward in science. "Anything that is conscious is finite because consciousness requires a context or boundary" - in your worldview nothing is coherent except abstract things like logic. You can't define conscious and it's typical Russell paradox since you make self-reference to set groups - context being infinite and u claim all conscious is finite. So Context is finite? Or are you simply wrong? wow, that's a mumbo jumbo easiest self-destruction I have ever seen. "So the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, and will be." - you have ZERO models standing alone on how the universe was and is... You just operate in a small area when you can predict the near future with 99% in low energy area in most cases thanks to physic models with a good level of precision but when it comes to the universe there is no other model than God. Infinite models disappear in Bayes theorem and nothing to something is every other model which forces us to insert the axiom of choosing Consciousness since Cosmos was chosen from infinite possibilities.
Who is this God he speaks of? In the way he is implying God ALWAYS EXISTED. That there's no such thing as nothing, there's no such thing as empty Space etc. Hmmmm and my questions keep going on and on..... Thank you for Posting this, love this. 🎸💚
@@kos-mos1127 Is qualia a byproduct of (or otherwise constructed from) concrete objects? Are they actually experienced? or is the experience of qualia not real?
Everything exists if it's derived from consciousness it doesn't matter that the flesh body dies and our conscience moves on the fact that it's all here even if it's a simulation it exists but what is "real" well the only thing real is consciousness.
@@ROForeverMan What leads to an element x? It does the history of x => consciousness has a story, the story leads to consciousness => the story is the prerequisite for consciousness.
@@ROForeverMan We have a great similarity in the mathematics of theoretical physics with time being squared t² as in the work of Galileo and with the speed of light squared c² as in Einstein’s famous equation E=MC². Also in quantum mechanics we have the wave function squared ψ² forming a square of probability. The electron that represent matter is also squared e² And in classical physics in the equation for kinetic energy velocity is squared v². There are those that say, this is just because everything is calculated in three dimensions. But we have no logical explanation of why we have only three dimensions. In fact, instead of trying to explain why the Universe is three-dimensional we have come up with the abstract idea of extra dimensions as in String Theory. These video puts forward an alternative idea, that the characteristics of three-dimensional space are formed by spherical geometry. An interior of a sphere is naturally three-dimensional. A process of continuous spherical symmetry forming and breaking can form the characteristic of the Inverse Square Law that both electromagnetic and gravitational fields are based upon. But to have a complete picture of this, we need to know how this continuous process forms the continuum of time, forming the square of time t² that Galileo found by experiment.
@@ROForeverMan We have a great similarity in the mathematics of theoretical physics with time being squared t² as in the work of Galileo and with the speed of light squared c² as in Einstein’s famous equation E=MC². Also in quantum mechanics we have the wave function squared ψ² forming a square of probability. The electron that represent matter is also squared e² And in classical physics in the equation for kinetic energy velocity is squared v². There are those that say, this is just because everything is calculated in three dimensions. But we have no logical explanation of why we have only three dimensions. In fact, instead of trying to explain why the Universe is three-dimensional we have come up with the abstract idea of extra dimensions as in String Theory. These video puts forward an alternative idea, that the characteristics of three-dimensional space are formed by spherical geometry. An interior of a sphere is naturally three-dimensional. A process of continuous spherical symmetry forming and breaking can form the characteristic of the Inverse Square Law that both electromagnetic and gravitational fields are based upon. But to have a complete picture of this, we need to know how this continuous process forms the continuum of time, forming the square of time t² that Galileo found by experiment.
When you read the Bible as God's infallible Word, you realize that there are three irreducible realities: God, the Creator of heaven and earth; his laws for his creation, and his creation itself. God is love. Love is the way He acts. Everything God does, originates from his love for Himself and for his creation, especially man, whom God created after his own image. God's love for his creation finds its highest expression in his love for man. God's law, which is his will for his creation, is therefore essentially love. All God's laws, whether physical or metaphysical, are about God's love for his creation. God's love for the earth literally makes the earth goes round, etc. God's creation is the receiver of God's love, especially man, with whom God made a covenant of love. Man received God's command to love Him with his whole heart, also by ruling through his science over the earth. Science, which is tested knowledge in a testable way, is one of the ways that man can return God's love. Jesus Christ restored God's law by accepting the consequences of our not responding to God's love. He did it on the cross, and by perfectly keeping God's law: Perfectly loving God the Father, perfectly loving Himself, perfectly loving God's creation, especially man. One note on God's laws, which are all reducible to God's law of love: A law is something predictable. A law says if a, then b. The predictability of God's laws comes from God's loving faithfulness. If, for example, I let go of an object, and it falls to the ground, this is actually just one of the innumerable instances of God's moment to moment loving faithfulness, validating his law of gravity. Another example is when I depress the brake pedal of my car, trusting God's hydraulic laws. Of when I step into a lift, or board an aeroplane.
@@ROForeverMan they do exist, however ... you might have to consider the fact that your mind is free to imagine multiple scenarios from a single perspective...
@@ROForeverMan I'm trying to understand your imagination better, that's all... the war in Ukraine, the effect of disrupted supply chain and many other real life occurrences are real, to me at least, but to you, they're only part of your imagination... that's what you've said so far...
Once In England, when I was 8 years old, or thereabouts I was in a dentists in the 1940’s and they put me under gas to extract teeth.....I obviously was not totally unconscious anaesthetised. The pain was excruciating and I was going around and around in a rubber type inner tube striving to break out...and each time I nearly succeeded the pain was worse. Eventually I was brought around in-the dentist chair and pushed out into the dark zinc type wash basin area to rinse my mouth out....Draconian to say the least! My point Was I subjected to “Laws of Physics which were Physical or/and Metaphysical!?” Physically the Dentist to me is a torture area of unknown unknowables! Philosophically speaking. The NHS had only just been going a short time!
God created all things, and the response is very simple. There are people who have reached the destination, and there are people who have lost their whole lives in quest after question until they are dead
The uncaused non contingent first cause of all contingency is thee superlative starting point. What is this starting point that all things flow from ? God, the author and sustainer of all things, in the known and unknown existence. You're welcome, have a great day !
E = mc² is wrong. Light/photon is not fast. It takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for the light/photon received by the Sun to reach the Earth. But our eyes see a single second 8 minutes 20 seconds of light / photon distance sun before ticking. If the light is fast then our eyes should have seen some distance earlier. Millions of years old lights/pictures are here doesn't mean our eyes should see the distance to the Sun. Light/receipt by stars/sun is also a continuous process. It's invincible, but it also doesn't mean that our eyes should see the Sun. Light/photons are already out of date here but sound always travels in its own way. Sound always travels at 343 meters per second, or a kilometer in 2.9 seconds, or a mile in 4.7 seconds. Similarly our eyes should have seen only a short distance from each other. That's why Light Fast is 100% wrong. Our eyes see stars of light billions of years away even before the clock ticks a second. That's why Light Fast is wrong.
@@teepot4539 fast indicates speed, and light has no speed from what i recently learned. Don't take my word for it and do look into it. What's interesting is, light is a sound wave in the Aether, and if sound has a speed, then light should be no different, right. I can't explain it but the God of magnetism today has.
@@ROForeverMan Unless the idea of a god stands a chance of being explained, it adds nothing to the debate other than to kick the can down the road. With chemical and biological evolution filling in most of the gaps in explaining the real question of complexity, the idea of a god is superfluous!
I really enjoy the interviews with this guy. Because of it, I've looked him up and plan on learning more about his work. Thanks
I love listening to Barry Loewer, he is always keen on presenting his ideas to the public in a clear and easily understandable manner, even when their deeper layers reveal high complexity and technical nuance. He is not afraid to admit when he's wrong, and is always sceptically open to raise difficult questions about not only what lies at the edge of our current scientific or philosophical understanding, but about some of the well-established views as well, particularly in metaphysics and philosophy of science. I am not acquainted with his philosophy as well as I would like to be, but I suspect there wouldn't be a lot of ground for disagreement between us.
@@ROForeverMan agree incoherencies in His views are repulsive. FOr me, Existent are abstracts defined in infinity - like point, or identity axiom, or neutral number. And those things don't need space- because what is that? You can have point and no space so it's not fundamental.
This video and the prior with Rudolph Tanzi are the kinds of science guys i really like learning from and i feel those whom are truly endeavoring the Truth.
We're actually making way.
Thank you much. I watch all the videos.
My personal opinion and also something that I believe we can all most likely relate to or find some element of peace from is the fact that back In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The A-Team
When I was young the world was more real. Movies, politics, religion, cars, planes, trees, animals, etcetera.
As one becomes more familiar with the world, with the consistency of things, the world becomes less real. Laws are like this; they are the delusion of consistency that makes us consider the world less real. To be comfortable with the laws of science is to treat the world with familiarity, a familiarity that breeds contempt. Not contempt for the world but contempt for the Uncertainty of our place in it: arrogance.
Young eyes refresh the newness and respect for the world. An unwillingness to trust what others say about it. The courage to find out for one's self what the world is like and our place in it.
Who knows what is more real, the scientist or the child?
I personally found the arguments put forth by the crickets the most compelling
I do believe those were cicadas. Indeed they were very opinionated!
They're smarter than you think!
I think of them as tendencies of nature that can be mathematically mapped, rather than laws. They are what nature does.
Background noise must definitely exist, if this episode is anything to go by. 🤔
complaining about irrelevant things also very much exists in this day and age 🥰
That cricket though
That animal making noise certainly exists.
HAHAHAHAH
Or does it?
Said the empiricist.
Love this logic to explain consciousness. Of all the approaches I’ve heard in this series, this one resonates the most for me.
@@ROForeverMan thats what i get for trying to comment on a video in the middle of a 5k run in 90 degree heat. this wasn't the video i meant to comment on. my bad.
@@ROForeverMan And random idealists just HATE those!
@@ROForeverMan I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not claiming idealism or materialism. I’m entertained by people who think they have the answer, such as yourself.
For the question of whether mathematics has some kind of physical reality or not, what is the connection of mathematics and physical nature, that mathematics can describe physical nature? How does materialism account for the mathematical description of physical nature, in the case that mathematics does not have a physical reality? Can abstract mathematics develop from physical determinism?
In Bhagbat Gita Lord Krishna says that He is the source of everything, everything means all matter and energy .Now He says material world is His inferior part i.e.matter and material energy are both inferior energy of Him and conciousness is His superior energy , in Mahabharata Lord shows Arjuna His universal form and Physict Openhymar said that verse of Mahabharata when he experimented his first atom bomb project.
Krishna is pure consciousness.
What does this have to do with anything.
@@kos-mos1127The sharp divide between the subjective and the objective. Science deals with the objective world and consciousness is a subjective phenomena hence the hard problem of consciousness and the endless speculation by philosophers and now even scientists. I think we are asking the wrong questions to begin with. Consciousness is not objective, the brain is, hence it can never be explained scientifically.
@@dare-er7sw Consciousness could be explained scientifically using the networks. The color blue for instance does not exists in reality its a 450 nm wavelength light. The brain adds meaning and context to the wavelength of light then outputs the sensation of blue to the visual cortex. The color blue is inside of our brain just like consciousness. It takes sensory input process it into output and feed the output back as input.
@@kos-mos1127 That's the current view, Yes.
"What Exists" ... i agree!
(3:50) *BL: **_The laws themselves don't have any power to make things happen; laws just describe what actually does happen."_* ... When it comes to "Existence," there are specific laws that absolutely DO have power over what can or cannot exist. Otherwise, every Planck unit of available space would be filled with something. The fact that *logical conceivability* regulates what can or cannot exist serves as solid evidence that these laws DO have power.
In fact, there are *"5 Laws of Existence"* that regulate what can and cannot exist. The "1st Law of Existence" is the gatekeeper to existence with the "5th Law of Existence" deciding the fate of all that passes through the gate. Everything in existence is subject to these five laws, and whatever fails to abide by these laws is summarily rendered nonexistent.
"Time" ensures that anything seeking existence has its day in court. Some candidates for existence may only survive for an instant (positronium) whereas others continue to exist even today (HD140283). However, the fate of everything (even "Existence" itself) is determined by the "5th Law of Existence."
Laws are descriptors they do not have power to make anything happen.
@@kos-mos1127 *"Laws are descriptors they do not have power to make anything happen."*
... Power, in reference to laws, is not limited to "making" something. With laws, the power is in reference to control and authority. *Example:* The "1st Law of Existence" mandates that anything seeking existence must first be logical conceivable.
That means this 1st Law has control over what can or cannot exist, and there is no power than can negate or supplant this law.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The law of conceivable just describes the physical transformations that matter can and cannot make. It has no power of matter.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The law of conceivable just describes the physical transformations that matter can and cannot make."*
... Matter must be comprised of something. It did not appear via magic or supernatural beings. There is information that orchestrates matter just like it does with everything else.
*"It has no power of matter."*
... If I decided whether you live or die, do I not have total power over you? If "laws" determine what can or cannot exist, is this not the same?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Matter is not comprised of anything it clumps into larger and larger structures.
You do not decide if I live or die. That kind of power only last as long as I am alive so it is not power. The laws are descriptors and do not determine anything..
Is theta realm exist and accessible for most of us
We decide what exists and what doesn't exist.
For example, the offside rule exists in some games, but not all.
Everything we know is a mere descriptor of what exists. The dualist and the determinist arguments are currently both unsatisfactory to me. I think the infinite universes with every possibility being actualized is ridiculous, but superior to the idea that a supreme being determines everything. So I’m a bit stuck, which is one reason I join Robert trying to get closer to truth.
@@ROForeverMan No
@@ROForeverMan That is not factually.
Can it not be both. Infinity would also include god and god would be infinity
You start with what we know & how it works .. and unless proved otherwise it is the base reality.
Then ....
Natural Functions & thermodynamic systems prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by an intelligence.
The Mind of an Intelligence is UNNATURAL & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man is NATURAL (brain) & UNNATURAL ( soul).
Consciousness is simply a function of the Mind of an Entity.
There are only two existences/realities:
1. Physical -- matter & energy, laws of nature
2. Nonphysical -- realm of the soul/spirit.
@@abelincoln8885 We start with phenomena then make models that explain its behavior.
Geez Louise, so many people in this comment section offering their own half-baked slices of the dogmatic pie...
And there’s one ⬆️
... And in between, conveying mechanics maybe that we don't had a clue how it would be at all
Consciousness is all that exist.
No.
What does EXCIST mean ?
What exists is the wrong question. What IS existence itself ? Is the right start to the conversation.
@@ROForeverMan how can this concept of God be at the end of explanatory ladder.. For this case of God has auto sufficient.. Unfortunately before God can exist the concept of existence has to exist first. The phrase God creates existence is, a logical contradiction-you can not create the thing that needs to be there in the first place for you to be and do anything at all...
@@ROForeverMan you don't geg it probably you'll never get it!!!! You're denying the cab driver once you reached your destination.... But obviously I'm waisting my time with you...
@@ROForeverMan No.
@@ROForeverMan do you have a wiggle room in your mind! Have you ever speculate anything in your life or you just take granted existence by faith alone!??
@@ROForeverMan look I don't know anything about your papers, what's sort of authority that you may have# hear me out please probably you conflate essence&existence symptoms in your God!! Lend an ear to Sarte once quoted 'existence preceded essence even if you' re God like agent..... Man kind cannot handle infinite regress, contingent. Beings come to a halt some point in time where your God taking in control 'one simple question to you, why do you not plurilise the concept of deity since nothing including God (s) accountable his existence or creta themselves so to speak......
Infinite nothing, which is everything.
@@ROForeverMan If I have to add more words at this point, I'd say it's a meme. Why do you think that is the case?
@@ROForeverMan Yes, and there are many aspects to this. Nothing is simply more fundamental than anything else, in fact there is no anything else apart from nothing. It's the 'ground of being'. Something comes from nothing.
anoyed by background noise!
E = X for Love.
If we are visited by aliens I suspect that our laws of physics are not universal (lol), as no one can come from another solar system traveling thousands of light years with the physics we know. As a physicist I have no doubt that 'our' physics is particularly to the human point of view (lol) and works well in our cognitive sensorial environment. A non-physicalist point iof view shows that the physics we have does not account for the most subjective phenomena of Counsciousness .
Ha! The problem of aliens visiting our world can be resolved much easier. It might be that science gotnthose distances to other stars thousands of times too large...
Just think of it. If our Sun was 1mm in diameter, the earth would be at 10 cm from it, but Pluto would be around 4.3 meters from it. The whole solar system would be 10 meters in diameter... The next visible star, Alfa Centauri A, would be nearly of the same size as Sun but 30 km away... So, what keeps all those stars in their places if there is such vast and substances free (Vacuum) Space between them??? And would a 1 mm object be visible from 30 km? What happened to the Law of Distance/Size Correlation???
Now, if Sun was 100 times further, it would be so small that we couldn't tell it apart from other stars... But in the Universe, where Sun was 1 mm in diameter, 100 times further would mean that Sun is around 11 meters from where it is now... But science says, the closest star, the one that is the size of Sun, actually is 280 thousand (!!!) times further... Something is very off in this story. And discrepancies grow when we explore the topic further. Many of the visible stars, if the Universe was reduced to size where they each separately were 1 mm in diameter, would be 500 - 1000 (and more...) km away from observer and be perfectly visible... This cannot be true... So, maybe aliens are traveling much, much, much shorter distances and then, even with 1% of the Speed of Light they might get to the next closest star in few months time... Think about it... I will have to make a video about it...
@@ROForeverMan yes I will lock for
@@ROForeverMan
Firstly, the Universe is eternal, and so is intelligent life. Some of these possible intelligent societies might be having an extremely deep understanding of reality for so long that they themselves no longer remember how they came to it... Secondly, your comment has no relevance to this discussion.
@@ROForeverMan No
@@ROForeverMan It is more to do with humans being boring.
Anything that cannot be relegated to the realm of absolute and utter "nothingness," *exists* in some context or another.
Why we can thinking, i mean what are these chatter sounds in mind and imagination pictures in mind....
The laws of physics are not bestowed upon reality. They define our reality. In the same way that if I happen across a bit of luck, it's not because luck is fundamental, luck just defines a positive event.
Not sure I understand how one can start to know what exists until one understands the laws of quantum mechanics and the wave function when understanding this is understanding laws and the professor does not believe laws are real. It does does seem that once a philosopher becomes comfortable they are pretty much doomed.
@@ROForeverMan Matter is all that exists.
@@kos-mos1127 You can't prove that since you can't define that in the first place. There is nothing you can verify from an atheistic point of view since "you" are just a clump of matter randomly floating in space and being together without purpose. And you, as a contingent thing NEVER can say from your position what is or not. If there is no consciousness there is nothing that can verify and define if presupposition is true or false. Even in the base of math - first-order logic and ZFC you have one of the 9 Axioms which are base for ENTIRE science which is Axiom of Choice, there is no math, even some substrata to it which doesn't have Axiom of Choice or similar which needs consciousness.
Moreover - can u determine the dot? Dot represents the point that is abstract and exists, dot not - you can't define it, I can zoom it infinite times and it will not be round forever, always having substructure, since you can't reach infinity. SO you lost. Consciousness and platonic logic is all that exists, no matter in or outside the universe.
@@jesusmygodmylove I can say what is and what is not from my position. To verify something exist firsts it has to be real. There is no way to verify that something is not real. The Cosmos was around long before someone was conscious of it. Logic is based on axioms and is predicated on that reality is real and not something that exists in the mind. Without that acknowledgment there can be no rational thought.
Dot is a round mark or spot not some mysterious object. Infinity is not a thing it means not finite. Anything that is conscious is finite because consciousness requires a context or boundary. So the Cosmos is all that is, ever was and will be.
@@kos-mos1127 "I can say what is and what is not from my position" - so you are God, but you are not or you are speaking from the Not contingent thing which makes you an atheist and makes you unaware or aware straight up liar. Probability is all you have, there is no deterministic model except theism. You are a contingent thing nothing more - your action is met with a change in other contingent things so you cannot have reliable data and a deterministic starting point. Heisenberg destroyed atheistic "I know", determinism and rationalism. Stop bullshiting. You have chosen this crappy position to live with that or change it.
"The Cosmos was around long before someone was conscious of it." - for being you need consciousness that will verify it SO you unacknowledged God. Or I can make a point infinitely far before Cosmos and make 13,9 bln or whatever number you want and compare it to infinity. Any number from an infinity point of view IS zero. So stop blabbering.
" Logic is based on axioms and is predicated on that reality is real and not something that exists in the mind. " - I literally pointed out you want axioms to be based on observation and choosing. there are INFINITE numbers of universe structures that can exist and from it, only this one is chosen so it implies choice by will observer. Where I said that exists in mind is the predicate of reality which is actually your point otherwise you have no idea what position you hold - you take it from pocket? I take it from my consciousness and my existence of me. you cannot SAY what is or not. All you have is logic you can define what is or not. And the reality is the only area to verify and abstract - from Latin abstract is to separate. You have ZERO answers to anything I said.
"Dot is a round mark" - and under any microscope, 99,9% of what u call dots are not round, they are irregular shapes, Under an Atomic microscope, there is no dot except an atom of H which is a proton and a proton has an internal build with quarks, quarks are not dots like strings and elements under. THEY ARE not real - these are incomplete constructs that are not what we define. There is no deterministic definition of anything you call real. Nothing you call "real" you can define - all is incomplete with a dose of precision. You blabber that because you have eyes but under a microscope, I can zoom whatever I want and energy level in comparison to space will make it IMPOSSIBLE to abstract what is or not! The same upscale in space and the same in time. You speaking like you are still in 1890 where all is deterministic. You are 130 years backward in science.
"Anything that is conscious is finite because consciousness requires a context or boundary" - in your worldview nothing is coherent except abstract things like logic. You can't define conscious and it's typical Russell paradox since you make self-reference to set groups - context being infinite and u claim all conscious is finite.
So Context is finite? Or are you simply wrong? wow, that's a mumbo jumbo easiest self-destruction I have ever seen.
"So the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, and will be." - you have ZERO models standing alone on how the universe was and is... You just operate in a small area when you can predict the near future with 99% in low energy area in most cases thanks to physic models with a good level of precision but when it comes to the universe there is no other model than God.
Infinite models disappear in Bayes theorem and nothing to something is every other model which forces us to insert the axiom of choosing Consciousness since Cosmos was chosen from infinite possibilities.
Background noises annoy me. Everything existe, fairies at the bottom of the garden don't.
Processing information
Who is this God he speaks of? In the way he is implying God ALWAYS EXISTED. That there's no such thing as nothing, there's no such thing as empty Space etc. Hmmmm and my questions keep going on and on.....
Thank you for Posting this, love this.
🎸💚
Tell Billy Bob to turn off his truck
Contingent powers exist. They require a non contingent power.
Concrete objects and items are all that is.
@@ROForeverMan Agree to record yourself jumping from a really tall building and using your consciousness to turn the ground into jello.
Do qualia exist? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
@@TimToolman Qualia are constructs.
@@kos-mos1127 Is qualia a byproduct of (or otherwise constructed from) concrete objects? Are they actually experienced? or is the experience of qualia not real?
@@TimToolman Qualia is constructed by the brain and does not exists in reality.
We have five senses. Just enough to get by. With technology, there is the potential for 100s of senses
I sense bullshit.
Everything exists if it's derived from consciousness it doesn't matter that the flesh body dies and our conscience moves on the fact that it's all here even if it's a simulation it exists but what is "real" well the only thing real is consciousness.
I call it spirit/soul. U can be subconscious, and unconscious and still exist, even bodily.
A. Crickets
Everything exist - show me something that don't, you can't ...
@@ROForeverMan Reality is outside of consciousness.
Outside consciousness (b) you have the prerequisite of consciousness (a).
If b exist also a exist.
@@kos-mos1127 Inside consciousness we only have the consciousness, outside we have all other elements of nature.
@@ROForeverMan What leads to an element x? It does the history of x => consciousness has a story, the story leads to consciousness => the story is the prerequisite for consciousness.
@@ROForeverMan your parents were real before you were.
Motion exists Eₖ=½mv² LOL
@@ROForeverMan We have a great similarity in the mathematics of theoretical physics with time being squared t² as in the work of Galileo and with the speed of light squared c² as in Einstein’s famous equation E=MC².
Also in quantum mechanics we have the wave function squared ψ² forming a square of probability.
The electron that represent matter is also squared e²
And in classical physics in the equation for kinetic energy velocity is squared v².
There are those that say, this is just because everything is calculated in three dimensions.
But we have no logical explanation of why we have only three dimensions.
In fact, instead of trying to explain why the Universe is three-dimensional we have come up with the abstract idea of extra dimensions as in String Theory.
These video puts forward an alternative idea, that the characteristics of three-dimensional space are formed by spherical geometry. An interior of a sphere is naturally three-dimensional.
A process of continuous spherical symmetry forming and breaking can form the characteristic of the Inverse Square Law that both electromagnetic and gravitational fields are based upon.
But to have a complete picture of this, we need to know how this continuous process forms the continuum of time, forming the square of time t² that Galileo found by experiment.
@@ROForeverMan We have a great similarity in the mathematics of theoretical physics with time being squared t² as in the work of Galileo and with the speed of light squared c² as in Einstein’s famous equation E=MC².
Also in quantum mechanics we have the wave function squared ψ² forming a square of probability.
The electron that represent matter is also squared e²
And in classical physics in the equation for kinetic energy velocity is squared v².
There are those that say, this is just because everything is calculated in three dimensions.
But we have no logical explanation of why we have only three dimensions.
In fact, instead of trying to explain why the Universe is three-dimensional we have come up with the abstract idea of extra dimensions as in String Theory.
These video puts forward an alternative idea, that the characteristics of three-dimensional space are formed by spherical geometry. An interior of a sphere is naturally three-dimensional.
A process of continuous spherical symmetry forming and breaking can form the characteristic of the Inverse Square Law that both electromagnetic and gravitational fields are based upon.
But to have a complete picture of this, we need to know how this continuous process forms the continuum of time, forming the square of time t² that Galileo found by experiment.
At the most fundamental level, the "questioner" exists. Everything elsr is secondary!!!
What is 1? No no, start there , no, IS. wish I could rattle habituat out of just one of you
When you read the Bible as God's infallible Word, you realize that there are three irreducible realities: God, the Creator of heaven and earth; his laws for his creation, and his creation itself. God is love. Love is the way He acts. Everything God does, originates from his love for Himself and for his creation, especially man, whom God created after his own image. God's love for his creation finds its highest expression in his love for man.
God's law, which is his will for his creation, is therefore essentially love. All God's laws, whether physical or metaphysical, are about God's love for his creation. God's love for the earth literally makes the earth goes round, etc.
God's creation is the receiver of God's love, especially man, with whom God made a covenant of love. Man received God's command to love Him with his whole heart, also by ruling through his science over the earth. Science, which is tested knowledge in a testable way, is one of the ways that man can return God's love.
Jesus Christ restored God's law by accepting the consequences of our not responding to God's love. He did it on the cross, and by perfectly keeping God's law: Perfectly loving God the Father, perfectly loving Himself, perfectly loving God's creation, especially man.
One note on God's laws, which are all reducible to God's law of love: A law is something predictable. A law says if a, then b. The predictability of God's laws comes from God's loving faithfulness. If, for example, I let go of an object, and it falls to the ground, this is actually just one of the innumerable instances of God's moment to moment loving faithfulness, validating his law of gravity. Another example is when I depress the brake pedal of my car, trusting God's hydraulic laws. Of when I step into a lift, or board an aeroplane.
maybe, the first step is the distinction between reality and imagination 🤔
@@ROForeverMan I think reality is well perceived, actually... what makes you think that reality is an imaginary state in consciousness...
@@ROForeverMan they do exist, however ... you might have to consider the fact that your mind is free to imagine multiple scenarios from a single perspective...
@@ROForeverMan is this video also a product of your imagination or a product of a universal consciousness...
@@ROForeverMan but these ripples are all imaginary products of your consciousness, right...
@@ROForeverMan I'm trying to understand your imagination better, that's all...
the war in Ukraine, the effect of disrupted supply chain and many other real life occurrences are real, to me at least, but to you, they're only part of your imagination... that's what you've said so far...
Once In England, when I was 8 years old, or thereabouts I was in a dentists in the 1940’s and they put me under gas to extract teeth.....I obviously was not totally unconscious anaesthetised. The pain was excruciating and I was going around and around in a rubber type inner tube striving to break out...and each time I nearly succeeded the pain was worse. Eventually I was brought around in-the dentist chair and pushed out into the dark zinc type wash basin area to rinse my mouth out....Draconian to say the least! My point Was I subjected to “Laws of Physics which were Physical or/and Metaphysical!?” Physically the Dentist to me is a torture area of unknown unknowables! Philosophically speaking. The NHS had only just been going a short time!
Consciousness is God. Everything else is God's imagination.
God created all things, and the response is very simple. There are people who have reached the destination, and there are people who have lost their whole lives in quest after question until they are dead
The uncaused non contingent first cause of all contingency is thee superlative starting point.
What is this starting point that all things flow from ?
God, the author and sustainer of all things, in the known and unknown existence.
You're welcome, have a great day !
God is not real.
This Kuhn dude seems insulated
Wtf
E = mc² is wrong. Light/photon is not fast.
It takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for the light/photon received by the Sun to reach the Earth. But our eyes see a single second 8 minutes 20 seconds of light / photon distance sun before ticking.
If the light is fast then our eyes should have seen some distance earlier.
Millions of years old lights/pictures are here doesn't mean our eyes should see the distance to the Sun.
Light/receipt by stars/sun is also a continuous process. It's invincible, but it also doesn't mean that our eyes should see the Sun.
Light/photons are already out of date here but sound always travels in its own way.
Sound always travels at 343 meters per second, or a kilometer in 2.9 seconds, or a mile in 4.7 seconds. Similarly our eyes should have seen only a short distance from each other.
That's why Light Fast is 100% wrong.
Our eyes see stars of light billions of years away even before the clock ticks a second.
That's why Light Fast is wrong.
No. Light is fast. Nothing can travel faster than light. It is the fastest.
@@teepot4539 fast indicates speed, and light has no speed from what i recently learned. Don't take my word for it and do look into it.
What's interesting is, light is a sound wave in the Aether, and if sound has a speed, then light should be no different, right.
I can't explain it but the God of magnetism today has.
@@teepot4539 no light is not fast. Light fast is wrong.
Random guy on RUclips comments refutes Einstein. News at 11!
@@G_Demolished
Einstein devotees.
Nooooo!!!
God explains nothing!!
@@ROForeverMan
Unless the idea of a god stands a chance of being explained, it adds nothing to the debate other than to kick the can down the road.
With chemical and biological evolution filling in most of the gaps in explaining the real question of complexity, the idea of a god is superfluous!
@@ROForeverMan No you are not.
“God” is a good place holder for “we don’t know yet”.
@@G_Demolished
Yes but not in the bullshit sense of religion!